Introduction:
Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. The movement has also been described by some, as anti-feminist due to paternalistic attitudes towards women’s choice in marriage and by allegedly using women’s rights as a cover for Hindu nationalism.
The concept rose to national attention in India in 2009 with alleged conversions first in Kerala and subsequently, in Karnataka[1]. The claims have subsequently spread throughout India and beyond, into Myanmar, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. With waves of publicity in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014, the allegations of Love Jihad in India have raised concerns in various Hindu, Sikh, and Christian organizations, while Muslim organizations have denied the allegations. The concept has remained a source of political contention and social concern for many, although as of 2014 the idea of an organized Love Jihad was still widely regarded as a conspiracy theory by the Indian mainstream.
The effectiveness of emotional appeals in converting people from one faith to another is well known and often exploited by religious leaders.[2] Religious groups have utilized techniques like love bombing and Flirty Fishing to interest potential recruits. Love Jihad is an alleged activity wherein Muslim youth utilize such emotional appeals, using charm to entice girls into conversion by feigning love – in some reports, as an organized, funded behavior.
Similar controversies over inter-religious marriage were relatively common in India from the 1920s until independence in 1947, when allegations of forced marriage were typically called “abductions”.[3] They were more common in religiously diverse areas, including campaigns against both Muslims and Christians, and were tied to fears over religious demographics and political power in the newly emerging Indian nation. Fears of women converting was also a catalyst of the violence against women that occurred during that period.
Love Jihad was initially alleged to be conducted in Kerala and Mangalore in the coastal Karnataka region. The idea of love jihad became of national interest in 2009 when the Karnataka High Court order[4] asked for a joint investigation by the Karnataka and Kerala police into the “love jihad movement”. The order was in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by parents of an adult woman who, by her admission in court, had married a Muslim man and willingly converted to Islam. Despite her statement, the woman, who was a resident of Chamarajanagar in southern Karnataka, was directed by the court to live with her parents until an investigation report was produced. What was even more surprising was that the court linked the habeas corpus petition with other cases of missing women across the state, who according to the court, could have been victims of ‘love jihad’.
What is Love Jihad Law?
The Uttar Pradesh cabinet cleared a draft ordinance against forceful inter-faith conversions or the so-called love jihad amid similar steps taken by other states there is a sense that this law would be more vigorously implemented in any Uttar Pradesh compared to other states. The UP-state law commission had already submitted a report before the Chief Minister a year ago proposing the need for such a law citing the rising number of forced conversion cases in Uttar Pradesh through fraudulent means.
The proposed law cleared by the Uttar Pradesh cabinet defines punishment and fine under three different heads. Those found guilty of inter-faith conversion done through “misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means” in contravention of the law would face a jail term of one to five years and a minimum fine of Rs.15000.
In case, such conversion is of a minor, a woman from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then those found guilty would have to face a jail term from three to ten years with a minimum fine of Rs.25000.
On the other hand, if such conversion is found at the mass level, then those guilty would face jail term from three to ten years with a minimum fine of Rs.50000
In another significant provision, the proposed law termed “Uttar Pradesh Vidhi Virudh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adyadesh 2020” (prohibition of unlawful religious conversion) proposes among other things that a marriage will be declared “shunya” (null and void) if the sole intention of the same is to “change the girl’s religion”.
Under the new proposed law, anyone wanting to convert into another religion would have to give it in writing to the District Magistrate at least two months in advance. The government is supposed to prepare a format for the application and the individual has to fill the application for conversion in that format. However, under the new law, it would be the responsibility of the one going for the religious conversion to prove that it is not taking place forcefully or with any fraudulent means. In case any violation is found under the provision, then one faces a jail term from 6 months to 3 years and a fine of minimum Rs.10000.[5]
Constitutional Validity of Love Jihad Law
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and personal liberty[6] and Article 25[7] guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Thus, under Article 21 of the constitution which gives the citizens the right to privacy it essentially provides the citizens of India the right to marry a partner of one’s choice.
Marriage is primarily a social and legal institution rather than a religious one. Implementing the law on an inter-faith couple that duly completes the formalities for the registration of marriage is in direct violation of their fundamental right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution of India.
The upcoming law, called ‘Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Bill 2020’, is worded to claim that it criminalizes only forced religious conversions, however, it has the effect of allowing the State to enter the private decisions of inter-faith couples of how they want to get married. The UP law can have the effect of discouraging with punitive action the marriage between two consenting adults of different faiths, especially because the terms it uses are vague. Any such law cannot hold ground because it is contrary to the basic values of the Constitution on multiple counts. Marriage is an extremely personal affair. The right to marry a person of one’s choice or to choose one’s partner is an aspect of constitutional liberty as well as privacy. The fundamental right to privacy protects an individual’s ability to make choices and decisions that are intimate.
In the case of Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M,[8] the Supreme Court reiterated this position of law, where it rejected the allegation that Hadiya had been forcefully converted to another religion for marriage. It held: “How Hadiya chooses to lead her life is entirely a matter of her choice”. The court emphasized the principles of individual autonomy and dignity with the expectation that “such an injustice shall not again be visited either on Hadiya or any other citizen”.
Contrary to the expectation of the Supreme Court, the UP ordinance and the ambiguities in it can be used to violate an individual’s ability to exercise her or his choice. Furthermore, the constitutional framework does not allow social approval as a basis for recognizing personal decisions. Given the conservative nature of Indian society, inter-community marriages are discouraged, often even leading to honor killings. In such circumstances, when it is against family or societal approval, it becomes difficult for interfaith couples to marry even under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 – a law for interfaith marriages.
Reports have shown that the mandatory 30-day notice period to raise objections to a proposed marriage under the Act allows the harassment of the couple by family members or even goons, who are opposed to their marriage. To avoid such harassment, couples may have opted to convert to their partner’s religion to get married without the 30-day waiting period. For some individuals, the choice of their partner is much more important than his/her religion.
The concept of “love jihad” is based on the premise that Hindu women are incapable of deciding for themselves and would easily become prey to forced conversions. Such a narrative reflects the caste system. B.R. Ambedkar had stated that patriarchal control over female sexuality was an essential component for reinforcement of the caste system.[9]
Conclusion
As stated above the concept of love jihad and its existence can still not be proved with substantial evidence and the new draft ordinance passed by the Uttar Pradesh cabinet and subsequent Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) led states to prove the deeply rooted political agenda that is hidden in the ordinance which is very unfavorable for the Muslim Community as a religious minority. Marriage should be more of a social institution than a religious one and instead of passing this new ordinance which is unconstitutional as stated the state should be protecting the interests of interfaith couples. The right to privacy is a very important fundamental right provided by the Indian Constitution and this right should be rightly protected.
References:
[1] Wahab, Hisham ul (7 June 2018). “Kerala’s ‘Love Jihad’ Incidents Haven’t Ended With Hadiya”. TheQuint.
[2]Rambo, Lewis R.; Farhadian, Charles E. (18 February 2014). The Oxford Handbook of Religious Conversion. Oxford University Press, US. p. 145
[3] “Ram Sene coined ‘love jihad’, but first ‘case’ goes back a century | India News – Times of India”. The Times of India. Retrieved 14 November 2020
[4] SAYEED, V. A. (2009, November 20). Love and hate. Frontline. https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30185770.ece
[5] Explained: The Uttar Pradesh ‘love jihad’ law, and why it could be implemented vigorously. (2020, December 1). The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-uttar-pradeshs-love-jihad-law-and-why-it-could-be-implemented-vigorously-7066156/
[6] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.21.
[7] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.25.
[8] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2018
[9] Bhaskar, A. (2020, November 25). UP doesn’t need a new anti-conversion law. But India needs a stronger Special Marriage Act. ThePrint. https://theprint.in/opinion/up-doesnt-need-anti-conversion-law-india-needs-stronger-special-marriage-act/551516/
0 Comments