The TLDR: Almost each day brings a new case of so-called ‘love jihad’ in Uttar Pradesh—which has become ground zero for a militant Hindutva campaign to stamp out interfaith marriages. But these new laws are just the latest iteration in a long history of anti-conversion fear mongering that spans parties and states—and dates back to pre-Independence India.

First, what’s happening in UP?

In the latest case: a Muslim man and his brother were arrested when he and his Hindu wife went to register their marriage at the local office. The couple were surrounded by Bajrang Dal activists and the two men were handed over to the police—even though the woman told journalists:

"I am an adult, I am 22 years old. I got married of my own free will on the 24th of July. This is the fifth month that we have been married.”

The complaint appears to have been filed by the woman’s mother—even though there is no evidence that either partner plans to convert. 

Previous cases: This is the fifth such case filed since the UP government passed an ordinance that made it a crime to convert solely for the purpose of marriage—or use marriage as an “allurement” to force someone to convert. Previous such arrests have been no less bizarre and arbitrary. In the first such case, Uwais Ahmed was arrested for trying to convert an old schoolmate—who is already married to someone else. 

Also this: The police blocked an interfaith marriage—even when both families consented to the union. They insist all interfaith marriages must receive prior permission from the local magistrate.

“According to the new law, in interfaith marriages, it should be made clear henceforth that there is consent from either side prior to the wedding so that later there is no pressure and no scope for blame that forced conversion has taken place.”

This is part of the BJP agenda, right?

Yes, anti-conversion hysteria has reached a new peak under the BJP, but its roots extend far into the past. Anti-conversion laws are not a new thing.

A brief anti-conversion history:

• In the early 20th century, the British offered limited representation to the natives based on their demographic numbers. This immediately whipped up worries that lower castes may convert en masse—diluting the strength of the Hindu majority.
• Also: Prior to Independence, several princely states rolled out anti-conversion laws.
• After Independence, the Union government attempted to pass similar laws but failed.
• The baton was taken up by the states. Odisha was the first to do so in 1967— motivated primarily by fears that its tribal population would convert to Christianity.
• Madhya Pradesh followed on its heels in 1968. And in the 70s, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Arunachal Pradesh instituted similar laws. (See: detailed timeline in Quint).

Point to note: Many of these anti-conversion laws have the exact same provisions as new ‘love jihad’ ordinances. They prohibit religious conversions by force, fraud or inducement/allurement. Conversions require prior permission from local authorities etc. And they impose a range of fines and jail terms on those found guilty. Over the years, various states (including Gujarat) have tried to make these laws far more stringent—with varying degrees of success.

Roots of ‘love jihad’: The term was coined by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in 2009— to describe a mass conspiracy by Muslim men (love romeos) to convert Hindu women by “trapping” them into marriage. While the Kerala police investigation into their allegation came up empty, the rhetoric was taken up by then Kerala CM VS Achuthanandan (CPIM), who claimed that a radical organisation was trying to increase the number of Muslims “by influencing youth of other religions and converting them by giving money, marrying them to Muslim women and thus producing kids of the community.”

As recently as 2017, Church leaders in Kerala joined hands with the BJP alleging the “rampant conversion” of Christian women—and also attempts to recruit them to the Islamic State cause in some instances.

Point to note: The narrative that Muslims are seducing Hindu women to multiply their numbers has long been popular. As Feminism In India points out:

“[I]n early 20th century, stories of ‘abduction’ of Hindu women by Muslim men were considerably sensationalised by the press, strengthening the image of a virile and predatory Muslim. Since this accumulated a larger audience and increased readership, the press continued to release these stories, often employing exaggerations to the degree of misinformation. Court proceedings of cases of interfaith affairs were also covered extensively and dramatised.”

So what’s new here?

One: The first ‘love jihad’ law passed in Himachal Pradesh last year is the model for the one in UP—and others being considered in Haryana etc. It is also the first to mention marriage as a means of forcible conversion:

“[N]o person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, inducement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage; nor shall any person abet or conspire such conversion.”

Two: If one partner is planning to convert, they must first get permission from the local magistrate.  And the local police will first investigate whether the planned conversion is ‘forced’ or ‘fraudulent’. Without such permission, the marriage will be declared null and void. This is the first time the state has claimed the authority to certify the validity of a marriage between two consenting adults.

Three: If the conversion is deemed illegal, the law does not punish the person planning to convert: 

“Section 12 of the law places the burden of proving that an individual lawfully converted on people who ‘caused’ or ‘facilitated’ the conversion and not on the individual. This means that even if a woman, who has converted from one religion to another, says that she had consented to the conversion, this will not be sufficient. The individual’s partner, who is deemed to have ‘caused’ the conversion, will have to prove the real intention of the conversion.”

In other words, the Muslim husband will be deemed guilty until he proves himself innocent—and the consent of his Hindu wife will not suffice as evidence. 

Four: Charges of ‘fraud’ can be filed by family members, and not just the spouse. In the case of the wedding that was blocked in UP, the complaint that triggered the action was made by a local Hindutva leader.

The bottomline: Legal groups have already filed a Public Interest Litigation with the Supreme Court challenging these laws—whose constitutionality remains to be determined. Most recently, the Allahabad High Court upheld a woman’s right to choose her life partner. And the Supreme Court has done the same in a landmark 2018 judgement, as well. But in these uncertain times, no one can predict which way the legal hawaa will blow.

Reading list

• Firstpost has the best piece on the overall chilling effect of these laws. Indian Express looks specifically at the UP law. 
• Hindustan Times has more on the legal challenges filed in the Supreme Court. 
• A related read: This older Scroll piece on the Supreme Court’s Hadiya judgement which may serve as precedent. Also see: The recent Allahabad Court ruling in The Wire. 
• For op-eds: Check out SA Aiyar’s constitutional critique in Times of India; Zainab Sikander on the Hindu Rashtra project in The Print; Amita Pitre on the infantilising of women in Quint; Mohan Rao on the history of love jihad in Indian Express.
• A great read: Feminism In India on the virile Hindu hero who rescues Muslim women.