Marriage equality: Why queer unions should deviate from Brahmanical traditions

In the book Why I am not a Christian, philosopher Bertrand Russell argued that any person without prior sexual experience will most likely be unable to distinguish between mere physical attraction and the sort of congeniality required to make a marriage successful. This idea proposed by Russell, as interesting as it appears, could only be practically examined in a world where the freedom to explore oneself and their relation with the Other are not influenced by identity markers.  Another question with reference to Russell's idea is, does the success of marriage depend solely upon the (congeniality between) individuals married to each other? Or is there something more to it? Are there any other socially-enforced rules, vis-a-vis culture and philosophy, acting on a particular sort of marriage and/or love in a way that they assign them a unique position? The legitimisation of marriage in India between two individuals allows them to have joint legal rights. For example, couples can file taxes jointly; business income can be divided between family members; couples can avail the benefits of medical insurance, disability, and social security for each other; make important medical decisions for their spouse; and the spouse is given almost equal importance for educational, financial, and social security decisions. The spouse also gets inheritance benefits depending on the law under which their marriage has been registered.  In India, queer persons who have explored their individual paths of intimacy are not legally permitted to test their compatibility in marriage. If one took a look at different social media pages that speak for queer rights, one could note the desire of queer people to live in a legal partnership like a registered marriage. In 2018, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was struck down and homosexuality was decriminalised. The law, imposed during British rule, considered consensual homosexual intercourse as being "against the order of nature". It carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Being a non-heterosexual person and desiring an active sex life was a crime. "History owes an apology to members of the community for the delay in ensuring their rights,” said Justice Indu Malhotra, who was part of the five-judge bench that struck down section 377. Nearly five years later, in 2023, a 48-year-old gay man who teaches in a government college cannot legally hold his 47-year-old partner legally eligible to be the receiver of his pension. Santosh P from Jalgaon in Maharashtra found himself in a helpless situation, as his partner is not employed. Just like any heterosexual person would, he also wanted to ensure his partner economic support after his death.  After a hearing that lasted 10 days, the Supreme Court on May 11 reserved its verdict on a petition seeking legal recognition of same sex marriages. The scope of the hearing, as clarified by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, was limited to the development of the idea of civil union for non hetero marriage equality. While marriage is a socio-legal institution, a civil union restricts itself to the legal status and the benefits it brings. However, the concepts marriage and civil union should not be analysed in two completely different paradigms of social understanding, since they overlap, especially in a country like India. Government's arguments on ‘ideal’ marriages The Union government argued against the plea stating that marriage depends on customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos, and societal values; that homosexual marriages can only be accommodated within an urban elitist viewpoint and have got nothing to do with the position and lives of the majority of India. The arguments made by the government reflected its default definition of 'natural family', one where a biological male and a biological female are wed to give birth to children. This default definition, which considers marriage as a sacred institution, was argued to be the norm of the society. The question we shall try to answer is — what is the philosophical foundation and tradition of heterosexual marriages that the Hindu nationalist government assumes as sacred? Let us dissect the assumptions and fallacies of the arguments made by the Union government. I begin by asking what these 'customs, cultural ethos, rituals' referred to are. What relationship do these have with the caste system? A marked feature of the Hindu society is the legal and social sanction it provides for stratification laid down by the Brahmanical social order. Caste and gender play important roles in the organisation of hierarchy within this order. Gopal Guru observed that the Brahmanical framework affects people to different degrees depending on their location in the caste order. Prem Chaudhary wrote, "As marriage provides the structural link between kinship and caste, a closer surveillance is accorded to the marital alliances … Any breach in these caste linkages brings down the status of not only the immediate family but also the clan and finally the entire caste group. This factor was and remains a most potent consideration behind the enforcement of strict caste and sexual code … invoking claims of tradition, culture and honour and enforced through the use of power, whether that of caste, class, gender or sexuality, and finally, violence." Analysing the 'ideal’ heteronormative marriage Dr BR Ambedkar analysed caste as a system of graded inequalities that maintains a gradation of people. The division of labour and labourers is possible by maintaining the purity of the so-called upper castes (oppressor castes). This gives rise to situations where sexuality and reproductive and productive functions are subjected to control for the sake of caste and gender norms. Sexual and marital relationships transcend from being a concern of the individuals involved, to one that decides social, political, and property relations.  The dominant Brahmanical heteronormative understanding of sexuality and intimacy imagines the womb of the caste Hindu women as pure. While upper caste women are guarded and monitored by their men as a part of their caste privilege, lower caste women can never be sure of such protection, and suffer multiple forms of exploitation. Following this norm, the sexuality of oppressed caste men is seen as a threat to (upper) caste purity and honour. A report on ‘honour’ killing published by DHRDNet defined honour as "public or group recognition of moral worth, imposed and sanctioned by an external social system based on adherence to norms, codes or behaviours accepted or encouraged by that social system."  There are many reported and unreported crimes of ‘honour’ killing, since such love/lovers' desire to marry do not fall within the purview of an 'ideal (heterosexual) marriage'. The DHRDNet report on ‘honour’ killing within heterosexual marriages made note of the crimes committed by the dominant caste individuals' relatives against the lowered caste individual (mostly SC men) and/or their family or entire community when the person stepped out of the norms of marriage/love. In Bihar, a 19-year-old Dalit boy was killed for being in a relationship with a Brahmin girl. A dominant OBC caste (Yadav) family, upon finding that their daughter was in a romantic relationship with her Dalit classmate, killed him. They also hurled casteist slurs at him. The Yadav caste can be placed within the Shudra varna, most of whom gained political support and economic mobility after the 1990s. They are observed to have assimilated the Brahmanical code of morality, and many dominant OBC families in Bihar replicate the Brahmanical code of conduct themselves. OBCs who can be placed under the Shudra varna morally shame themselves in the anti-caste movement by acting against the vision of Mahatma Phule, "the greatest Shudra." It must be noted that the human value of oppressed caste (Hindu) women is lesser within the Brahmanical code, thus rendering them vulnerable to sexual violence/crimes committed by upper caste men. The DHRDNet report noted cases in which a dominant caste family sexually abused the women of a lowered caste family in revenge for their lost ‘honour'. Sexual violence of this nature confirm that the oppressor caste holds oppressed caste women's bodies as objects. On the other hand, among women, oppressed caste women are subjugated by the oppressor caste women while working in their farms as labourers or as domestic workers at their houses. Hasty generalisation or Brahmanical hegemony? There are many individuals like queer couple Ritesh and Sunita, who are from a small village of Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh, likely unaware of the legal terms and status of non-heterosexual civil unions, but choose to marry for the sake of love and companionship. In the Patna Pride parade, the only pride parade of Bihar, I met two young boys who had just reached 18. They swore their love for each other. "We are from different religions and we like each other. We have secretly come to the parade," they said. The boys were very much in love and ready to leave their families if they didn't approve of their relationship. "We work as labourers, anything that we can do, and will sustain ourselves," they said. Reena (name changed) a Kothi trans person from rural Bengal whom I met at the Patna Pride parade this year, was of the view that everyone has equal rights to choose their partner and must legally be allowed to do so.  Queer desire to marry not urban elitist phenomenon Having spoken to LGBTQIA+ individuals who are theoretically more informed and resourceful, I argue that, while fighting for the legality of queer marriage, which indeed is a significant legal battle, it is also pivotal to look into the dominant conceptualisation of marriage itself. The 'ideal' hetero-structure of marriages in India is embedded in Brahmanical traditions and caste endogamy. To not replicate this character of marriage, the philosophy underlying Hindu queer unions must be a radical deviation from the former. The Bhagavad Gita outlined the collapse of social and moral order when there are leakages in closed structures of marriages. This structure survives via heteronormative unions that do not challenge the 'graded inequalities', instead focusing on pro-creation to extend the family line and pride of caste Hindus.  Philosophers and staunch critics of Brahmanism, Periyar, and Jyotiba Phule were well aware of this underlying philosophy of Hindu marriages. Satyashodhak marriages, conceptualised by Phule, are a way of accepting companionship between partners. It is still popular in parts of Maharashtra, amongst those against the Brahmanical code of union. Gail Omvedt said of Phule, “In regard to the issue of women’s liberation, Phule is one of the very few social reformers in history who deserve a woman’s respect.” Periyar had proposed the idea of 'self-respect' companionship, which is critical of the godly position assigned to the husband within heterosexual marriages. Within a self-respect marriage, there is no need for an astrologer-given date, sanskrit mantras, or a Brahmin priest. Even the consent of the families is not important if the partners are entering the union or marriage with mutual consent. It even destigmatized consensual separation of married partners as against the Hindu idea of marriage as the divine union. These philosophical concepts challenged Manu's laws. Manu is the law giver of the Hindu code of conduct. Some may argue that in modern India, the Manusmriti has lost its hold on society. However Manusmriti is still quoted by judges in their verdicts and court rooms. Since the establishment of an 11 ft tall statue of Manu resting gallantly in the Rajasthan High Court premises, Dalit and human rights organisations have demanded its removal. In reaction to it, a group of oppressor caste lawyers and Hindu organisations united in disagreement. This is an impact of the Brahmanical cultural hegemony that thrives within 'fractured modernity', a term coined by Sharmila Rege. Self-respect and Satyashodhak unions are two important traditions that fall within the purview of kinship and relationship. The government, by ignoring these traditions, commits the fallacy of hasty generalisations. These traditions are based on love, rationality, equality, and self respect, and have more philosophical room for queer companionship.  Erasure of these socio-cultural movements that operated on the philosophy of companionship that one may call 'marriage' is another step to culturally homogenise and hegemonise. This must be understood by queer individuals fighting the legal battle for civil union. Manjula Pradeep, human rights activist who has been working for rights of Scheduled Caste individuals, said, "Most often, among same sex couples, the dominant caste person doesn't stand up for the SC caste person in the family. I haven't heard of any such case." The point Manjula made on the intersection of caste, gender, and sexual identity needs to be a part of discussion for those advocating in favour of same sex civil union. One must explore how future aspirations for queer marriage can culturally and philosophically keep away the Brahmanical codes. Opinion: Marriage equality hearings shed light on the holes in India’s family ideal Aishwarya Amrit Vijay Raj is an independent journalist. She is a UN Ladli Media National and Regional recipient for the year 2021. She has worked as an NFI fellow and Consultant fact checker for UN women. Her research interest domains include intersection of caste and gender, intervention to dominant knowledge systems and Questioning the Norms. She is an on-and-off loner often indulged in human foolery and existential crisis.  Sign up to get The Next Wave in your inbox * indicates required Email Address * Name *