Tag: Hadiya

Hadiya Denies Father’s Fresh Claims That She Is Under ‘Illegal Detention’

The Kerala woman’s conversion to Islam and subsequent marriage to a Muslim man resulted in a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court about the autonomy of adult women.

New Delhi: Hadiya, the Kerala woman whose conversion to Islam and marriage to a Muslim man resulted in a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court about the autonomy of adult women, has denied her father’s fresh allegation that she is under illegal detention by her husband.

According to the Indian Express, the homeopathy doctor said in a video on Saturday that she has separated from her first husband Shafin Jahan and has remarried. “The Constitution has given the right for every person to enter into marriage and get out of the relationship. It is a common thing in society. I don’t understand why society is getting irritated in my case. I am a grown-up who is capable of making decisions. When I could not continue the marriage (with Jahan), I got out of it. Now, I have married another person of my choice. I am happy and living as a Muslim. My parents are also aware about the remarriage” she said, according to the report.

The video was released a day after her father K.M. Ashokan moved a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala high court alleging that he could not reach Hadiya over the phone and her homeopathy clinic was shut.

But Hadiya said on Saturday that she doesn’t know why her father moved the high court. She did not disclose details of her new partner, saying there was no need to make them public. She has moved to Thiruvananthapuram from Mallapuram, according to Indian Express.

According to Hindustan Times, she said her “father has created troubles making it difficult for me to live. There have been cyberattacks on me which has made my life difficult. My father has always been made a tool by the Sangh Parivar forces. It is sad that he is allowing himself to be used that way.”

Hadiya also denied the claims that her phone was switched off, stating instead that she was “in constant touch with her parents”. “I have remarried and I don’t think it needs to be a subject of discussion again. I am a mature adult who is capable of taking her own decisions,” she said.

Background

Born into a Hindu family in Kottayam, Hadiya said she was drawn to Islam when studying in Tamil Nadu. She converted to that faith and married Jahan. Her father filed a habeas corpus plea in 2016, challenging the marriage. The high court nullified the marriage and ordered her to be placed in the protective custody of her Hindu parents or an institution, so that she is “prevented from being a further victim of love jihad”. The judgment was perhaps the first time that a constitutional court used this term, a conspiracy theory that claims there is a plot to convert Hindu women to Islam through marriage.

The Supreme Court in March 2018 restored her marriage and allowed her to live with her husband Jahan. The top court allowed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to probe the incident to see if she was forced to convert to Islam. The agency later closed the case, finding no evidence to support such a claim.

Lies, Insistence and Disregard for Evidence: The Journey of ‘Love Jihad’ Laws

A spate of legislation surrounding ‘love jihad’ is justified on grounds of allegedly increasing instances of Muslim men marrying Hindu women. But is there any real evidence to support these claims?

The myth of ‘love jihad’, slayed repeatedly and supposedly laid to rest, rises yet again. 

A hydra-headed monster that’s revived time and again by a not-so-subtle conspiracy between Hindutva forces, the executive, and the judiciary, it is making yet another come back at the close of 2022. 

This time its a multi-pronged effort, starting in March with a new anti-conversion law in Haryana, followed by Karnataka on September 30 with its Protection of Freedom of Religion Act, 2022, and wrapping up the year with the Uttarakhand governor’s assent to making the draconian Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 even more stringent, the Maharashtra Cabinet’s notification to snoop on interfaith marriages and relationships, and the Supreme Court eagerly trying to wade in on the wings of a fourth-attempt petition by a serial litigator from the BJP.

Currently the tally of states with ‘love jihad’ laws is 11, but keeping count is becoming difficult. 

Some, like Himachal in 2019 and Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh in 2021, have enacted stringent new replacements for their old ‘Freedom of Religion’ Acts, aimed especially at preventing Hindu women from marrying outside the faith.

Orissa (1967), Chhattisgarh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978) and Jharkhand (2017) have statutes to control religious conversions, but those Acts do not enter the private sphere of marriage.

The newcomers to the party, Uttarakhand (2018), Uttar Pradesh (2020), Karnataka (2021), and Haryana (2022) unabashedly made laws with the avowed purpose of fighting what they described as a “growing trend of love jihad.”

And of course, there are other BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra, testing the waters with a notification to pry and snoop and unleash the police force on hapless young people wanting to marry outside their faith, and extending this intrusion to “relationships” also.   

This spate of legislation is sought to be justified on grounds of allegedly increasing, or even rampant, instances of Muslim men marrying Hindu women. 

The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Uttarakhand Bill informed legislators that “there have been umpteen cases of religious conversions, both mass and individual”.

It also stated that

“…[W]ith an agenda to increase strength of their own religion by getting people from other religions converted to their own religion, people do marry girls of other religion by misrepresentation of their own religion…”

It further said:

“Several instances came in notice that people convert themselves to the other religion only for the purpose of marriage with the girl of that religion and after marriage they got that girl converted into their own religion”. 

Based on these ‘instances,’ the Uttarakhand legislature made a law that not only criminalises love and inverts the burden to proof, but even allows interfaith marriages to be declared null and void if they result in conversion before or after the marriage. These sentiments were echoed by sundry chief ministers and others while introducing similar Bills in other states.

These alarmist, often incendiary, allegations of ‘love jihad’ have been a prelude to each one of the recent anti-conversion laws, but in no case have any actual facts, figures, or statistics been cited.

It therefore needs to be seen whether there is, or ever has been, any real evidence to support these claims. 

Representational image. Photo: Reuters.

Early cases

The phrase ‘love jihad’ was coined in 2009 at the Catholic Bishops Council in Kerala, when a Bishop claimed without evidence that a large number of Catholic girls were being lured into marriage by Muslim boys. But it gained currency due to two unconnected cases in the Kerala and Karnataka high courts, each arising from police complaints filed by the fathers of girls who claimed that their daughters had been kidnapped and then forced to marry Muslim youths.

Dealing with a plea for anticipatory bail by two Muslim boys, Shahan Sha and Sirajuddin, accused of converting and then marrying a Christian and a Hindu girl, Justice K.T. Sankaran of the Kerala high court passed a lengthy order on September 29, 2009, rejecting bail on grounds that it was, “Well known that there was a movement known as Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad.”

He directed the DGP of Kerala to file an affidavit answering eight questions on whether such movements existed, which organisations in India and abroad were involved, how the movement is funded, whether it has an all-India basis, how many students had been converted to Islam in the past three years, and whether there is any connection between ‘the love jihad movement’ and counterfeiting, smuggling, drug trafficking and terrorist activities. 

Having denied the boys anticipatory bail, the judge directed that copies of his order be served on the Additional Solicitor General of India as well as the Secretary, Union home ministry, with directions to file an immediate response.

Almost simultaneously, on October 21, 2009, a bench of the Karnataka high court passed an interim order on a habeas corpus petition filed by C. Selvaraj, alleging that his daughter Silja Raj had been abducted by a Muslim boy and taken from Chamrajnagar to Kerala to study Islam at a madrassa, convert, and get married. Though Silja Raj appeared and informed the court that she had converted and married of her own free will, the division bench set up a Special Investigation Team supervised by the DGP of Karnataka to investigate “the larger conspiracy of the love jihad movement”, and directed Silja Raj to stay with her parents until the SIT made its report to the court. 

The interim SIT report filed on November 13, 2009, disclosed that 24 CID teams sent to all districts of Karnataka to examine all cases of missing girls, had found no evidence of a ‘love jihad’ movement, and found that there was no ‘love jihad angle’ to Silja’s conversion and marriage with Akshar. Justices K. Sreedhar Rao and Ravi Malimath thus reunited Silja with her husband, and directed that she was free to go wherever she pleased.

The final SIT report filed by Karnataka’s DGP, D.V. Guruprasad, on December 31, 2009, disclosed that the CID had investigated 21,890 cases of girls reported missing between 2005 and 2009, and found that only 229 of them had married men of other faiths, and that conversion had taken place in only 63 out of these 229 cases. Of these 229 interfaith marriages, 149 Hindu girls married Muslim boys, 38 Muslim girls and 20 Christian girls married Hindu boys, 10 Hindu girls married Christian boys, 11 Christian girls married Muslim boys, and one Muslim girl married a Christian boy. 

More importantly, the DGP stated in his report that there was no organised attempt or movement to entice girls or women into marrying Muslims with a view to converting them to Islam.  

The Karnataka high court accepted this report after hearing the government advocate on November 6, 2013, and recording in its order:

“According to the Government Advocate, there are no incidents of love jihad in the State of Karnataka”.

In Kerala, meanwhile, Justice K.T. Sankaran was not ready to let go of the conspiracy theory he had floated.

Kerala

Kerala’s DGP, Jacob Punnose, had filed a detailed affidavit on October 18, 2009, based on 14 reports by each of the District Superintendents of Police, and four reports by the heads of state CID, police intelligence, the Special Cell, and Crime Branch. 

All eight questions posed by the hudge on September 29, 2009, were answered in the negative, making it clear that there was no organised activity or conspiracy, and that the only case in Kerala where such an allegation was levelled in the past three years, was the present one against Shahan Sha and Sirajuddin.   

The DGP said that though no concrete instances existed, since some “source information” and “allegations” had been received, the intelligence cell would continue to keep a vigil on all schools and colleges, and would deal strictly with any instances that came to light. 

Despite this, Justice K.T. Sankaran refused to allow Shahan Sha and Sirajuddin to withdraw their anticipatory bail petition on October 26, 2009, instead directing the DGP to file all 18 reports in a sealed cover, and to explain why he was willing to close the case if there “source information” and “allegations” were in existence. He also directed the Union government to file an affidavit disclosing what action they proposed to take.

On November 9, 2009, Kerala’s DGP filed the 18 reports, and an affidavit explaining that “source information” and “allegations” were unsupported by any materials or evidence, and were therefore not proof of any criminal activity or organisation, despite which the intelligence cell had been tasked with continuous vigilance and investigation of the allegations. 

The Union home ministry also filed its affidavit on December 1, 2009, in which it declared that there was no ‘love jihad’ movement or organisation in existence.  

Yet, ignoring all these affidavits, Justice Sankaran in his lengthy judgment dated December 9, 2009, proceeded to read and discard all 14 reports filed by the District SPs, and to rely instead on unnamed sources and anonymous allegations, and to hold in para 43 of his verbose judgment that, “It is clear that there is a concerted effort to convert girls belonging to particular religions to another religion.  It is also clear that this is being done with the blessings of some outfits mentioned in the Report.”

After lecturing the government on its duty to protect citizens who were allegedly converted, he went on to hold that even where children have attained majority, their parents retained a say in their future and their career. He rejected the petitioners’ applications to withdraw their bail applications, and denied them anticipatory bail.

Fortunately for Shahan Sha and Sirajuddin, this judicial insanity was redressed just a week later, when Justice M. Shashidharan Nambiar found prima facie merit in their petition for quashing the criminal complaints against them, and granted stay of prosecution. 

Nevertheless, in view of his brother judge’s observations, Justice Nambiar called for detailed reports from the District Judges of Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam. A year later, after noting that reports by both District Judges found that there was no evidence of ‘love jihad’ or conspiracy to convert, and that no case prosecutable case existed against Shahan Sha and Sirajuddin, Justice Nambiar on December 10, 2010, quashed the FIRs and discharged both boys from the case.

Himachal Pradesh

Adding another dose of sanity from North India, a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh high court in its August 30, 2012, judgment in Evangelical Fellowship of India v. State, held that those provisions of  the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 and Rules of 2007, which required persons wishing to convert to give prior intimations to the District Magistrate, and to face a prior police scrutiny, were grossly violative of the right to privacy. 

Justice Deepak Gupta, speaking for a bench which included Justice Rajiv Sharma, struck down Section 4 of the HP Act as well as Rule 3 and part of Rule 5 of the Rules as violative of Article 14 and unconstitutional. Significantly, Justice Gupta noted in Para 41:

“No material has been placed on record by the State to show that there has been any adverse effect on public order by conversion in the State whether prior to or after the enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Act.  In fact, till date only one case has been registered under this Act”.

Hadiya

But truth has never got in the way of communal zealots, and just a few years later another judge of the Kerala high court decided to pick up where Justice K.T. Sankaran had left things. 

This time it was in the case of a post-graduate homoeopathy student, Akhila, who chose to convert to Islam, adopted the name Hadiya, and perhaps without the knowledge of her parents, got married to Shafin Jahan. Hadiya’s father Asokan filed a habeas corpus petition claiming his daughter had been abducted and indoctrinated by the Islamic State, and that she should be produced in court and reunited with her parents. A division bench interviewed 23-year-old Hadiya, found that she had been privately practicing Islam for three years, after which she had formally converted, and that she was living independently of her own free will.

 Acccordingly, by its judgment dated January 25, 2016, the bench dismissed Asokan’s petition. 

Undeterred by this rejection, Asokan K.M. found a more amenable bench headed by Justice K. Surendra Mohan, who had directed police investigation in a similar case filed by Apunny Nambiar in respect of his daughter Athira. This time Asokan embellished his allegations based on the old playbook of ‘love jihad’, forcible marriage, conversion, and human trafficking to Syria or the ISIS, all of which had been debunked after comprehensive court-supervised police investigations in 2009-2013. 

Basing their infamous judgment dated May 24, 2017, entirely on fiction generated by fertile imaginations, Justices K. Surendra Mohan and K. Abraham Mathew waxed eloquent about ‘love jihad’ and human transportation, and refused to accept Hadiya’s fervent plea to be left alone to lead her own life in the manner chosen by her. 

In a bizarre inversion of law, Justice Surendra Mohan held that a 24-year old post-graduate student had no right to choose her own partner, that the parents alone had the right to get their daughter married, and accordingly annulled Hadiya’s marriage to Shafin Jahan.  

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

Not content with this travesty of justice, the Bench directed that the DGP of Kerala state should personally take over the investigation of Crime No. 21 of 2016 against Shafin Jahan, and club that with Crime No. 510 of 2016 in respect of Athira’s alleged forcible conversion. He was directed to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the activities of the organisations listed in the judgment, and ensure that the guilty are brought to book. The court also directed that departmental proceedings be taken against the investigating officer in Crime No. 21 of 2016 for not nailing Shafin Jahan.

Sadly, even the Supreme Court initially fell prey to the prejudice and bias created by Justice K. Surendra Mohan’s vitriolic judgment. 

When Shafin Jahan moved his special leave petition to challenge the outlandish order annulling his marriage with Hadiya, the SC in a series of orders in August 2017 directed the National Investigation Agency to take over the investigation which Kerala’s DGP had been directed to conduct, and allowed a full-fledged national and international investigation under Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008.  

So incensed was the court by the falsehoods enumerated in the high court judgment, that it directed that Hadiya would continue in virtual incarceration until the conclusion of NIA’s investigations. 

Ultimately, it was only on November 27, 2017, that the SC finally interviewed Hadiya in open court, and acknowledged that she was an educated adult who had made her own life choices. The court thus directed that though the NIA investigation would continue, Hadiya shall be re-admitted in her homoeopathy college and hostel at Salem, where she could complete her internship, and enjoy her freedom like any other student.  

When arguments in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan concluded on March 8, 2018, the Supreme Court passed a short order setting aside the annulment of Shafin’s marriage with Hadiya, and directed that she was at liberty to pursue her life and future endeavours as she pleased. Once again, however, the court clarified that investigations by the NIA may continue. 

Finally, by a resounding judgment dated April 9, 2018, the court set aside Justice K. Surendra Mohan’s judgment, upholding the absolute right of a major to choose her life partner as well as her faith, and to change her faith if she so desired. CJI Dipak Misra, speaking for himself and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and now CJI, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, minced no words in holding that faith and marriage were personal choices protected by the right to privacy, and that no third party, whether parent or otherwise, could interfere with these choices. 

Both CJI Misra and Justice Chandrachud reiterated that the NIA was free to continue with the investigations set in motion by the Supreme Court in August 2017, though it could not interfere with the marriage of Hadiya and Shafin Jahan.

This last direction is significant, as it helped nail the monstrous lie of ‘love jihad,’ which almost destroyed the lives of two young adults. 

A recurring spectre

Despite the alacrity with which it took over the Kerala DGP’s investigations, and though it cast its net far and wide as per the Supreme Court’s orders dated August 10, 2017, and August 16, 2017, the NIA could not find a single case of ‘love jihad’, nor any conspiracy, whether local or international. 

Indeed, by a written reply dated February 4, 2020, to a Starred Question, the Lok Sabha was informed by the Minister of State for Home Affairs, G. Kishan Reddy, that no case of ‘love jihad’ in Kerala has been reported by any of the Central agencies.  

It does appear, however, that no matter how many times it is exposed as a mere bogey, the spectre of ‘love jihad’ will be resuscitated by none other than the judiciary.  

Just a week before the Supreme Court set Hadiya free the Uttarakhand high court on November 20, 2017, ‘suggested’ that the state government should enact an anti-conversion law on the lines of those in Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh.  

These comments came at the hearing of a petition by the father of a Hindu girl who had eloped with a Muslim man who had converted to Hinduism. However, the petition was already moot when the comments were made, as the girl, having been confined by court orders in a place where she would be free of the influence of her parents as well as her putative husband, had at the commencement of the hearing informed the court that she wanted to return home with her parents.

Yet, after noting that the court had no jurisdiction or authority to ask the state to legislate, Justice Rajiv Sharma proceeded to suggest that, “In order to curb this tendency, the state government is expected to legislate Freedom of Religion Act on the analogy of Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act”.  

Representative image. Photo: kgorz/Pixabay

Perhaps taking a cue from this judicial suggestion, on May 14, 2018, the government notified the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018. The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill speaks of “umpteen cases of religious conversions, both mass and individual”, of  “the presence of pseudo-social organizations with a hidden agenda to convert the vulnerable sections of other religions…”,  of “gullible people…converted by offering allurement or under undue influence”, and of “forced conversions”. 

The Uttarakhand assembly was solemnly, if inelegantly, informed in para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons that: 

“We have come across incidents in which with an agenda to increase strength of their own religion by getting people from other religions converted to their own religion, people do marry girls of other religions by misrepresentation of their own religion and after getting marriage to such girls, they get them converted to their own religion. Several instances came in notice that people convert themselves to the other religion only for the purpose of marriage with the girl of that religion and after marriage they got that girl converted into their own religion”.  

Amazingly, the Statement then goes on to state that:

“Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court also took judicial notice of such instances in the cases of SLP (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017 Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 142 of 2016 Aman Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.”. 

Conveniently, the Legislature was either not told, or chose to ignore, the judgment that the Supreme Court had delivered on April 09, 2018, in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors. 

Uttar Pradesh

The story of Uttar Pradesh’s ‘love jihad’ law, though not instigated by judicial pronouncements, is equally intriguing.

Since the cry of ‘love jihad’ was said to have resulted in the disastrous Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013, Cobrapost and Gulail carried out a year-long investigation culminating in a print and television report released on one October 4, 2015. The investigation, titled Operation Juliet: Busting the myth of love jihad, was based on televised stings of leading members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Bajrang Dal, including Union minister Sanjeev Kumar Balyan, MP from Kairana Hukum Singh, MLA from Sardhana Sangeet Som, and the Muzaffarnagar heads of the RSS and the VHP.  

Sanjeev Balyan (C), agriculture minister and a member of ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), addresses a by-election campaign rally in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh. Credit: Reuters

Sanjeev Balyan (centre) addresses a by-election campaign rally in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh. Photo: Reuters/File

Cobrapost and Gulail captured them admitting on camera that they had filed fake rape and kidnapping cases, had faked documents to show that the women concerned were minors, and that they used their clout with the police to convert routine marriages into love jihad cases.

 Importantly, the investigation revealed that not a single ‘rescued’ woman had sought the help of the Hindutva forces, nor had any of them claimed that she was a victim of kidnapping or ‘love jihad.’

Despite the comprehensive debunking of this myth by Cobrapost and Gulail, on November 21, 2019, Justice Aditya Nath Mittal of the Uttar Pradesh Law Commission presented a draft anti-conversion Bill to chief minister Adityanath. Taking a cue from the Law Commission, the CM got the IGP of Kanpur Range to set up a Special Investigation Team to investigate the phenomenon of ‘love jihad.’

On November 24, 2020, the SIT’s findings were announced by IGP Mohit Agarwal at a press conference. He revealed that there were only 14 cases lodged throughout Kanpur district during the past two years, eight of which pertained to minor girls. Three cases were closed as the girls were major, and had married their Muslim partners of their own free will, while kidnapping and forced marriage cases were registered against the male partners in the remaining 11, including those of eight minors. 

Notwithstanding the prolonged SIT probe and FIRs, however, the IGP stated to the press:

“The conspiracy part could not be established. The inquiry team also did not find any organisation to be behind the youths (accused).  Also, they were not being funded from abroad”. 

Also read: For Hindutva Gang, and Now UP Police, Each Hindu-Muslim Marriage Must Be Probed for ‘Love Jihad’

Not to be held back by anything as trivial as lack of evidence, UP’s CM got Governor Anandiben Patel to sign off an Ordinance just three days after the IGP’s press conference, criminalising conversion for marriage, reversing the burden of proof, and incorporating all the vicious elements of the 2018 Uttarakhand law, with a few more refinements thrown in.  

The Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of which blithely proclaimed that “in the recent past many such examples have come to light where gullible persons have been converted from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by fraudulent means”.   

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath. Photo: Facebook/MYogiAdityanath

An interesting aside: barely a month and a half after signing the UP Ordinance, Governor Anandiben Patel, now in Madhya Pradesh, promulgated a similar Ordinance, based on similar lack of foundation or basis, in that state.  

Another interesting aside: a series of investigative reports and personal interviews released by NewsLaundry in 2021 revealed that in seven out of the 11 cases filed by the SIT, the claims of “forced conversion” and “coercion” were denied by the alleged victims, and were utterly hollow.  

March continues

The relentless march of ‘love jihad’ laws continues even where courts have been vigilant in protecting citizens’ rights.  

While striking down certain provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Act of 2006 in Evangelical Fellowship of India, Justice Deepak Gupta noted that only one case had been registered in the six years since it was enacted. Yet in October 2019, the 2006 Act was repealed and re-enacted as the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019; and with brazen insouciance, the provisions struck down by the high court have been brought back, multiplied many times over. 

Without a shred of evidence, the Statement of Objects and Reasons with the Bill stated that “It has been observed that there is a rise in conversions by fraudulent means…” and further, that a complete revamp of the 2006 law was found necessary as:

“The punishments provided in the Act are not as sufficient as to have a deterrent effect and therefore, adequate punishments are required to be provided on the analogy of some other States like Uttarakhand. There is also no provision to check the marriages solemnized only for sole purpose of conversion. Besides, the Act also does not provide punishment to an institution or organisation involved in conversions”. 

Coming full circle, while the judiciary has time and again acted like the B-team of communal zealots in playing up the fiction of love jihad, there has also been a marked pushback by some. 

In a scathing judgment dated 19.10.2017 in Anees Hameed v. Kerala, Justices V. Chitambaresh and Sathish Ninan of the Kerala high court recorded that they were “appalled to notice the recent trend in the State to sensationalise every case of inter-religious marriage as either ‘love jihad’ or ‘ghar wapsi’, even if there was platonic love between the spouses before”. 

The court directed police investigation and action against a Yoga Kendra that was being used for forcible indoctrination of Hindu girls who wished to marry outside their caste or religion. The court found that Anees Hameed’s wife, Aruthi Meledath had been forcibly incarcerated by her parents in this Yoga Kendra after gaining unlawful custody of her from the police, who had picked up the husband and wife from Sonepat in Haryana, brought them to Kerala, and handed the wife over to her parents. The bench reunited the couple after issuing severe strictures against the authorities.   

The Supreme Court has also weighed in strongly in favour of freedom to choose faith and partner, though not in the context of these anti-conversion laws. Having cemented the right to privacy as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy (2017), the court held that the right to choose a partner or to change one’s faith were essential elements of privacy and equality in Shafin Jahan (2018), and in Shakti Vahini (2018) it held that the right of adults to marry persons of their choice could not be interfered with by parents, communities, khap panchayats, or the authorities. 

It can only be hoped that when serial litigators try to raise this bogey yet again, the Supreme Court will have learnt from the past.

Chander Uday Singh is a Senior Advocate.

NIA Finds No Evidence of ‘Love Jihad’ After Kerala Probe

The agency had looked into 11 inter-faith marriages from a list of 89 marriages that were in the law enforcement database, mostly due to complaints filed by parents.

New Delhi: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has found no evidence to suggest that women and men were being coerced to marry and convert to the Islamic faith while investigating inter-faith marriages in Kerala, the Hindustan Times reported. According to officials familiar with the case, while there may have been attempts made to facilitate conversions, the NIA has not recovered any evidence of a larger criminal design that could lead to prosecution of these cases.

“The NIA is not supposed to file any further report in this regard in the Supreme Court. As far as the NIA is concerned, the matter stands closed as the agency has not found any evidence to suggest that in any of these cases either the man or the woman was coerced to convert,” the official said to Hindustan Times. He also stated that they had uncovered three cases of failed conversions during the course of their investigation.

The agency had looked into 11 inter-faith marriages from a list of 89 marriages that were in the law enforcement database, mostly due to complaints filed by parents. The examination was part of the enquiry ordered by the Supreme Court into cases of ‘love jihad’ or forceful conversion of Hindu men and women into Islam. The enquiry was ordered in the context of the Hadiya case.

Also read: Hadiya’s Struggle Against Her Family and the Courts May Soon Resonate With All Indian Women

Hadiya, then 24, converted to Islam and later married a Muslim man, Shafin Jahan. She made it explicit that she did both of these things of her own volition, but her father filed a case against Jahan accusing him of brainwashing and coercing her to convert. In May 2017, the Kerala high court annulled the marriage of the couple and placed Hadiya in the ‘custody’ of her parents. In March 2018, the Supreme Court had overturned the high court order and restored Hadiya’s marriage with Shafin Jahan, stating that an adult woman has the freedom to make her own marital choices and the courts cannot intervene in a consensual marriage.

According to the NIA report, out of the 11 marriages investigated the Popular Front of India (PFI) were found to be the common link which helped both men and women to convert to Islam. However, no prosecutable evidence was found against the PFI.

PFI’s legal advisor K.P. Muhammer Shareef, talking to Hindustan Times, said that the concept of ‘love jihad’ was a construction by right-wing forces to specifically target the Muslim community. “Umpteen investigations and enquiries conducted by various agencies have now found the allegation of love jihad is obnoxious, fictitious and without any scintilla of evidence,” said Shareef.

The NIA official however warned against a clean chit to PFI. “There are separate criminal cases of serious charges of murder going on against the alleged cadres of PFI. Those matters are being dealt (with) separately,” he said.

The BJP Wants Its Activists to Forget Sushma and Keep the Focus on Muslims

The buffet-table of ‘Muslim appeasement’ the Sangh was hoping to feed off has collapsed now that all the facts about Tanvi Seth’s passport are out. What Ram Madhav is trying to do is retrieve some scraps of ‘love jihad’ for the BJP’s ever-hungry troll army.

Even when an RSS man – and they are all men – tries to sound reasonable, he cannot resist the urge to indulge his communal obsessions.

After a shameful week of silence punctuated only by the somewhat tepid statements of Rajnath Singh and Nitin Gadkari, a senior BJP leader, Ram Madhav, has finally seen fit to chide those from his own camp who attacked external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj for saving an inter-faith couple from a pettifogging passport official bent on giving them the runaround.

Despite their papers being in order, the official created trouble for the woman, Tanvi Seth. Pointing to her marriage certificate (in this case, a nikahnama) which she had brought along with a host of other papers by way of abundant caution, the official said that since her name on that document was ‘Shadia Anas’, she could not get a passport on her actual name. Her husband, Mohammed Anas Siddiqui said that he too was subjected to a communal harangue.

Tanvi reached out via Twitter to Swaraj, who in turn asked senior officials to review the matter. They found the couple’s documentation to be complete in all respects and issued them their passports. The errant officer, accordingly, found himself shunted out.

Instead of taking credit for the fact that even under a BJP dispensation the communal prejudices of an individual official would not be allowed to trump official rules, the Hindutva camp went into a deep sulk.

Within hours, its fake news factory began churning out bogus information aimed at sowing doubts about not just Tanvi Seth and her husband but all Muslims in general. Muslims are being “appeased”, we were told, while innocent Hindu officers who were “simply doing their job” are being “victimised”. All of this was arrant nonsense but that didn’t stop pro-establishment TV channels from organising angry debates and fuelling speculation based on complete ignorance about the actual rules governing the issuing of passports.

Writing in the Indian Express, Ram Madhav is not bothered by any of this. He even says the role played by “pseudo-secular enthusiasm” and “a secular clique” in the transfer of the junior officer “are important questions… serious questions” even if of secondary importance. “What is of primary importance is whether the language of obscenity, hate and worse, violence that we employ in our social media conversations is acceptable.”

Fortunately, Madhav believes this is not acceptable and for this we are truly grateful. It is a different matter that elsewhere in the article, his majoritarian bigotry is on full display:

“The social media activists should have taken on the clerics who insist on writing a different name in the nikahnama, or the officers, who take cognisance of that false document and overrule all other valid documents. Unfortunately in this case, a woman who stood up and said I wish to continue as a Hindu has become the villain and the regressive cleric who changed her name to a Muslim became the hero.”

Madhav wants “the benefit of doubt” to go in Tanvi Seth’s favour as she “decided to retain her Hindu name even after marrying a Muslim man … Such instances of individuals retaining their religious identity, even after inter-religious marriages, are numerous. There are many such prominent people in public life, including in the BJP. It is a glorious testimony to the omnitheistic nature of Indian society and culture.”

Now, why should it be the business of the “national general secretary” of a party that officially swears by the Indian constitution whether someone changes or retains their name or religion after marriage or not? Does he not know that an Indian passport is given to an Indian citizen – and that citizen has the right to stand up and say “I wish to continue as a Hindu” or that “I do not wish to continue as a Hindu”.

Reviled until now as someone playing the so-called ‘Muslim card”, Tanvi Seth in Ram Madhav’s telling is a heroine for remaining a Hindu despite marrying a Muslim. So where does that leave Hadiya? Or any other Hindu woman or man who chooses to change their religion? Not to speak of the non-Hindus who change theirs?

India is full of people who marry according to customs, traditions, beliefs and methods they (and usually their families) decide, and politicians like Madhav have no right to pass sweeping judgments about the individual decisions that get taken in such situations, let alone incite trolls to “take on” the clerics involved. If Madhav insists on offering his opinion, he should at least be consistent.

In 2004, the 25-year-old nikahnama of the actors-turned-BJP politicians – Dharmendra and Hema Malini – became a public document. The duo had apparently converted to Islam in order to marry since this was to be Dharmendra’s second marriage; the name he was given was Dilawar and Hema Malini’s was Ayesha. “This is something very personal between us … Don’t bother to get into it,” Hema Malini told a reporter who asked her about this – and she was absolutely right. But by Ram Madhav’s logic, “social media activists” should take on the cleric who gave them those Muslim names.

In 2016, the model Hazel Keech took on the name Gurbasant Kaur after she married the cricketer Yuvaraj Singh. The name was given by Sant Balvinder Singh. Should the trolls “take on” the sant for violating the “omnitheistic nature of Indian society and culture”?

Among some Hindu Maharashtrians, it is not uncommon for the groom’s side to change not just the bride’s surname but her first name as well. For the sake of consistency, will Ram Madhav criticise this patriarchal erasure by a Hindu man of a Hindu woman’s identity too?

He won’t, of course, because as an RSS ideologue, his primary aim in writing is to get the party cadre to stop wasting time trolling Sushma Swaraj on an issue which no longer has the potential to polarise people on religious lines.

The buffet-table of ‘Muslim appeasement’ the Sangh was hoping to feed off has collapsed now that all the facts about Tanvi Seth’s passport are out. What Ram Madhav is trying to do by re-framing the controversy  is retrieve some scraps of ‘love jihad’ for the BJP’s ever-hungry troll army.

Judicial Aberrations on Gender Issues Are Worrisome

While the Supreme Court, by restoring Hadiya’s marriage, has given the best gift on Women’s Day, there are several other orders of our courts that are problematic.

While the Supreme Court, by restoring Hadiya’s marriage, has given the best gift on Women’s Day, there are several other orders of our courts that are problematic.

Gender justice has not been talked about at all in the judgment of the triple talaq case. Credit: Reuters

In the last two years, no other topic has received as much attention in the country as the issue of the discriminatory nature of archaic triple divorce under Muslim personal law. Television anchors devoted hundreds of hours discussing this, though the Supreme Court itself eventually noted that the practice of triple divorce was on the decline and was today being practiced only by a minuscule minority of Hanafi Muslims.

We are celebrating yet another International Women’s Day today and our Supreme Court in a historic verdict has decided the much awaited case of Hadiya. The court, in a bold and progressive decision, has restored her marriage and overturned the highly regressive and legally erroneous judgment of the Kerala high court. This is the best gift which our highest court could give to our women on International Women’s Day. But there are several other orders of our courts which are problematic.

The experience of females has not been really included in our laws and in seven decades of our independence we have had only six women judges in the highest court, which does have a bearing on gender justice. The lone female judge was not included even in Shayara Bano (2017) on the multi-religious bench. Justice Markanday Katju in  D. Velasamy (2010) had termed a second Hindu wife as ‘mistress’ and ‘keep’, and thus not entitled to maintenance. But in 2011, another bench which included a female judge, Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra, opined that a deserted wife is entitled to marriage regardless of validity of her marriage.

Many feminists and civil libertarians do believe that there is some semblance of a U-turn by the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular on women’s issues as in a number of cases judgements of high courts in favour of women were reversed by the apex court. Let us discuss some of these problematic decisions of our courts.

After the commencement of the Constitution, Indian courts tried to use the newly granted right to equality to promote gender justice. But cases of early decades will show that courts adopted a ‘protective approach’, and considering women as weak and in need of protection used Article 15(3) to uphold special provisions in favour of women.

This ‘protective approach’ is inherently wrong as it compromises women’s agency. In these cases, the courts were more interested in ‘formal equality’ rather than ‘substantive equality’. Treating men and women as exactly the same under the so- called ‘sameness doctrine’ was the result of our belief in ‘formal equality.’ ‘Substantive equality’ on the other side requires appreciating the differences between men and women. These differences do not make women inferior in any way but do require ‘differential treatment’. There have, of course, been some highly progressive judgments as well which did try to give effect to ‘substantive equality’. But lately we observe that our courts are reluctant to go forward and have rather wasted a few good opportunities to develop gender-just jurisprudence. In some cases, unfortunately, a patriarchal mindset too was clearly visible.

Justice Anil Dave and Adarsh Goel’ s judgment in Prakash v. Phulwati,(October 16,2015) refused to give retrospective effect to a social welfare legislation, i.e, the  2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act under which daughters were also for the first time recognised as coparceners. Thus, the pro-women judgment of the Karnataka high court was reversed by the apex court. The high court had given the benefit  of the new amendment to the daughter as the Supreme Court itself in Geetha‘s case (2009)  had held that any development in law will inevitably apply to pending proceedings.

Very strangely in the second part of the same judgment, Justice Goel expressed concerns about Muslim women and the discriminatory nature of Muslim Personal Law though he did accept  that the matter was not in dispute before them. He also noted that the Supreme Court itself in Ahmedabad Women Action Group had held that such issues are a policy matter and are best left to the wisdom of the government, yet he went ahead and directed the registry of the court to file a piblic interest litigation on the discriminatory provisions of Muslim Personal Law. Why did the court not consider discriminatory provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, which were very much before it, i.e, a Hindu mother, Hindu wife and Hindu daughter-in-law are still not coparcener? Similarly, if there is an issueless Hindu couple, the property of the husband goes to his parents, but strangely even the property the wife goes to the husband’s parents rather than her own parents. Similarly, a Hindu can deprive his/her daughter from self-acquired property through testamentary powers of will. Under Muslim Personal Law, on the other side, no heir can be deprived of his/her share and through a will, not more than one-third of property can be given to a non-heir.

Also read

  • What the Supreme Court Bench Had to Say While Striking Down Instant Triple Talaq

  • In 2017, India’s Top Judiciary Reached New Heights – and New Lows

  • The Debate on Triple Talaq Must be Based on Proper Research and Data

Thus, the Shayara Bano case basically originated on the orders of the apex court as the court genuinely looked somewhat more concerned about Muslim women. Finally, a five-judge bench on August 22, 2017 declared by a majority of 3:2 that ‘triple divorce is set aside’. The apex court did not declare triple divorce as unconstitutional but merely invalidated instant triple divorce which has not been preceded by the efforts of reconciliation. It is interesting to note that minority judges (Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice UU Lalit) who held triple divorce unconstitutional, did not do so because women did not have a similar right to give instant triple divorce but because it was ‘arbitrary’. In fact, gender justice has not been talked about at all in the judgment even though the term is mentioned nine times in the summary of arguments by the parties.

Exactly a year later, in Narender v. K.Meena (October 6,2016), the  same bench of Justice Dave and Goel passed another strange order which came as a bolt from the blue for women. In this case, the learned judges explicitly held that under Hindu traditions, a wife on marriage is supposed to fully integrate herself with her husband’s family and if she refuses to live with her in-laws, it would amount to cruelty and the husband would be entitled to divorce her under the Hindu Marriages Act.  Here, too, the high court had ruled in favour of the wife. But the Supreme court, reversing the high court’s order observed that “in India, generally people do not subscribe to western thought, whereupon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her.”

In yet another case, the court came down heavily on a wife for trying to live separately with the husband solely for monetary considerations. Credit: Reuters

A wife is an integral part of her husband’s family yet she is not a coparcener. Does that not sound strange? The court came down heavily on the wife for trying to live separately with the husband solely for monetary considerations and termed it as torture of the husband. The court also used the Indian and Hindu ethos interchangeably without realising that under Muslim Personal Law, a wife has an absolute right to demand a separate residence and if the husband cannot provide the same, a separate door so that she does not come across her in-laws.

Every hour, 39 crimes against women including four rapes are committed in India. Reported rape cases have increased by 88% over a decade. On July 27, 2017 in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P, a two judge bench of Justice Adarsh Goel & UU Lalit in yet another strange order, after noting the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which punishes cruelty, and low conviction rate, observed that there should be no automatic arrests on charges of cruelty and each district should have a Family Welfare Committee. While it is true that conviction rate is low, the court did not notice that it is in fact going up every year. In 2012, it was 14.4% but in 2016 it stood at 18.9%. In any case low conviction rate does not mean a case itself was entirely false. It shows that our investigation techniques and prosecution processes are in bad shape.

In this case, a demand of dowry was made for Rs 3,000,00 and a car, which the wife’s family was not able to meet. The pregnant wife was dropped at her house leading to termination of pregnancy. She was allegedly tortured as was noted by the lower court. An offence under Section 498A is non-bailable, where bail is not a matter of right but dependent on the discretion of the court. It is non-compoundable so that the victim is not pressured into compromise. And it is cognisable in that a police officer can make an arrest without a warrant from the court. Unlike Prakash v. Phulwati, the plain language of the statute and legislative intent were not a problem in this case. The court did not hesitate in giving a number of directions in favour of accused – no arrest should normally be effected till the newly constituted committee submits its report; similarly passports are not be impounded in a routine manner; personal appearance of the accused and outstation family members need not be insisted upon; bail application should be decided same day. The only saving grace was that these directions are not to be applied in cases of physical injuries or death. In a happy turn of events, on October 13, 2017, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra going beyond prayers in the case before them agreed to review Justice Goel’s judgment.

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. In Hadiya’s her case some of the observations of Kerala high court were indeed shocking. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

The initial order of the Supreme Court in Hadiya’s case ordering an NIA probe was similarly shocking. In spite of court’s repeated queries by the current bench of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra about the high court’s powers in nullifying the marriage of two adults in exercise of writ jurisdiction and welcome order of her release from the captivity of her father, the case was unnecessarily lingering on and precious judicial time was unnecessarily wasted on a non-issue. Justice Dipak Mishra himself in Pawan Kumar V.State of H.P.(April 28,2017) in
an enlightening judgment has similarly held that “one is compelled to think and constrained to deliberate why the women in this country cannot be allowed to live in peace and lead a life that is empowered with a dignity and freedom. It has to be kept in mind that she has a right to life and entitled to love according to her choice. She has an individual choice which has been legally recognised. It has to be socially respected. No one can compel a woman to love. She has the absolute right to reject.”(emphasis mine) Thus Hadiya too is free to make her choice. May be her choice of religion as well as spouse  are totally wrong but nothing can be done about it. Rajasthan High Court in a similar matter boldly dismissed the case promptly.

Under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, only men are punished for the offence of adultery. As a matter of fact, the first law commission of 1837 that drafted the IPC did not include adultery as a crime in the original IPC and preferred to have it only as a civil wrong. The Second Law Commission headed by Sir John Romilly did not agree with Macaulay but spared women from punishment for adultery due to their deplorable conditions because of child marriages, age gap between spouses, and polygamy which legalised husband’s sexual relations with more than one woman. Thus we cannot entirely blame the drafters of IPC. They were really sympathetic to our women. It is a different story that at that time women were considered just the property of their husbands and, therefore, we see similarities between offences of theft and adultery. On January 6, 2018, the matter was referred to a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court to examine constitutionality of the adultery law as it does not punish women. We need to wait and see whether the court will simply make the adultery law gender-neutral or will strike down the provision as a whole as it impinges on the individual autonomy of consenting adults.

Madras high court. Credit: PTI

The Madras high court gave a strange judgement directing that “divorcees too should maintain sexual purity to claim alimony.” Credit: PTI

Some of the high court’s orders in the recent past have been equally shocking, showing little sensitivity to gender issues. In Hadiya’s case some of the observations of Kerala high court about Hadiya’s independent agency and powers of her father over her were indeed shocking. A divisional bench of the Kerala high court consisting of Justice Surendra Mohan and Justice Abraham Mathew in a shocking judgment (May 25, 2017) observed that “ a girl aged 24 years is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways and ‘ her marriage
being the most important decision of her life, can be taken only with the active involvement of her parents.” This judgment is the classic example of what has been termed above as ‘protective approach’.

The Madras high court gave a strange judgment by directing that “divorcees too should maintain sexual purity to claim alimony.” This decision not only took away freedom of choice of the divorcee but also treated her as just a sex object by observing that the man with whom she had such a relationship was maintaining her.  Thus, a divorcee must maintain the same discipline that she was supposed to maintain during subsistence of marriage. In another case, the Madras high court had given bail to a rape accused so that he could mediate with the victim. The Supreme Court had to intervene to get the bail cancelled.

Let our judges prove Ishwar Chand Vidhyasagar wrong who had in 19th century talked about the plight of widows. He said ‘Oh women! what sin have you committed that you were born in India’. Let today’s Hadiya judgment take us forward in the direction of ‘substantive equality’ with due recognition of differences, preferential treatment and individual autonomy of Indian women.

The author is Vice-Chancellor NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. The views expressed are personal.

Supreme Court Restores Hadiya’s Marriage, Sets Aside Kerala HC Order

The Supreme Court also said that the Kerala high court should not have annulled the marriage in the first place.

The Supreme Court said that the Kerala high court should not have annulled the marriage in the first place.

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

New Delhi: Upholding freedom of choice, the Supreme Court in a landmark order on Thursday restored the marriage of 26-year-old Hadiya and set aside the May 2017 Kerala high court order that had annulled her marriage with Shafin Jahan. The order is in line with the apex court’s statements over the previous few hearings, when it said that a 26-year-old woman has the freedom to make her own marital choices and the courts cannot intervene in a consensual marriage.

The bench was headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and also comprised Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar.

Born a Hindu, Akhila became known as Hadiya after converting to Islam. When she later married Jahan, her decision set off cries of religious conversion by the Hindu Right which termed it as ‘love jihad‘.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court also said that the Kerala high court should not have annulled the marriage in the first place.

However, according to LiveLaw, the court also said that the National Investigative Agency (NIA) can continue its investigations into whether there was any criminality involved, but it shouldn’t  probe into the marriage. The court also reportedly said that Hadiya was free to pursue her future endeavours as per law.

The NIA, too, had said previously that Hadiya and Jahan’s marriage could be classified as a case of ‘love jihad’. However, the agency had not offered any proof on this, and Hadiya had maintained that she converted to Islam and then later married Jahan of her own volition.

Also read

According to NewsMinute, during the hearing, the Supreme Court bench reiterated that the court cannot intervene in the case of a marriage between two consenting adults.

“Marriage, plurality and individual choices should be zealously guarded from state intervention,” the bench reportedly said.

The bench also said that however good or bad a marriage is, the HC cannot annul a marriage, saying that “the state cannot be allowed to enter into the marriage whether it approves of it or not.”

In addition to annulling the marriage, the Kerala high court had said that Hadiya was to be in the custody of her parents (who opposed her conversion and choice of partner). This move was widely criticised by women’s rights groups and activists, given that Hadiya is an adult woman and should not have to be in anyone’s ‘custody’. The high court had made several controversial statements such as, “a girl aged 24 years is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways” and “her marriage being the most important decision in her life, can also be taken only with the active involvement of her parents”.

Jahan had on September 20 approached the apex court, seeking the recall of its order directing the NIA to investigate the marriage.

In November, the Supreme Court had said that Hadiya can leave her parents’ house and go back to college in Tamil Nadu. At that time, the apex court had not yet made a statement about the status of her marriage.

Ankit Saxena’s Murder is a Time for Collective Introspection, Not Hate-Mongering

Those raging at the murder of Ankit and using this occasion to attack secular voices are either wilfully uninformed innocents or intentionally wicked.

Those raging at the murder of Ankit and using this occasion to attack secular voices are either wilfully uninformed innocents or intentionally wicked.

Ankit’s killing squarely falls in the category of ‘honour’ killings. Credit: PTI

Candles were lit for Ankit but his parents and friends refused to hold one. They feared and saw in them the fire of hatred which is being stoked all around and destroying us.

His parents want justice for him and rightly so. He was murdered in broad day light cruelly. By the parents of the Muslim girl he loved. She also loved him. In fact she was waiting for him outside the metro station when he was waylaid by her parents and younger brother and killed. The parents were angry with them for transgressing the limits that the traditional Muslim and Hindu societies impose on their daughters and sons. Love is out of the question and marriage without the consent of the family is a crime.

The parents were outraged when the younger brother of the girl disclosed to them that she had been in touch with Ankit despite their disapproval. One of their relatives told the media that they had an argument with the girl after this and she left the house in a huff. They then decided to kill both the lovers – their daughter and Ankit. Ankit was caught on the road and killed by them. The girl could not be killed. Ironically, it was the killing of her lover which saved her.

The girl was brave enough to help the police trace her family members. What is remarkable is that the parents, kith and kin of the slain young man have not lost their sanity and humanity. They have  rejected all attempts to allow their grief and anger to be used as ammunition to attack Muslims. After all, the girl their son loved is herself a Muslim. How can they permit hate against a part of her identity, her being – to which their son had been attracted.

Manoj Tiwari, the Delhi BJP chief has demanded compensation of Rs 1 crore, and termed this an organised and premeditated murder committed with professional precision. He also counselled people against giving the murder a religious colour. We should be thankful to him for having done so. This is a welcome break from what his party members have been doing in all such cases. Where they openly say that “our girls” are being taken away by “them”. That it is “our” duty to take “their” girls.

The Delhi BJP chief is right: love is between two individuals and cannot be induced as part of a conspiracy. But he should not stop here. The demand of Rs 1 crore is also slightly unusual as was the demand of Rs 50 lakhs for Chandan in Kasganj.  Neither he, nor the BJP in general, has shown this concern in the case of the murder of “others.” If pain and rage is reserved only for “our own” , as his counterpart in Kasganj publicly declared, then there is something wrong with it.

Also read: Delhi ‘Honour’ Killing: BJP Leader Demands Stern Action Against Persons Who Murdered Ankit Saxena

The BJP leader’s use of adjectives like “organised” and “professional” is also problematic. None outside the family was involved and the murderers did not appear to have any experience in using the weapon with which they killed Ankit. These adjectives only deepen the prejudice against Muslims already entrenched in society – that they hoard weapons in their homes and are naturally  violent.

Tiwari should also clearly tell the affiliates and wide network of his parivar that attempts to use this ghastly incident to generate hatred against Muslims are unacceptable.

Some TV anchors are angrily demanding the ‘Award Wapasi gang’ open their mouth. Where are those who were upset with the killing of Akhlaq, they ask.

First, we must say that these two killings fall in entirely two different categories. The murder of Akhlaq was a collective act; he did not have personal enmity with anybody from the crowd which killed him. The attack on him and his family was because of his Muslim identity, because he was, as they claimed, a beef-eater. In the case of Ankit, the anger of the family is not backed by any organisation of Muslims, nor have we seen the participation of any Muslim collective in it. Ankit’s Muslim neighbours have joined the family in their hour of grief. In Dadri, on the contrary, even two years after the incident we seen an open justification of the murder and its celebration, backed by the ruling party.

Ankit’s killing falls in the category of despicable crimes known as ‘honour’ killings. Ravish has rightly drawn our attention to the case of Kaushalya, an upper caste young woman in Tamil Nadu. Her parents hired a gang to attack her and Shankar, her Dalit husband in broad day light. He lost his life. Kaushalya , like the Muslim girl in this case, has demanded her parents be punished for having organised the murder of her husband.

Those raging at the murder of Ankit and using this occasion to attack secular voices are either wilfully uninformed innocents or intentionally wicked. They do not know that members of this infamous community shelter couples who have to flee their families, arrange for legal help for them to get their marriage solemnised and provide support to them for they have no other communitarian company to share their joy.

There are people and organisations across India working silently to help love find its place in this society. They have handled hundreds of cases of couples comprising a Hindu man and Muslim woman or a Muslim man and Hindu woman. Fleeing what they feel is certain death from their own families, such couples desperately want the tag of matrimony to make them at least legally safe. To be able to approach the courts when their families hunt them down. But the Hadiya incident tells us so vividly that even the highest court is not free from societal influences and takes time to fight its own demons. Otherwise Hadiya, even after having been married would not have been thrown back to her parents. The courts treated them as the owners of Hadiya, against her free will. Thankfully, the Supreme Court  is now correcting itself.

People like us cannot forget the hate and violence of the families of friends who committed the crime of finding love outside their religions, or castes. It is an old and painful story. How many lives fell prey to it, we do not know. I met a young man from Gaya last month. He told me about a man from his village, a Muslim, who had married a Hindu woman decades ago. Both of them fled their village. He returned nearly three decades later, thinking the memory of their crime must have dimmed. But a day later, he was killed. This is the hatred, entrenched in society, that we are up against.

Also read: Four Arrested in Delhi ‘Honour’ Killing Case

Recently, a student approached me to disclose that she was in love with a man who was Muslim and wanted to marry him. But she was mortally afraid of her family. They might kill him, she feared. It took a collective effort to get them married. They were made to leave Delhi, move to another city. She managed to get a job in school there. But when the religious identity of her husband was discovered, she was thrown out by the school.

There are numerous stories of the fortunate Ankits and Javeds and Nutans and Shehzadis who have managed to survive this hatred of “alien’ blood . I still remember the anger of the mother of a friend who had married a Muslim boy. “I cannot imagine a Muslim touching my daughter,” she kept telling us.

It is this hatred of pollution which made the parents of the Muslim girl who loved Ankit mad and turned them into murderers. We need to fight this hatred. And we need to fight the desire of parents to control the lives of their children, especially girls.

To save more Ankits, we need to stand up for Rahat. Rahat was arrested by the UP police in the wake of the violence in Kasganj. Surabhi, his  Hindu wife who was with him on their way to Aligarh, says that he is being targeted simply because he married her, a Hindu. She claims the police taunted her, saying why did she have to go out of her community to marry a Muslim.

This is the organised bias we have to fight. To stand by and with our daughters and sons. To fight a mind set which believes that marriages arranged by parents are the best. For this, we need to take a vow like Gandhi that we would participate only in those marriages which are inter-caste and inter-religious. This is also what Ambedkar proposed. Some may see this as an extreme reaction. But then the murder of Ankit or Shankar for going outside the fold of their parental religion or caste is surely more extreme. To fight this extremism, we have to do all we can.

Apoorvanand is a professor of Hindi at Delhi University.

Court Can’t Decide Marriage Is Invalid, Hadiya Can Choose Independently, Says SC Judge

Controversial case pits advocates of the autonomy of an adult woman to decide whom she marries against conspiracy theorists who see Hadiya’s marriage as part of a supposed Muslim plot to seduce and convert Hindu women.

Controversial case pits advocates of the autonomy of an adult woman to decide whom she marries against conspiracy theorists who see Hadiya’s marriage as part of a supposed Muslim plot to seduce and convert Hindu women.

Supreme Court of India. Credit: Reuters

Supreme Court of India. Credit: Reuters

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today observed that the National Investigative Agency cannot take a call on whether the marriage of the 24-year-old Hadiya with Shafin Jahan is legitimate. “If she (Hadiya) has no issues (with the marriage), that’s the end of the issue,” LiveLaw quoted Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as saying.

His remark came during hearings on the controversial case which pits advocates of the autonomy of an adult woman to decide whom she marries against conspiracy theorists who see Hadiya’s marriage as part of a supposed Muslim plot to seduce and convert Hindu women.

“How can we say marriage is not valid when she says she married…she can choose independently. She is 24 years old,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Chandrachud as saying. “Marriage has to be separate from criminal activity, otherwise we will be creating a bad precedent in law.”

The marriage between Hadiya and Jahan was annulled by the Kerala high court, a move that was criticised widely by women’s rights activists and others for infringing on a woman’s personal rights and saying that she does not have the agency to choose her own partner. The high court had also ordered Hadiya to remain in the custody of her parents. Jahan had appealed this decision in the Supreme Court.

Also read: Hadiya’s Encounter With the Courts Reveals the Continued Stranglehold of Brahmanical Order

The lawyer representing Hadiya’s father, who had insisted from the beginning that the marriage is a case of ‘love jihad‘ even though Hadiya converted to Islam before she met Jahan, said that the circumstances leading to the marriage needed to be investigated. To this, the court said that the couple’s marital status was not a matter for investigation. The NIA can continue with its probe but it cannot investigate into the marital status of the man and the woman, PTI quoted the court as saying.

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

Shafin Jahan and Hadiya. Credit: Facebook/Hadiya

The NIA told the court that it has made “substantial progress” in its probe into ‘love jihad’ in Kerala, PTI reported.

The Supreme Court also said today that it is not within the courts’ jurisdiction to decide whether or not a grown woman should live with her parents. “When the girl says I don’t want to go with father, how can the court compel her? She is an adult, she appeared and made a statement,” LiveLaw quoted the bench as saying.

Also read: SC Should Defend Women’s Privacy, Autonomy, Not Perpetuate ‘Love Jihad’ Myth

The court also accepted lawyer Kapil Sibal’s request to make Hadiya a party to the proceedings, and said that the matter will next be heard on Fenruary 22.

In November 2017, the Supreme Court had ‘allowed’ Hadiya to go back to college and finish her course in homeopathic studies. The bench directed the college and the university to re-admit Hadiya and grant her hostel facilities.

During the course of the hearing then, Hadiya had said that she wanted to live with her husband and that she had married Jahan of her own free will. She was produced in the court after the bench had ordered her father to bring her, so that they could ascertain her mental health.

Real Stories of Love and Loss in Mumbai

A journalist’s immersive look at modern relationships in the metropolis throws light on dark corners.

A journalist’s immersive look at modern relationships in the metropolis throws light on dark corners.

The author's work shows an ability to interrogate without judgment. Credit: Rajarshi MITRA/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

The author’s work shows an ability to interrogate without judgment. Credit: Rajarshi MITRA/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

In 2008, when Elizabeth Flock was 22, she moved from Chicago to Mumbai, where she wrote for a business magazine and came to terms with India. “People seemed to practice a showy, imaginative kind of love, with an eye toward spectacle,” she observes. The filmi ardour appealed to the reporter, who had been witness to her parents’ multiple divorces. “I thought that perhaps this devotional quality was what they’d been missing,” she writes.

Three sets of “romantics and rule breakers” drew Flock’s attention. Passionate Maya and cool-headed Veer had eloped after her father swore to stop them marrying; shopkeeper Shahzad entered into an arranged marriage with Sabeena of the Madhubala face, and journalist Ashok met IIT student Parvati online, asking to marry her even though she tried to fob him off with details of previous – rather anodyne – crushes. Over a span of several years, Flock pursued the couples, hoping to create a portrait of marriage in modern India. The result of her deeply immersive reporting is much more ambitious and much more damning – it is a portrait of a country in which the exercise of personal choice, over virtually any matter of significance, is relentlessly obstructed.

Even urban, educated Indians, Flock shows us, don’t believe in the right to privacy. Religion, caste and sub-caste determine all major decisions. And of course love isn’t even a prerequisite for marriage. Greater scrutiny is reserved for the placement of the planets.

The author, who is now a reporter with PBS Newshour, has such an understated style, that readers may only see the book for what it appears to be: A set of intimate observations from inside a marriage.

Elizabeth Flock
The Heart is a Shifting Sea: Love and Marriage in Mumbai
Harper, 2018

Romantic curiosity satiated, money, babies and work pressures start to take their toll, playing their usual games and causing the usual frictions. Veer, a workaholic, reacts to his wife’s nightly flood of texts with exasperation. “Sometimes, it felt like she was a flame that needed constant oxygen to keep burning.” Waiting for her husband to return, “Maya wondered how, in the city of dreams, she could sometimes feel so alone.”

Over time, lust for each other turns into cravings for other things. Shahzad obsesses over fathering a child, throwing lakhs of rupees at the feet of quacks. Sabeena, his wife, binge watches Pakistani soaps. In another part of town, Parvati’s depression, triggered by memories of past infatuations, forces her to take a sabbatical from her studies; her crying jags take their toll on her husband Ashok who craves time to finish his novel. But as his wife unravels, Ashok realises that there is rarely just the one unhappy person in a marriage. In a relationship so deeply intimate, virtually all pleasure, and pain, is shared. He scolds his wife, “You have to consider that there are others living with you.”

As the years pass, the couples have to work harder at being happy, and the results vary. Maya gives up waiting for Veer and starts a series of emotional, and, at least one sexual affair. She bombards her lover with rich cakes and dazzling bouquets. Sabeena, meanwhile, dyes her hair, starts applying French creams. She becomes a tigress in bed, surprising her deeply grateful husband.

Elizabeth Flock. Credit: Author website

If an accumulation of observations was all there was to the book, it would still be sufficiently good. Non-fiction about intimate lives in India is a rare thing – people are reluctant to disclose private matters for fear of social ostracism. And Flock’s reportage is full of empathy and warmth. Her enthusiasm carries through even the oddly flat prose. Her real skill though is the ability to interrogate without judgment. She does this so quietly that the casual reader may miss just how much of a dogged reporter she is.

These are some of the things she shows us: Fathers who decide for their adult daughters what they will study, whom they will marry and when they will have babies. Mothers who dissuade daughters from standing up for themselves by saying, “thoda compromise karo (compromise a bit).” Mothers-in-law who tell daughters-in law what to wear (saris) and what time to wake up (sunrise). Fathers-in-laws who say, “After marriage, a girl belong(s) to her husband’s parents.” Who shout, “We don’t bring up daughters-in-law to use gadgets.”

Worn out, Sabeena wonders if it’s time to accept that “she would not get to be happy.” Parvati attempts suicide. Maya tries to kill herself, once, then twice. All the women, all their life, feel like prison inmates with no hope of digging their way out.

Of course, the infantilisation and subjugation of women is thoroughly normalised in India. Only last week the Supreme Court refused to examine the validity of a curfew imposed on female students at Banaras Hindu University. Women are expected to return to campus at 8 pm – around the time some toddlers go to bed – while the men may stay out till 10 pm. “These rules are for the safety of the girls,” said the court. And last year, Indian women watched in horror as a 25-year-old medical student named Hadiya was placed in the custody of her parents. Her marriage was annulled and her Muslim husband was accused of brainwashing her.

These events give Flock’s reportage a sense of immediacy. Inspired by love, what she really presents is a powerful quest for freedom.

Sonia Faleiro is the author of Beautiful Thing: Inside the Secret World of Bombay’s Dance Bars.