A newspaper report states that a grand convention of the Thakor community was held in Patan, a North Gujarat town, where it was claimed that a “new dawn of social reform” had arrived. According to the report, resolutions were passed declaring that, in the name of protecting children and preserving social honour, the community would not accept live-in relationships or marriages contracted by eloping couples. Along with these, other resolutions were adopted. Measures aimed at promoting education and curbing wasteful, showy expenditure are certainly welcome. But the resolutions opposing live-in relationships and marriages by choice are difficult to accept or justify.
What exactly is meant by “social honour”? In its name, domination and servitude are being perpetuated.
Every caste has its own association, and such bodies frame various rules. If these organisations are registered under law, they may even have formal constitutions. But the newspaper report says that a meeting of leaders was held regarding a “new constitution”. What kind of constitution can a caste have that claims authority over the most intimate choices of individuals?
The real question is this: whether to enter into a live-in relationship or not is a decision that belongs solely to the two individuals concerned. Family or community has no legitimate role to play in it, and nor should it. Every individual has the right to decide whom to befriend, whom to love, and how long to live with someone. This right is implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution of India itself. It flows directly from Article 21, which deals with the right to life and personal liberty, titled “Protection of life and personal liberty”. Deciding with whom to live, and for how long, is integral to personal freedom. Without this autonomy, there can be no real protection of individual liberty. Any caste-based constitution that refuses to accept live-in relationships clearly stands in opposition to the Constitution of the country.
The second issue concerns marriages by elopement. Why do young couples elope to marry? The answer is obvious: they fear that their parents do not agree, or will not agree, to their marriage. If the Thakor community decides that it will not accept such marriages, the problem lies not with the couple but with the mindset that produces such resolutions. Instead of addressing this lack of understanding, these decisions create an atmosphere of fear and coercion.
Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations states two clear principles: first, that men and women of full age have the right to marry and to found a family without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, and that they enjoy equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution; second, that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The Thakor community convention insisted that marriages must take place only with parental consent. But what if those who wish to marry want to marry the person they love? Parental consent may be desirable, but to impose a social prohibition on marriage in its absence is sheer nonsense. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that romantic love itself should not exist, and even if it does, it should never culminate in marriage. It also implies that divorce should be discouraged at all costs, because remarriage too would then require parental approval. Such thinking reduces adults to permanent minors.
Underlying all this is a deeply flawed assumption: that the partner chosen by parents will necessarily be good, while the partner chosen by a son or daughter will necessarily be unsuitable. This assumption is utterly baseless. There is no rational ground on which it can stand.
A few years ago, caste organisations of the Patel community in Surat and Rajkot made hundreds of young men and women take pledges that they would marry only whom their parents chose. This is nothing but social bullying. It is social tyranny.
The irony is striking. Hindu tradition celebrates the love of Krishna and Radha, where Krishna is younger than Radha and Radha is a married woman. Temples are built for them, prayers are offered, aartis are performed. In Mathura and Vrindavan, rickshaw pullers shout “Radhe Radhe” to attract passengers, and pilgrims return home proudly recounting these experiences. The same society that venerates this love then turns around and forbids love in real life. This hypocrisy and authoritarianism are staggering. Hindu scriptures are replete with stories of love and love marriages, without any trace of caste barriers. How, then, did this social distortion creep into caste practices?
Another common argument is that young people are immature and incapable of choosing wisely in matters of marriage, and that their lives will be ruined if left to their own decisions. What is truly astonishing is that these communities fail to see that it is precisely the denial of the right to live with the person one loves that ruins lives. Love that binds children through fear and control is not love at all; it is a prison.
Let people love whom they wish. Let them marry whom they wish. Let them live together for as long as they wish, or separate if they no longer wish to stay together. Why must anyone be forcibly tied to a peg? This freedom is central to a meaningful human life. Consider how divorce cases drag on in courts for years, consuming the prime years of two lives. Such laws and norms defy comprehension. When people seek divorce, due process should be followed and separation granted as swiftly as possible, so that individuals can live their lives on their own terms.
In short, romantic love is a fundamental human right. By attacking it in the name of social honour, caste organisations within Hindu society are behaving like moral vigilantes. True freedom lies in allowing each person to live with whomever they choose, in the manner they choose. This critique is not limited to the Thakor community alone; it applies to all Hindu castes and their social bodies.
---
*Senior academic based in Ahmedabad
Comments