Today I want to focus on one word that really makes me angry. Dear jihad. The coining of this term is in a certain way an affront for the sensitivity of every citizen. Because what it conveys, at least for me, is a deep hatred of minorities, especially Muslims, and especially the way in which this Islamophobia, which has penetrated the minds of many, is normalizing.
It is a term first coined in recent years by Shri Ram Sene, a self-proclaimed Hindu extremist group led by someone named Pramod Muthalik, who operated mainly from the coast of Karnataka and gained fame, or rather fame, than him A few years ago and his followers attacked a Mangalore pub where couples were spending time together.
Now let me also say that it’s not just Pramod Muthalik. Yogi Adityanath, in his previous Avatar, before becoming UP Chief Minister, led another self-appointed vigilante group called Hindu Yuva Vahini. And this group, too, would target interfaith marriages and interfere with them wherever they took place. So I am not surprised when the Uttar Pradesh government passed a law last year that effectively banned these types of interfaith marriages by calling them love jihad, suggesting that they were done as a ruse for conversion. And the entire legal structure, in my opinion, was clearly against criminal case law as it suggested that the couple had to bear the burden of proof that they had not married under duress or coercion.
It was almost like love was being criminalized and that is exactly what these laws did. You have criminalized two people falling in love when they belong to different communities. In my opinion, such laws violate the constitutional right to religious freedom and the right to life and liberty.
We have heard from vigilante groups from UP and other BJP-ruled states such as Madhya Pradesh. And believe me, there would be a lot of such cases ahead of the UP election because it’s a great way to play vote bank politics and divide communities based on religion.
But this week we saw the concept of love jihad again in the sensitive border state of Jammu and Kashmir. And this time, not only are Hindu extremist groups leading the vigilante justice against married couples, but Sikh groups have also joined the choir. Why? Because two Sikh girls married Muslim men in the valley. As a result, these groups are suddenly all armed for allegedly converting to Islam. And they claim these girls were forcibly married and converted.
This is despite the fact that one of the girls has made an affidavit in front of a local judge that she is marrying of her own free will. The other girl even posted a video claiming she married her college sweetheart and did it in 2012. Why is it being targeted today? These two girls, in some ways, fell victim to a violent campaign that was carried out. One of them was forcibly removed, their marriage annulled, married to a Sikh boy and taken to Delhi. The other girl is hiding. One of the boys was arrested. Nobody knows why.
I believe that political groups in Delhi and Srinagar who have joined these protests have, to be honest, no business here. I mean look at this, families say they are concerned that their girls have been forcibly taken away. For God’s sake, go to court, file a kidnapping and kidnapping case and prove it in court. How can you prove to the couple that their marriage is not a coercion?
And what are these political groups up to? There is a BJP leader, Sardar RP Singh; There is an Akali Dal leader, Manjinder Singh Sirsa. They lead protests in Srinagar and Delhi, meet the lieutenant governor and the Interior Ministry and claim that Sikhs have converted to Islam. Elections take place in Punjab, so an atmosphere is created there too. Why?
I want to understand: Did any of these people ask the girls what happened? Whose view is to be taken? Should the views of politicians be taken seriously if they only do so because it would give them some political influence? Or should these be the views of the girls who actually married and converted? And if they say it wasn’t under duress, who are you, me or someone else who intervenes? Surely it is their free choice as adults.
In my opinion, the concept of love jihad is so flawed here. Because it allows vigilante groups to take over the law of this land and then claim that they are the guardians of our religious identity. To be clear, this whole concept is flawed because it is based on the belief that women have no voice. It’s misogynistic. It is almost as if a woman were to marry a woman from another community, especially from Islam, she must have been forcibly converted. Well why do we forget that a woman has a mind of her own! These are women and men in their 20s. Certainly they are allowed to have their own mind as free citizens.
But no! Our vigilante groups have decided that they alone decide whether it is love or love jihad. What a bummer! In my opinion, this whole concept is flawed; it is unconstitutional and just a dog whistle to arouse common passions in our society. Dear my friends, break down barriers. Interfaith marriages should be celebrated and under no circumstances should be criminalized unless you can prove that it was a kidnapping or abduction.
Why should a young couple be thrown in jail for being consensually married and in love with each other? Who is a local thanedar, constable, or police officer who decides the couple must have been forced to marry? How can we give such powers to the thanedaries in such cases?
What is equally disturbing in my opinion is the way the media narrative plays out. Look at the headlines in the Jammu and Kashmir case. As if these couples were criminals and politicians were the saviors and moral custodians of society. We just play into the hands of these vigilante groups with prime-time warriors like this.
Also, interestingly let me tell you that this is not the first case of such an interfaith marriage in the Kashmir Valley. As early as 1967, Parmeshwari Handoo, a sales rep in Srinagar’s Apana Bazar, married an employee named Ghulam Rasool Kanth. She converted to Islam and took the name Parveen Akhtar. She came from a Kashmiri Pandit family. There was a lot of shouting and protest. Here’s the good news. In 1967 at least there was no concept of love jihad or such laws. This enabled the couple to stay together and live happily ever after.
Perhaps we have regressed as a society from 1967 to 2021, where laws normalize bigotry and hatred. As I keep saying, love is criminalized. In the famous film Mughal-e-Azam there is a song: ‘Pyaar Kiya Toh Darna Kya’. Now we have to worry and say, ‘Pyaar Kiya Toh Daro’. That’s the difference in the time we live in.
Incidentally, on the subject of Jammu and Kashmir, our Prime Minister said last week: “We have to bridge Dil ki Doori and Dilli se Doori.” Very nice words, Prime Minister. So may I ask you to ensure that love is celebrated in the Kashmir Valley and not criminalized in this way?
(The views expressed are personal)
إرسال تعليق