Gossip about public figures, especially film stars and their private lives, once belonged to Page Three or the celebrity magazines lying around in waiting rooms. Not anymore. Social media has changed the relationship between celebrities and the public. People no longer just consume gossip; they participate in it in real time. It sometimes feels like the neighbourhood uncle-aunty gossip session has simply moved online—only now it plays out on a national level instead of local mohalla.
Aamir Khan’s recent marriage to entrepreneur and fashion stylist Gauri Spratt has generated a storm of headlines, memes, and endless social media commentary. But one development stood out. Somehow, the actor’s third marriage managed to upset sections of both the Hindu right and conservative Muslim voices. Even more ironically, a public fatwa was reportedly issued condemning the marriage.
It’s understandable that ordinary Indians may indulge in a few jokes. Satirists, meme pages, and social media users will likely mock a 61-year-old actor getting married for the third time. That is hardly surprising, given how Indian society has long valued the idea of one lifelong partner. And while attitudes towards divorce have changed somewhat, particularly in urban India, multiple divorces are still often viewed with suspicion. Many people instinctively assume the fault must lie with the individual rather than acknowledging that any relationship is complicated.
Of course, Indians do not really believe personal matters are personal. Someone else’s life is often everybody else’s business. That is simply part of our social culture. So the jokes and the gossip were going to come. But what is incomprehensible is the allegation of love jihad and the issuance of a fatwa at same time.
‘Love jihad’ and public fatwa
Aamir Khan’s all three marriages — Reena Dutta, Kiran Rao, and now Gauri Spratt — were interfaith conducted under India’s civil law. None of his wives converted to Islam.
If the idea behind “love jihad” laws is to protect women from deception, coercion, or forced religious conversion, then from what angle does Aamir Khan’s marriage fit that description? Here is a man whose marriages were entered into publicly and ended, where they ended, through mutual consent and respect. His wives did not convert to Islam. His own family has a long history of respecting individual choice in marriage. His sister married a Hindu man without controversy, and interfaith relationships within the family have never been treated as a threat to religious identity.
So what exactly is the basis for Maharashtra BJP minister Nitesh Rane describing this as “love jihad”? If every interfaith marriage involving a Muslim man is automatically placed in that category, then the term ceases to describe coercion and instead becomes a label applied on Muslim choices regardless of the facts.
Some Muslim clerics were not far behind, issuing a fatwa against the marriage. That left me with an even simpler question: why?
A fatwa, after all, is nothing more than a legal opinion issued by an Islamic scholar, usually in response to someone seeking religious guidance. So who exactly was asking for a scholarly opinion on a celebrity’s personal life? If Aamir Khan himself wanted religious advice, he could have sought it privately. Turning it into a public spectacle seems far more about headlines than about offering genuine guidance.
The funny part is that these same clerics would not have issued a fatwa if Aamir Khan’s wives had converted to Islam and the actor was still married to both Reena and Kiran. That would probably have been far more acceptable to them than marrying under India’s civil law while respecting each woman’s right to keep her own faith. The problem is not multiple marriages; the problem is respecting a woman’s choice to remain in her own faith.
Facts haven’t changed, India has
So why have the “love jihad” allegation and public fatwa come only after the third marriage?
When Khan married Reena Dutta in 1986, India had no social media, no 24-hour news cycle, and no digital ecosystem capable of turning every religious opinion into a viral political debate. By the time he married Kiran Rao in 2005, the media landscape had changed considerably. Yet there was no talk of “love jihad” nor was any fatwa issued.
Today, the outrage machine is always switched on. Everything is turned into an opportunity to reinforce ideological narratives, and fight culture wars.
What makes the fatwa even more puzzling is that Gauri Spratt is a Christian. Under many traditional Islamic jurisprudence, a Muslim man marrying a Christian or Jewish woman is considered permissible because they are regarded as Ahl al-Kitab—the “People of the Book.” That only makes the fatwa harder to understand.
This controversy says far less about Aamir Khan’s marriage than it does about the society we have become. The facts about Aamir Khan’s marriages have not changed much, yet the reactions today are dramatically different.
Whether one believes Aamir Khan made the right personal choice is entirely a matter of individual conscience. Whether one agrees with the religious opinion issued against his marriage is equally a matter of faith and interpretation.
But one question remains worth asking: If the facts have remained largely the same across three marriages, what changed between 1986, 2005, and 2026?
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist, writer, and TV news panellist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)