Thread by @beastoftraal

The "love jihad bogey' epidemic is spreading. Thankfully, editorials call out the bigoted RULERS of our country.

"The love jihad bogey treats women as gullible, defenceless participants in relationships"

"The use of such vocabulary is a reflection of bigotry and patriarchy"

"such a law is exceptionally bad news for Indian women. In the framing of the “love jihad” narrative, Hindu women are only gullible victims. They are not consenting adults free to make their own choices"

"The astounding proposal to enact a law to curb what they call ‘love jihad’ reeks of a vicious mix of patriarchy and communalism. There is no legal sanction to self-serving and political terms such as ‘love jihad’. The detestable idea amounts to legitimising a a blatant slur."

"The new India is beginning to look like a really archaic India" —The Times of India.

"Liberty to choose one’s life partner, in other words, is for a babu to grant or refuse. We are in India, not Pakistan" —The Economic Times.

This.

"The Election Commission (in 2014) chastised another BJP leader, Amit Shah, for describing the vote as a chance for Hindus to avenge violations of their women. He is now India’s home minister."

Related:

"paranoia-fuelling law" —glad to see such collective pushback against this archaic mindset by the BJP. Hope it translates to a change of heart for the ones ushering in a previous century into this one.

"Not only does it undermine personal liberty and free will, it also incentivises hooligans. These draconian laws not only contradict BJP’s long stated view of ushering in a Uniform Civil Code, they also invert the principle of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’"

"Under fire for the Hathras gang-rape, the Yogi Adityanath government has sought to deflect criticism by emphasising measures taken for the security and “respect” of women — the “love jihad” ordinance is being peddled as another such move"

On ‘love jihad’, BJP picks up baton from vigilante groups. Police, judicial apparatus have aided this move. This process is bound to transform India officially into an ethnic democracy, like Israel — where mixed marriages are practically impossible." bit.ly/2V20nNF

"UP should step back"? But UP is not Kerala, to accede when they are pointed out that they are wrong. With UP, it's 'my way, or no way'; democracy/constitution can take a hike. UP is like Mann Ki Baat - the ideas, intent and communication flows only one way, RULING Emperor-style.

"the UP government’s law is doubly dangerous because discrimination is explicitly written into its provisions. In the hands of a conservative society and an overstepping police, it enables an unconstitutional assault"

"It is not just anxieties about inter-faith marriage that propels these ideas. More significant is the need to control women’s sexualities, lest they threaten patriarchy and caste endogamy by exercising choice in their marriages"

"Striking provision of the ordinance is with the burden of proof. The presumption is that a person accused of committing an offence is innocent until proven guilty. UP turns this on its head. Every religious conversion is presumed to be illegal" bit.ly/2JFJ4Q1

Maximum Government, Maximum Governance, Maximum Interference.

"At another time, one might have expected governments to heal divisions. But in UP today, like in many parts of the world, popularity is easier achieved through hate than healing"

"Court rulings upholding individual autonomy call for immediate scrutiny of UP’s regressive ordinance"

"It started off as a conspiracy theory a few years ago. Once the idea took hold, it was toyed around by Hindutva proponents elsewhere. From fringe, it has now fully entered the mainstream politics of India" —Of "Love Jihad" and Other Demons bit.ly/3lFduiy

Whoa! The latest issue of Frontline doesn't mince words in its extensive cover story of the 'love jihad' sham unleashed upon India by medieval politicians!

Related thread:

https://twitter.com/VakashaS/status/1334727427910582273

"The ordinance is a manifestation of an exclusionary and regressive agenda. Invades privacy, deepens communal divides, advances patriarchy and eliminates agency. Violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, in conflict with existing personal laws"