Love Jihad: Is interfaith marriage a ploy to convert?

The motive behind a marriage might be anything but love. It could be money or status or the desire to further one's career prospects or the need to flaunt an attractive spouse. Or the simple reason that the prospective bride/groom happened to the first one in the array of faces and profiles in a matrimonial site to fit the criteria of his/her idea of a life partner. Or the only one willing after countless rejections.

In some cases, especially in a country like India, the motive is made explicit by the demand for dowry. On the other hand, a man who had not asked for any dowry will certainly gain financially, even though not immediately, from the marriage to the daughter of wealthy parents or a self-made woman with a lucrative career. The same applies to a woman marrying a professionally successful man or the son of one. No matter what jealous gossip-mongers would like to say, the motive behind such unions might not be money after all. Or might be. The point is if Mr X and Miss Y decide to marry, it is impossible for a third person to know the motive. Then how is it that when two people belonging to different religions wish to marry, entire villages/towns/political outfits/newspaper readers/random Facebook users, who do not even  know the couple personally, jump to the conclusion that the man's motive is to convert the woman to his own religion?

The common accusation against men from the minority community who choose their wives from the majority community is that they have brainwashed the women. Such a statement is infuriating for more reasons than one. When a man fancies a woman he will try to impress her (unless he is a rapist)  - influence her into thinking that he is the most suitable partner for her by highlighting his strengths and concealing his shortcomings. Through thousands of years, that is how couples have courted, settled down and produced off springs. To call his natural inclination to woo a woman 'brainwashing' just because she happens to belong to a different religion is preposterous to say the least. Moreover, it considers women to be hapless creatures robbed of any agency or intelligence. It overlooks the fact that a women might be self-assured enough to make the first move in a relationship and that it might be she who had sought to impress the man - in the words of those who oppose their union 'brainwashed' him.

When two people fall in love, they will naturally wish to spend their lives together. It is nothing but an act of cruelty to separate them in the name of religion/caste/tradition etc. Romantic feelings can develop between two people who study/work/travel/play together or even steal glimpses at each other at a bus stop. It is also against the interest of the nation to prevent members from different communities from interacting with each other lest they fall in love and marry. Such restrictions can only breed intolerance, discrimination and terrorism and is against the very idea of individual freedom cherished in every civilized nation.

It is no surprise that people nurture a lot of affection for their own religion as it is an intrinsic part of their identity, but it escapes me how the same people, many of whom are highly educated and well placed professionals, harbor no love for the constitution which is also indelibly linked to their national identity and which grants full freedom to every individual to chose their own partners irrespective of religion, community and caste.

The self-appointed guardians of religion who think their religion is under threat because of certain marriages which they refer by the strange term 'Love Jihad'; people who would violate the law and the constitution and cause untold emotional distress to young people in love to prevent such unions perhaps should pause for a moment to ponder that when their religion had survived the many twists and turns in history, the series of foreign invasions, the shifting of tastes and territories, and probably happens to be the oldest surviving religion in the world, practiced from the times of the Indus valley civilization (as far as I am aware none practices the religions that were prevalent in ancient Egypt, Greece or China though the religion of ancient Persia still has a few but highly distinguished followers in India), how can it be crushed into extinction by someone's choice of a life partner.

To force apart two people who intend to marry(or had already married) is against the principles of kindness, respect and justness which are embedded in all religions. Even in the epics venerated by all such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the bullies get defeated in the end. Ravana was punished for trying to impose his will on Sita and the Kauravas for depriving the Pandavas of their rights. People who disrupt marriages (nowadays even friendships) through mob violence and other forms of intimidation might be enjoying popular support from certain outfits and some bigots like themselves on social media, but they can never be considered as true believers of their religion.