The same happened to an inter-faith couple, Asar Chaudhary and Avni Bhargava. Both are professionals based in the United States. Earlier this year, they registered their marriage under India’s Special Marriage Act 1954 at the Consulate General of India in San Francisco. The couple had planned a lavish wedding reception with family and friends in their hometown Aligarh this month. Invitation cards were distributed.
But then things took a surprising turn.
What was meant to be a happy occasion ended in a heartbreaking story. As widely reported by the media, a bunch of people belonging to various Hindu nationalist groups in Aligarh got to know about the reception and decided to take matters into their own hands. They protested, submitted a memorandum to the local administration and warned that they would face serious consequences if they were welcomed. He claimed that since one was a Muslim and the other a Hindu, he had no right to celebrate the wedding and that the reception would “disrupt communal harmony”.
“We are not against their marriage as they are adults, but we were against the gathering on December 21. Such an event could lead to more interaction between girls and women from two different communities,” said a coordinator of The Hindu. The nationalist organization told reporters.
Both families have now announced that the reception has been canceled due to “unforeseen circumstances”. Clearly, there were concerns about the couple’s safety. A media report I read mentioned that the memorandum also brought up other issues like abuse of Hindus in Bangladesh.
I am still rubbing my eyes trying to find the connection between the situation of Hindus in Bangladesh and the reception of the proposed wedding in Aligarh, where the couple are of different faiths.
Of course, in hyper-polarized India, the hysteria over Hindu-Muslim marriage gets the most attention but it is by no means the only marker of undue communal interference. Another recent report from Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh revolved around the wedding procession of a Dalit constable who was attacked by upper caste people who objected to loud music played by a DJ. Reports say that the goons vandalized the vehicle, pelted stones and forced the groom to dismount from his horse. Many guests were injured in the clash. “The accused not only stopped playing music and marching, but also threatened, carried guns and shouted racist slurs. thirty two. He threatened to kill me if I filed a complaint…,” the bride’s brother told reporters.
We are in the final stages of 2024. Turbulent changes are widespread around the world. A lot has changed in the country too. But some things remain steadfast. India continues to celebrate individual Muslims who are clearly successful, internationally acclaimed and add luster to Brand India. But in many parts of the country, people belonging to minority communities are treated harshly.
Inter-faith marriage remains a political and socio-cultural hot potato, triggering threats, intimidation and sometimes violence. It is now socially acceptable to label the celebration of inter-marriage as an “incitement” to communal harmony, interfering in the personal lives of others.
Many states in India have enacted laws requiring couples to inform authorities about interfaith marriages and religious conversions. These laws can potentially encourage community surveillance of marriages, where individuals or groups can challenge the marriage as a challenge or create conditions that delay or disrupt particular wedding ceremonies. The groups argue that they are supported by social sentiment.
We are in dangerous territory with such arguments.
With the ongoing frenzy over inter-faith marriages in India, “safe houses” or shelters are becoming increasingly important. The Special Marriage Act 1954 allows Indian citizens to marry through the civil process, regardless of their religion, caste, or caste. Such legal provisions exist to protect the right of inter-faith couples to marry, but on the ground, a mix of family opposition, social and religious pressure, as well as administrative interference can disrupt marriage processions in India. What happened in Aligarh had happened before and could happen again.
Recently, the Bombay High Court suggested using state guest houses in districts as “safe houses” for inter-caste and inter-faith couples facing danger. The court directed the Maharashtra social justice and home departments to come up with a draft policy circular for the safety and security of couples in the state who may face security issues due to inter-caste or inter-faith marriages.
This should make us think. Safe houses for interfaith couples will be unnecessary if the police and other government agencies are serious about cracking down on those who try to make life miserable for these couples.
India should introspect.
Over the years, community interference in marriage processions in India has become a significant concern, especially for inter-faith and inter-caste couples. Progress has been made towards greater acceptance of diverse relationships but the canceled wedding reception in Aligarh shows that the abolitionists are emboldened.
How long will we allow the frenzy of inter-faith marriages to distract us from the day-to-day problems common Indians face? In a free country, adults should be free to love and marry whomever they want, and be free to celebrate as they wish. Worryingly, the line between community spirit and community intervention is blurred. If this continues, we will legitimize and empower people who believe in community intervention in private lives.
Where do we go from here?
These are difficult times. Major political changes are taking place in the world. Uncertainties loom ahead. India has a choice: either she can put all her might into addressing the great challenges that remain and work towards fulfilling grandiose aspirations, or allow herself to be distracted again and again, letting the self-anointed custodians of the national interest decide what others eat. Who should they meet, who should they mate with and what and how should they celebrate?
The question that has loomed over the years – can a vastly diverse country that leads the world, talking about joining the modern “developed nations” club, continue to sensationalize itself over who it marries? As we contemplate the changes that will transform the world, we must understand that creating barriers between communities will ultimately illuminate India’s story. No one should be allowed to deprive others of their right to celebrate their happy moments. Development does not mean obstructing wedding processions and ceremonies on the basis of divisiveness.