Hadiya and Love Jihad in the Supreme Court

This week, on Monday, 27 November 2017, the Supreme Court of India directed Hadiya, a 24-year old student to resume her studies, and appointed the Dean of her college as her guardian. The case was launched by Hadiya’s husband, Shafin Jahan, against Ashokan K.M., Hadiya’s father. Hadiya was trapped, against her will, in her father’s house. It was hoped the Supreme Court would let the 24- year old woman reunite with her husband. That didn’t happen. Indian and British Media called it a ‘love jihad’ case and expressed shock at the court’s decision.

The story of Hadiya

For readers unaware of the case, here is a brief synopsis of the sequence of events as reported in the media.

Hadiya was born Akhila Ashokan, a Hindu. Her father Ashokan K.M. is a communist and accordingly, an atheist. Akhila is his only child. She was a homeopathic medical student in Kerala. She shared a house with two Muslim friends, Faseena and Jaseena. On 6 Jan 2016, Akhila disappeared. Her father filed a missing person’s case at the police station. She was found after a few weeks.

As it turned out, Akhila had left the college and joined a two month course to study Islam at the Therbaithul Islam Sabha. Converted to Islam, she had assumed Hadiya as her new name. She started covering her head, wearing a hijab, and reciting prayers. An organisation ‘Markazul Hidaya Sathysarani trust’ was looking after her. Hadiya was found living in the house of A.S.Zainaba, the president of the National Women’s Front. This body was founded to fight for women’s rights. This house was a good 240 km away from her home town.

Shocked, the father filed a habeas corpus petition (one that alleges a person has been unlawfully detained by someone) in the High Court of Kerala. Hadiya, however, testified her conversion was voluntary, and that she was living with Zainaba out of her free will. Since she was an adult entitled to exercise free will, the High Court dismissed the petition.

In August 2016, the father filed another petition in the same court, this time claiming that his brainwashed daughter was likely to be taken out of the country. The High Court passed an interim order to keep Hadiya under surveillance. She was directed to move to a women’s hostel, but Hadiya continued to live at Zainaba’s house. She had no passport, how could anyone possibly send her abroad.

On 21 Dec 2016, Hadiya appeared in the High Court with her husband, Shafin Jahan. Their marriage had taken place two days before, on 19 Dec. Shafin Jahan’s mother was in the Gulf, and he was looking for a job there. (It was possible Hadiya would go with him abroad, as feared by her father.)

In May 2017, the High Court of Kerala annulled Hadiya’s marriage and sent her to her parents’ house. Since then, she had been living there against her will. Indian media and public opinion criticised this judicial tyranny of separating a married adult from her husband and confining her to the parental home against her wishes.

What is ‘Love Jihad?’

Love Jihad is either a conspiracy (if proven) or ‘a conspiracy theory’ (unproven) where young Muslim boys lure Hindu girls by pretending love, and make them convert to Islam in order to marry. The conversions expand the Muslim population. Some people, such as Hadiya’s father, attribute more sinister designs to these acts, such as making the girls join ISIS or other extremist groups.

The Girl in my Gym

Yashvi was a young girl, around 25, whose gym timings coincided with mine. We knew each other for more than three years, and occasionally chatted before moving from one workout machine to another. She said she was planning to get married in a few months.

‘Congratulations!’ I said and asked who the lucky boy was.

‘He is a Muslim’. She added after telling me his name.

I congratulated her again on her courage. Though I had not met her parents, I suspected they wouldn’t be the happiest lot.

‘I’ll have to change my religion.” She said.

‘Why?” I asked. ‘India allows people from different religions to marry under a secular law.’

‘But his family doesn’t allow that.’ Yashvi said.

‘You’re not marrying his family. You’re marrying the boy you love. Why isn’t he converting to Hinduism?’

‘No. It’s a pre-condition for marriage. We’ve already discussed this. He said his family won’t allow him to marry a non-Muslim girl.’

‘Well, you can refuse to marry except under a secular law. That can be your pre-condition.’

‘We’ve already been through this a few times. For me, the choice is to convert and marry him, or not marry him at all. Anyway, he says it’s only a formality. I’m not expected to wear a burqa.’

In India, certain surnames carry an aura of wealth. Yashvi’s surname was among them. It was obvious she came from a rich family.

‘That makes your decision even more courageous,’ I said to Yashvi. ‘You may no longer be entitled to any of your father’s estate.’

‘What do you mean?’ Yashvi asked.

‘You see, as Hindus your family is subject to the HUF (Hindu undivided family) law. As soon as a family member changes her religion, she becomes disqualified. Your Hindu sister would be entitled to inherit everything.’

‘That’s not possible.’ Yashvi said.

‘Well, I’m not a lawyer. But you better check those things.’

After a couple of months, Yashvi told me her impending marriage had been called off. She was willing to accept Islam for love. But her fear of losing a share in her father’s estate was stronger than that love.

I personally consider religion as man-made fiction. Religion classifies people just like citizenship does. A Hindu girl converting to Islam for marriage is like an American girl marrying a Cuban boy, by giving up the American citizenship and accepting a Cuban one. Love often extracts a heavy price from naive young people who fall in it. Yashvi is a sweet, modern girl. I was glad she wasn’t forced into conversion for the sake of marriage. But the fact she was ready for conversion was surprising for me.

Yashvi’s case is common in India. India has 190 million Muslims. It is inevitable that some of them will marry Hindus. Except those from the elite families, most Muslim boys demand Hindu girls are converted as a pre-condition to marrying them. I am not sure the reverse happens. Apostasy (leaving the religion) is still a crime in many Islamic countries, in some countries (Qatar, Yemen etc) punishable by death. 

Love Jihad is unsubstantiated. It is possible for a Muslim boy to genuinely fall in love with a Hindu girl, and not for converting her. A civilised couple should marry under India’s secular law. When that is not followed and the converted girl needs to abide by Muslim customs, cover her head or recite prayers; that can make the girl’s family uncomfortable. No wonder Ashokan K.M. was shocked to see his daughter wear the Abaya, reciting prayers five times a day, and refusing to attend her own grandfather’s funeral because it was conducted as per Hindu customs.

Husband goes to the Supreme Court 

Anyway, to continue the Hadiya story: incensed by the High Court verdict annulling their marriage and sending Hadiya to her parents’ house, Shafin Jahan filed a case against Ashokan K.M. in the Supreme Court. Hadiya and he were adults, lawfully married. They must be allowed to live together. Hadiya hated living with her parents. The Kerala High Court had forced her to live with them.

The Supreme Court bench was made of India’s chief justice, Dipak Misra; Ajay Khanwilkar, and Dhananjaya Chandrachud, three of India’s best judges in terms of calibre, integrity and experience. They indeed freed Hadiya from her parents’ custody. She has been sent to her college. The Dean has now been made responsible for her, not her parents.

What about the husband who filed the case? He can meet his wife at her hostel with the Dean’s permission. The hearing about the annulment of the marriage will take place in the third week of January. The Supreme Court has let India’s National Investigating Agency continue its Love Jihad investigation.

The Indian media has expressed anger at the order. The Kerala High court forcibly sent a married adult woman to her parents’ house. The Supreme Court has now sent her to college for studies. Where is justice?

*****

The High Court judgement

The Supreme Court judges said this case was one of the most challenging in their career. Despite all of them having a long and distinguished career.

Having read the headlines in popular media, let us now see what the High Court in Kerala has to say in its judgement. The 95 page judgement is available in www for anybody to read.

Hadiya’s conduct

Akhila alias Hadiya has repeatedly lied on oath. In a 2015 affidavit she had put ‘Aasiya’ as her name. In 2016, she renamed herself as Adhiya (in a writ petition) before settling on Hadiya. The court said it couldn’t be sure she didn’t have or won’t get a passport if she had so many names.

She claimed a monthly income of Rs 2000 as a homeopathy doctor’s assistant. It transpired she hadn’t completed her education, so she was not qualified to work as an assistant. She wasn’t working, and wasn’t earning what she claimed to.

She continued to stay at Zainaba’s place even when the court had directed her to live at the ladies’ hostel until the disposal of the petition.

Hadiya deliberately concealed her association with members of the SDPI, the political arm of the Popular Front of India, an Islamic fundamentalist organisation.  

The Kerala court, surprisingly bluntly, describes Hadiya as an ordinary girl of moderate intellectual capacity, who is gullible.

Hadiya’s husband

Shafin Jahan is an accused in ongoing cases, where he is charged with rioting, mob violence, restraining others. His Facebook posts show his radical inclination. He is a member of the SDPI and Popular Front of India.

The Kerala High Court had said they would issue an order to send Hadiya to a ladies’ hostel. To avoid that, two days before the order, the marriage happened. While the marriage registration said people from both sides attended the marriage, not a single person from her side attended. The High Court concluded it was a ‘sham’ marriage effected to bypass the possible court order. In all court hearings, not a word was mentioned about Hadiya’s planned marriage, and suddenly on 21 Dec 2016, Hadiya produced a husband in the court. The Court was unhappy about it.

The court called the marriage ‘null and void’. The judges did not annul it as portrayed by the media; they simply said it didn’t happen.

The expenses

More intriguing is the amount of money that has been spent on Hadiya by complete strangers. She was able to live and travel without parental support and own income for months. The lawyers who represented her side in the High Court were expensive.

The lawyers in the Supreme Court, including the senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Ms Indira Jaising are extravagantly expensive. Where did Shafin Jahan get the money to pay for them?

It is evident that right since her conversion Akhila alias Hadiya has been supported with huge amounts of money by strangers. This defies logic.

Not Love Jihad

This is not a ‘Love Jihad’ case. The judges clarify that a marriage between a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl is not uncommon. If the girl converts to Islam, it is her prerogative, and the court has no right to interfere. In Hadiya’s case, she had converted much earlier. The organisational support by strangers has raised doubts in the court’s mind, not love jihad.

Spirit of the law

One can, of course, say it is none of the court’s business to enquire as to where the support money came from. (Leave it to the Income tax authorities). However, spirit of the law requires that judges handle cases not pedantically, but humanely. A father files a petition suspecting the daughter may be radicalised by extremists. Judges are bound to ask questions, and if anything is suspicious, take steps to protect the girl, whether she is a minor or otherwise. There have been enough cases in the world where gullible young girls, technically adult, have been enticed to commit crimes. (Read my diary: helter-skelter).

Media and sloppy journalism 

The case is important not only because of its complications, but because it shows how media manipulates us, the readers and viewers, through sloppy journalism.

Here is the 95-page judgement of the Kerala High Court. In places, the language is patriarchal and conservative. However, this document clearly shows that judges base their judgment on the evidence available before them. Since they invest their time and expertise into the case, often they are the best (or only) people to judge. A responsible journalist should read the judgment and then criticise it. What media has done in Hadiya’s case is to not bother to read the judgement, but criticise the superficial sensational points. Each case is different, but a newspaper’s agenda is the same.

We will now wait for the January 2018 verdict. The Supreme Court will need to decide what to do with the marriage the High Court said never happened.

Ravi