A question of will

Hadiya has right to choose her spouse, NIA probe into love jihad can continue

At the age of 24 one is old enough to drive, vote in an election, in some States in India drink alcohol legally, and most certainly marry a person of their choice. Because legally the moment one turns 18, one is, in the eyes of the law, an adult. Commit a crime at 17 years and 365 days and the punishment is potentially quite different (until some recent amendments) than that for an adult. Now, one can argue ad nauseum that a person is quite the same at 17 years and 365 days old and the next day when s/he turns 18. It is not as if there is a switch in your anatomical makeup that suddenly flicks on the moment you turn 18. But that is the way the law looks at it, and until someone comes up with a better method to judge ‘adulthood' that is the way it will remain.

Yes, it is true that in India many young people even after reaching majority stay with their parents. In fact, it is a rare Indian household where a girl or boy does not continue to stay with his or her parents until they get married and sometimes after that as well. Many parents therefore assume that because of this ‘system' and because the youth are still financially and emotionally dependent on them, it gives them the right to take decisions on their behalf. Where they should study, who they should meet and importantly whom they should marry. Many young Indians do not question parental authority, at least most of the time. But as Indian society changes, young people are now moving out of parental control at a younger age; they find jobs elsewhere and move cities and even countries. This gives young people a lot more financial independence and with that comes freedom, rather free will. That is best expressed in the ability to marry whom they want and when they want.

India might be becoming an increasingly Western society in some ways but we still hold on to some age-old, on occasion troubling, ‘virtues'. Particularly, when it comes to caste and religion. Among upper class, educated and comparatively privileged Indians, who comprise less than one percent of the population, this is not such a problem. Indeed, in an ideal world, two consenting adults should be able to marry whomsoever they please, and a Universal Civil Code should bring with it a universal marriage Act that should allow this without caste and religious considerations coming into play.

But as the Hadiya case proves, a vast majority of Indian parents have an issue when their children express their will as adults and marry a person of their choice. And when it comes to a Hindu girl marrying a Muslim boy the bogey of ‘love jihad' is immediately raised without pausing for reflection. This is a highly contentious and extremely polarising issue. That allegations have been raised and are rightly being probed by the National Investigation Agency under the supervision of the Supreme Court is entirely appropriate. But that should not become a handle for those with preconceived notions to label every inter-religious marriage an example of love jihad, which is unfortunately what is happening. If parents do not want their wards to marry someone from another community they should raise their children accordingly but accept with good grace that once adults, the latter will decide for themselves. The laws of the land allow two individuals to get married when they are adults and it's as simple as that.

The Supreme Court in the Hadiya case has tried to balance the imperative to protect this Constitutional freedom by releasing her from the custody of her parents, while at the same time taking note of the NIA's rather disturbing findings and has therefore posted for January hearing on the issue of whether Hadiya's marriage was an expression of her free will or the result of coercion in some way, manner or form. We should trust the Court to protect our freedom.