JOIN USIn New India, secularists need to do more
There was nothing unusual about the card; just one of your regular wedding reception invitations. Lord Ganesh's name on top, family members' names prominently displayed, and "blessings" from well-wishers – all unambiguously Hindu names. Even the venue was obviously a Hindu-owned hall.
But there was one fatal flaw: the Muslim names of the groom and his parents. How could this abomination be tolerated by those who currently hold sway over our lives? So, what was scheduled last Sunday as a celebration of a daughter's wedding, one of the most crucial occasions in any family's life, had to be cancelled.
Here were two families going about their lives normally. They hadn't violated any law. Indeed, they had shown themselves to be model citizens of a 21st-century secular country, the largest democracy in the world. The couple had opted for a court marriage. Unlike most other families, this girl's family had accepted her decision to marry a Muslim. And even more unusually, it wasn't her parents, but the patriarch of her family, her paternal grandfather, who'd invited guests for the reception. When a son-in-law from another faith is accepted at that level, and that acceptance is publicly displayed, even the most hidebound keep their disapproval to themselves.
Not in New India, as the family was to discover. In this new country, your private life is no longer private. Mumbai is notorious for the anonymity it offers you, but apparently, not anymore. Whether you live in a distant suburb or in Mumbai's most happening area, there's no escaping the hawk eyes of those on a mission to "save our girls". You may be an adult, and your family may have no objection, but none of this matters. Divya Dudhrejiya should count herself lucky that somehow, the mandatory notice she and Imran Mukadam must have given to the Marriage Registrar's office three months earlier, escaped the evil eye that's always on the lookout for instances of Hindu girls marrying Muslim men. Hence she could get married in peace.
So what did Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke, who tweeted the invitation card and linked it to the Aftab Poonawala-Shraddha Walkar case, gain, except for turning a happy occasion into one fraught with tension and regret? He didn't succeed in his aim of "saving" one more "misguided" Hindu girl. At any rate, it's with unwilling parents that vigilantes like Chavhanke succeed, not with the girls concerned. On the contrary, reports from UP and MP have shown that Hindu girls from small towns have not hesitated, even in public spaces and in front of the camera, to confront Hindutva bullies with defiant assertions of love for their Muslim partners. Unless the couple is physically separated, as has happened with a few unlucky youngsters after so-called "love jihad" laws have been enacted in BJP-ruled states, it's unlikely that a Hindu-Muslim couple would call off their marriage on the insistence of bigots like Chavhanke. Interviews with inter-faith couples show that the decision to marry is not taken impulsively; on the contrary, both partners spend years trying to convince their families, and elope only when faced with no alternative. In this case, the couple had known each other for 11 years before they got married. Obviously, they had waited for their families to accept their decision.
What makes one angry is that a known hate speech offender, one who's been pulled up by the Supreme Court, had the power to ruin a special occasion for two families – or was allowed to wield this power. The reception could have been held as scheduled, had the police acted. They were tagged many times after Chavhanke's tweet went viral. It's hardly possible that the Maharashtra Police, which makes such a brouhaha about its cyber wing, didn't notice the tweets. Couldn't they have assured the family that they would provide them security till the reception was over? Maintaining law and order, and foiling the plans of offenders, are what the police are paid for. By tweeting the invitation card and linking it to the Aftab Poonawala case, to terrorism and "love jihad", Chavhanke was spreading communal enmity, an offence under IPC Sec 153 A. But he remained untouched, while his targets paid for his crime.
There was another way this special occasion could have remained special. Mumbai has enough secular-minded, public-spirited citizens who support inter-faith couples. Had they been organised as a group, they could have pressurised the police into providing protection at the venue. Maybe, they could have themselves formed a security shield there. Or at least offered an alternate venue to the family. Belief in secularism is excellent, but in New India, secularists need to do more.
(Jyoti Punwani is a journalist)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.