Written by Harshita Kumari
The Maharashtra government’s 13-member state-level panel to track inter-community marriages initially imagined its scope to include both inter-caste and inter-religious marriages. It has now altered its mandate to include only the latter, following a report in this newspaper. The inception and imagination of a panel such as this are laden with a range of legal and political problems and while time will tell if the panel stands the test of constitutional viability vis a vis Article 21 and other enshrined principles of equality and secularism, it brings to the fore an oft-repeated but easily forgotten historical theme in the modern Indian nation-state — the paternal state.
The public obsession around inter-caste and inter-religious marriages is symptomatic of a colonial legacy that placed women’s sexual propriety at the centre of constructing the civilisational discourse. The colonial state redefined both femininity and masculinity and their performance via an admixture of legislative steps and public debates. Consequently, the marital home became the last haven for the colonised Indian male, who felt emasculated by the colonial state in the public realm. And while we no longer remain a colonised population, the collective consciousness still appears committed to preserving the institution of the endogamous patriarchal marriage, for its preservation is co-terminus with the performance of desirable masculine norms for most men.
The oxymoron called “love jihad” is a culmination of precisely these obsessions and anxieties. With states like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh already putting in place anti-conversion legislation to counteract “love jihad”, Maharashtra’s joining of the chorus only deepens the social faultlines. But why is the state interested in regulating the life of two consenting adults? One answer lies in how the state also engages in a gendered performance for reasons of legitimacy and approval.
One of these performances occurred at the time of Partition, with the Indian state’s Inter Dominion Treaty with Pakistan that aimed at the recovery and rehabilitation of women to their “native homelands”, which in turn were defined by men for women. Think Gadar, and Mayor Ashraf Ali’s relentless pursuit to “relocate and rehabilitate Sakina”. The “rescued” women, ironically, were peripheral to their saving. As Urvashi Butalia shows, in the post-colonial, deeply contested, fragile and vulnerable state, the question of gender became crucial in the self-legitimation of both the state and the community.
While there have been no attempts at regulation of inter-community marriages in India since Independence barring the unfortunate events around Partition and Inter Dominion Treaty; on the contrary, governments including the current BJP government have incentivised inter-caste marriages. But the vitriol surrounding inter-religious marriages is not new, and is symptomatic of anxieties over masculinity. Charu Gupta explores precisely these anxieties when writing about the Hindu-Muslim riots of the 1920s: “These movements constructed Hindu masculinity as a contrast to the colonial image of the emasculated, effeminate and militarily incompetent Hindu male. For militant Hindu organisations, a show of physical strength was their psychological defence, their reply to the images of the powerful, rational British and the lustful Muslim.”
If lessons from history are to serve a purpose for policy mandates, then the works of Kamla Bhasin and Ritu Menon are stark reminders of how benevolent paternalism of states has not only served to deepen existing patriarchal norms but has divested women of choice and agency. The rescue and rehabilitation of “lost women”, following Partition, was an exercise in not only undermining women’s agency and voices but also actively endangering their physical and mental well-being. Stories from these rehabilitation camps are filled with incidents of abandonment by native families and failure to integrate into natal homes upon the return of these women.
The proposed Maharashtra panel commits itself to the same errors, but in the 21st century as more and more commitments are made for upholding gender equity and equality. As India embarks on a path to becoming a world leader, it is crucial to restore the full rights of citizenship to women. As a country that enfranchised all its citizens with one stroke at midnight, a long time has elapsed for it to not have engendered citizenship with the same fidelity.
The writer has completed her postgraduate degree in history from the University of Delhi and is a freelance writer.
