The honourable High Court of Kerala recently made public its suspicion that there indeed exist tendencies among some Muslim young men to deceitfully court young women of other religions in order to force them to become Muslims. The matter was brought to the court’s notice when the parents of two young women, who were students of an MBA program, sought the court’s help to locate their “missing” daughters. As per the court’s direction, the two women and their husbands presented themselves in the court. The women testified in court that they had married their husbands out of their own free will. Yet, as if their statements did not matter, the honourable court asked the women to go with their parents. After spending three weeks with their parents, the women turned against their husbands in court and accused them deceit and coercion.

The Court had ordered the Kerala Police to probe the existence of any organised attempt to trap young women through “love” and later force them to convert to Islam. The DGP of Kerala, in a report, admitted that there were instances of Muslim young men marrying women of other faiths. However, he did not find any evidence of any organisation by the name “Love Jihad.” The High Court recently expressed dissatisfaction in the DGP’s report and stated that state governments must frame laws to prevent “forced” conversions.

Meanwhile, the parents of another young woman, Siljaraj, in Karnataka filed a habeus corpus suit to get back their daughter who had married a Muslim young man from northern Kerala. Siljaraj, when produced in the court, testified that she had married out of her own free will. She denied any knowledge about “love jihad.” Consequently, after a stipulated three-week stay with her parents, the court let her go with her husband. The court observed that Siljaraj was an adult who was free to marry anyone she loved.

While the Karnataka High Court is willing to recognize and honour the free will and choice of young women who marry Muslims, the Kerala High Court appears to have completely overlooked the women’s role in the whole affair. It was assumed that there was a cladestine plan among Muslim young men to lure women of other faiths through courtship. Why else would the women be separated from their lawful husbands? Further, it was assumed that Hindu and Christian women are mindless, innocent robots who were victimised by men who "feigned love.” The whole blame for such inter-religious marriages was placed on Muslim men! As a result of this thinking, the Court ruled that the state should step in to make laws to prevent religious conversion by deceit or force.

Men are no Pied Pipers. And women are not like weak iron filings in the merciless grip of a masculine magnetic field. Unless a young woman cherishes affection, how can she be enticed by any man? Stolen bread is indeed sweet. The Leaning Tower of Pisa has an “inclination;” and therefore the Big Ben has all the time in the world for her!

Why are Hindu and Christian parents trying to portray their daughters as innocent fairies by putting all the blame on “wicked” Muslim young men? Any act of deceit is wrong. Even if there exists a clandestine movement (in the organised or unorganised sector!) called “love jihad,” even if there are Muslim young men who are bent on proseletising through fake courtships, none of them will succeed in “trapping” any Hindu or Christian “girl” (why are women called girls?) if these “girls” are devoted to their own religion or wise enough to see through a mask of insincere love.

Instead of recommending new laws to prevent religious conversions, the honourable Court should have asked parents of these women why they failed to instill in their daughters devotion to their own religion? The court should have pointed out the active role played by these women in entertaining the advances of young men. These women were training to be Business Managers. They, like anyone else, could think. They were responsible for their choice of husbands and for their decision to elope. If they lacked foresight and discernment, if they did not imagine that they would be asked to adopt their husbands’ religion, it was their own fault. This factor was not highlighted by anyone. This probably betrays our age-old attitude: “Women are gullible and pliable; what do they know?” Why else does our law let an adulterous wife go scot free? Only her paramour would get a 5-year jail term! The woman in question is reduced to a mere depersonalised property!

Our reluctance to come out of the dispensation of child marriages is revzealed by our reference to young men as “boys” and to young women as “girls.” Worse still, as parents, we are reluctant to take responsibility for our failures in parenting. Besides, we are unwilling to let our sons and daughters suffer the consequences of the choices they make. Now, I will not be surprised if parents of Muslim young men should return the favour by sueing their charming Hindu/Christian daughters-in-law who enticed their sons with an "alleged" intent to convert them to Hinduism or Christianity!