Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Since ancient times, relationships, from casual to formal marriage, have always been influenced by religious beliefs, social hierarchy, and resulting power politics. Conflicting views on individual rights, mutual respect, freedom, and privacy in a relationship have always been debated, and a few have been acted upon.
The age of monarchies had the kingdom showing exceptionalism in their personal relationships (redefining morality for personal needs) but had a major influence on their subclasses, who were less aware of society. The kingdom was seen as the jury that delivers the right verdict on who is good enough, the threshold of punishment in cases of violations, all justified by the established religious laws, the kingdom’s claims of being the caretaker of religious institutions, and the resulting power imbalance that the kingdom enjoyed. From the medieval era to the modern era, relationships and their practices have also evolved into newer definitions. The case in point here is live-in relationships.
In a modern state, the state is looked upon as an institution that encourages individual decision-making and gives legal help and protection to individuals who face discrimination due to various social factors. A modern state frames laws that put emphasis on inclusiveness, reconciliation, and accommodation. It was never intended to put people under mandatory surveillance or act in accordance with certain rigid community beliefs. But 75 years post-independence, we have the state deciding to actively monitor premarital relationships, acting as an extended family exerting control over couples.
The concept of live-in relationships in South Asian society has thus far been seen as contentious and always sceptical when compared with formal marriage. This sentiment has been properly captured by the political state of Uttarakhand, with the state making it mandatory and punishable in case of violation under the new Uniform Civil Code bill—the registration of live-in relationships. While the state might disguise it as a law to assuage the concerns of parents and as a protection for women’s rights, there are other political dimensions and social factors to it.
With the state making it a formal registration as in marriage, it can justify its moral policing to any extent. What this also does is expose the couples to unwanted opinions, shaming, open threats, and possible isolation. Under the current political climate, vigilante groups, local politicians, and village heads will have a free run to barge into any house and target couples across communities. The parents being pulled into the limelight will also feel the pressure to comply with these rules and to accept subsequent embarrassments.
This violates the basic rights of dignity and privacy of couples and their families. But politically, it fits into the narrative like the controversial Love-Jihad.
Since the state here is more focused on constant monitoring mode and not on respecting the individual privacy of couples, there is a strong case to understand how this will play out at the individual as well as community level.
1) The conservative and narrow beliefs of a certain group of people from across communities get legitimised and imposed with state support, solidifying caste differences and hierarchy in the minds of the next generation. We will more likely see institutional torture done at the request of families in communities with high influence.
2) Couples exposed to the streets to awful comments, shame calling, and threats that force them into certain decisions, resulting in long-term trauma. Community-based decision-making under coercion will invade the private spaces of families and violate their right to personal choice and privacy.
3) Couples who later find discomfort in the live-in relationship will struggle to come out since it is well-known outside, resulting in more stress and mental and physical abuse, especially in the case of women.
4) The obvious slut-shaming that the woman will face with her relationship status out in the public domain and the subsequent possibility of a breakdown of family relations.
5) The eventuality of young couples moving out of the state for the same reason of excessive state control over their personal affairs.
In a modern state, individuals and their choices and rights need to be exercised by themselves, making individuals accountable. Excessive state control by keeping young couples under surveillance, whether they marry or not, does not ensure a happy future in a relationship and certainly won’t help families sort it out. It won’t make rude men behave nicely, ensure help for women with chores at home, or save her from abuse. Relationships evolve with understanding, care, and respect for each other and their families without any external pressure, and they survive on these values and not through state control and punishment. The state should be there as an instrument of empowerment rather than an instrument of coercion and imposition.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.