Interfaith Marriages and Negotiated Spaces

An Overview of Respondents Associated with Dhanak

Amongst the five respondents from Dhanak, three were female and two were male. Each of them is in a Hindu–Muslim marriage. Four of the respondents were from Muslim faith and one (a female) was a Hindu. The respondents and their spouse were of similar economic capacities before marriage (indicating no class difference). Their age ranged from 28 years to 42 years while period of their marriages ranged from 1.5 years to 14 years. Four had completed education up to postgraduation while one had a graduate degree in a professional course. All of them were working and belonged to families where both spouses were contributing financially through their incomes towards running of the household. All 5 respondents were north Indians belonging to urban areas. Parental families of two respondents were based in Delhi and of the other three in Uttar Pradesh. Four respondents of Dhanak were located in Delhi NCR region and one in a different part of India at the time of this research. Except one who lived in a joint family, the other four were living as a nuclear family. Their total family income was in the range of 6–20 lakh per annum. Each of these respondents was in interaction with their parental as well as in-laws’ family at the time of this research. One of the respondents’ marriage was solemnised through Arya Samaj wedding while marriage of the other four respondents had been solemnised under SMA. Two among these (with marriage solemnised under SMA) also went through religious wedding rituals after SMA. Although information about caste was not taken specifically from any respondent, it does not seem that it would have made any difference to the acceptance or rejection of their marriage.

Marriage and the Issue of Conversion

If we look broadly at literature on interfaith marriages by An-Naim (2005), Ansari and Anjum (2013) and Chopra and Punwani (2005), we note that while some couples opt for registered or civil marriage only, some get married through religious ceremonies and some opt for both religious as well as civil marriages. Among those who opt for religious marriages, in some couples, the woman changes her faith according to the husband while in some (but smaller as compared to woman) the man converts. This process of faith change is generally accompanied by changes in the first name and/or the last name. Some (and generally in recent marriages) go through the process of conversion and religious marriages only for social acceptance or approval, especially by families and do not actually practice the other faith and do not use the changed names given in the marriage rituals. Among those who get married using SMA, largely each retains their identity and faith, and continues to practice their religion as they did earlier. Regarding children of such couples, while in some families, children follow father’s faith and culture (following patrilineality); some couples leave the choice of faith to children while giving them exposure to both sides.

In interfaith marriages, negotiation is repetitive on the aspect of religion. For example, how marriages should be solemnised becomes a point of negotiation with parents as it generally involves the issue of conversion—even if done only as a ritual and not with the purpose of following the partner’s religion. Sharing about the experience of accommodating all sides, Shaheen (a Dhanak member) states:

[We] got married thrice, one as per each side and once under SMA. Since we consider our legal marriage as the original one, we made it sure that it happened prior to any of the religious ceremonies. We also held a small reception on our own (where the parents were also guests only) as a public declaration. Also, we celebrate our marriage anniversary on the day of our SMA marriage only.

This indicates that the couple values and celebrates civil or neutral form of marriage. That some couples agree to the combination of having more than one form of marriage with the purpose of seeking approval of families was also found to be true in the study by Ansari and Anjum (2013) as well. This aligns with Mody’s (2008) observation that couples try to reintegrate themselves within families and communities, and make adjustments in order to be accepted by families and communities.

However, reintegration may not happen in several cases. In their study, Ansari and Anjum (2013: 62–65) present biography of Ayesha, a Muslim woman who married a Bengali Hindu. They opted for a civil marriage, and there was no conversion. She brought up her son as a Hindu. Her sister, however, married a Hindu man and her husband converted to Islam in this process. Their children, however, were reported as being ‘misfits’ in both communities.

Some couples reach an understanding with each other before sharing or negotiating with their respective families on the issue of marriage solemnisation and conversion. Javed, a Muslim man living with his wife (who is a Hindu) and a daughter, shares:

The most important issue which was needed to be resolved was of conversion. While, our stand was clear that, though we respect each other’s religion, neither of us is going to change it. From the perspective of girl’s family it was a welcome thought. From my side [family] took time to accept. I personally feel that more than my intervention and negotiation, the clarity of non-negotiables like change of religion made it easier.

Javed and his wife got married as per SMA. This narrative suggests that once the issue of conversion is resolved by actually agreeing to not convert, this facilitates acceptance at least from family of the female, especially because of two aspects. One, the burden of adjustment generally falls on women (as discussed later in the next section), and hence parents of females are likely to be concerned about the kind of adjustments their daughter would have to make. Second, parents may also have some assumptions about the male, his culture and religious patterns that may affect their daughter. These aspects were visible in the narrative of father of a Dhanak member as he mentions (in SAHAS document):

Our immediate concern was to know about Azar’s family as there is a general belief that Muslim families are quite conservative and put lots of restrictions on women. Though I am not at all very religious or ritualistic, I was worried about Tanya as she will be the one who will be going to Azar’s family. (Shekhar 2014: 13)

For some parents, however, religious differences do not pose as a great problem for the acceptance of a marital union. Parent (mother) of a son (a Dhanak member) who opted for interfaith marriage stated in the SAHAS 2014 document, ‘I have always felt that a sound relationship is based on understanding, love and respect for one another.’ She added, ‘Religion did not play an important role for me. Not even for a moment did I ponder that my son had wedded a “Hindu” girl (Mathew 2014: 15).

Parents who do not focus much on religion or religious differences are, however, few. Even the difference in the above narratives of Shekhar and Mathew could be attributed to being a parent of a son or a daughter. In similarity with the findings of Saheli (2007), while a daughter’s parent expressed concern, a son’s parent expressed acceptance of interfaith marriage. In such a scenario, communication and assertion of choices (especially about maintaining one’s religious identity) with one’s partner/spouse from beginning is seen to play an important role.

I had decided and shared with my husband that I would like to continue using my name and religion as it is by birth … which was assured by my partner even to … my parents, who always shared that I shall have to follow that [religion] of theirs. But my partner has understood and kept due care of it. He had conveyed the same to his parents. Hence I never needed to negotiate for the same with them … it is clear to them…. —Rekha.

Rekha’s communication of her choices with her spouse is not surprising. Women with higher levels of education and economic independence do tend to negotiate better (An-Na’im 2005). In addition to this, Jejeebhoy et al. (2013), in their study across six states in India, found that women in semi-arranged or self-arranged marriages (as compared to family-arranged marriages) had higher level of communication with their husband and were more likely to report agency in the following domains—decision-making, freedom of movement and access to resources. In addition to this, as compared to those in family-arranged marriages, women in semi-arranged or self-arranged marriages were found to have higher levels of education, were economically better, were more likely to be living in the urban areas and residing in a nuclear family. All these characteristics also match with female respondents from Dhanak in this research.

Looking at the processes of negotiation, the fact that narratives demonstrate the use of communication with each other in a relationship is evidence of changes in relationships—from hierarchical to more of an equal one—as noted by Gilbertson (2014) as well through her research in Hyderabad in 2009–10. Gilbertson (2014), however, also notes how the responsibility for balance and compromise in such companionate marriages yet seems to lie with women. Whether this is true for respondents from Dhanak requires another exploration of greater depth.

Overall, narratives in this section suggest that emphasis on conversion for marriage is one of the threats to identity of individuals in interfaith marriage. While some convert under pressure, some by choice and some only in name but do not consider themselves to be of a new faith (An-Na’im 2005). Findings that emerge from Dhanak members’ narratives are similar to Chopra and Punwani (2005) who, during 2002–03 period, studied interfaith marriages among Muslims in Mumbai covering 51 individuals including 25 couples. They examined how individuals in interfaith marriages negotiated their religious and cultural identities. The respondents in their study faced varying degrees of opposition from families. Several opted for civil marriage along with the customary weddings, and a significant number (23) did not consider conversion to be necessary. For most respondents who did convert nominally (i.e., performed the ritual only for sake of marriage) did not consider their identities to have changed. Among Dhanak members who were respondents for this study, conversion if any (e.g., in the process of nikah or Hindu wedding) was only in name and did not affect identities of individuals. In addition to this, they seem to view civil marriage as a more significant wedding as compared to religious wedding—which may have been done only for sake of families. This is different from Ansari and Anjum’s (2013) view that civil marriages are not considered as significant as the traditional or religious weddings. This difference (of observation by Ansari and Anjum, and respondents in this study) exists probably due to difference in the profile of the couples. While couples in Ansari and Anjum’s study were largely those who were either in their middle age or old age, Dhanak respondents do not include any older person. Altered societal context may also be a contributing factor in terms of perception of civil versus traditional or customary marriage. The difference in observations is also probably linked with how Dhanak positions itself on the issue of civil marriage. Dhanak promotes the idea of civil marriage instead of religious rituals (where one may need to convert) and has also been working towards making solemnisation and registration process under the SMA more people-friendly rather than being difficult for those opting for it. ¹⁵

Identities, Negotiations and Accommodations After Marriage

While conversion as an issue related to one’s identity is a point of negotiation before and at the time of marriage, a series of accommodations and negotiations continue later as well. Javed, Rekha and her husband (see narratives shared in previous section in this article) seem to have asserted their choices from beginning, that is, before marriage. But for some couples like Shaheen (a member of Dhanak) negotiations may happen gradually—being too accommodating in the beginning (e.g., agreeing for different processes of solemnisation of marriage) to reaching a point of assertion later.

Telling a straight ‘NO’ has helped more than continuing with unnecessary submissiveness and compromise. Initially we were accommodating everything and everyone under the burden of gaining acceptance. —Shaheen

In alignment with the earlier narratives in this article, this too indicates how ‘accommodating’ is used as a strategy to create acceptance and hence a space for self. However, this space for self may be perceived by one to be lost in the process of over-accommodation. Hence, like Shaheen (and her husband), one may feel the need to end the accommodation and assert one’s own choices. Focusing on everyday resistance in lives of women, Jeffery and Jeffery (1994: 162) in their study noted that struggles by women generally focus more on changing their situation within the system and take the middle ground instead of challenging the whole system through ‘confrontational insubordination’. Shaheen’s example, however, suggests sometimes improving one’s own situation can include confrontational subordination as well.

Often, negotiations and accommodation post marriage involve the issue of identity and its expression in family. Shaheen shared:

[There is] a constant struggle of hiding the partners religious identity within both families. Both set of parents, still try to avoid taking our legal names/names of partners’ family members, in front of guests or neighbors. We try and ignore it completely but also make a point of establishing the same at every sizeable opportunity.

Parents trying to hide an interfaith marriage by avoiding the use of actual names of the couple should not come as a surprise. This is because, in urban areas, despite the increasing number of nuclear or small families, ‘the ethos of the family continues to be characterized by “jointedness”. There is a high value on being connected and the network of relationships is sustained across distances and changing aspirations, occupations and lifestyles’ (Tuli 2012: 83).

Hence, the need to sustain connections with others is likely to influence how a family behaves in front of relatives, neighbours and others in community. This then necessitates protection of one’s identity even in terms of names by interfaith couples—who also manage such needs of their families in their own ways while they themselves attempt to sustain connections. As reflected in Shaheen’s narrative, she asserts real identity of her husband and self whenever an opportunity arises. It is, however, not necessary that one would assert one’s religious or cultural identity every time, especially within the couple.

As an Individual I am not very protective for my religious/cultural identity, which I think has given me more openness and acceptability. —Javed

Javed’s narrative suggests how the effort to practice ‘openness’ may need to come with reduced or restricted assertion or protection of one’s own religious or cultural identity. Javed also shared:

[I]n case of having any family functions and gatherings there is an expectation to follow the rituals. In our case we accept it and follow it so it doesn’t make much of a difference. Probably it would have been a different situation in case we would have reservations about it.

In interfaith marriages, it is possible that such an assertion from the male partner or his family could make the other person uncomfortable, for example, as seen in Rafia’s family from her mother-in-law and in Zaheer’s family—from his mother towards Shalini and children (see narratives shared below in this section). One also needs to see whether this strategy of restricted assertion of one’s religious or cultural identity is used by women as well. According to Javed, both he and his wife are flexible in terms of following rituals as per expectations of each other’s families. This suggests how negotiations with families need not take place all the time. On some occasions, individuals in interfaith marriages can also let go of their sense of control, not have reservations about each expectation of the families. It may be, however, possible for those in nuclear families to do this (as Javed is in one) as they would have much space to themselves, away from gaze of families. Although Javed mentions how there is a ‘close watch’ from relatives, things might have been different had he and his wife been living in a joint family system, as Rafia is.

Rafia, who had an Arya Samaj wedding, a nikah and then a third wedding following Hindu rituals, had to negotiate with the expectations of her mother-in-law in terms of what she should wear (she was expected to wear only sarees), use of bindi, what should be names of her sons (there was emphasis on keeping Hindu names), observation of fasts, wishing others, etc. Rafia responded to these expectations by often taking the middle ground. For example, neutral names were selected for her sons. Her experiences also suggest how patriarchal values influence negotiations that take place in interfaith families and how the burden of adjustment is likely to fall on women. The same was found in the study by Ansari and Anjum (2013) as well as in the studies shared in the book edited by An-Na’im (2005). Zaheer’s narrative below also indicates how the kind of adjustments, and hence the extent or kind of negotiations, may be different for a man and a woman. In spite of initial resistance by Shalini’s family, she as well as Zaheer seem to have been accepted without significant questions or interference. However, Shalini still faces challenges in being accepted the way she is by her in-laws’ family and instead is expected to follow Islam—the religion that her husband and his family belong to.

We gave very little room for our parents for taking decisions related to our life after our marriage. We first took a decision and informed them later about it.

That Shalini and their children are expected to follow Islam is not surprising because expectations in terms of adjustment of woman in her husband’s or in-laws’ culture and assumption that children would follow father’s religion or culture is not peculiar to interfaith marriages—it does exist in other marriages as well.

Apart of differences in family’s expectations from a man and a woman in an interfaith marriage, this narrative brings up several other aspects. Zaheer and Shalini informed their families about their decision to get married after they themselves were sure of it. Keeping involvement of parents minimal may seem like a method of avoiding consistent negotiations. However, the narrative suggests how parents may not always keep their involvement minimal and may still try to influence as and when they can.

Another significant aspect that Zaheer’s narrative indicates is connection of both husband and wife with their respective parental family at the time of this research. This is true for all five respondents from Dhanak. Although maintaining contact with parental family can be assumed as a method of resistance used by women to avoid or address constraints that they may face in their husband’s family or community (Jeffery and Jeffery 1994), it can also be seen as an affirmation of integration with families and ensuring support for self as well as for the parental family when needed (Grover 2009). For men, it is also likely to be linked with their responsibilities as sons towards their families, as expected in a patriarchal system. This too is evident in Zaheer’s narrative shared above as following this responsibility and hence increasing family visits becomes a point of negotiation with Shalini. Although it is difficult to say that this would be only because of being in the role of a son because in Asian societies, the concept of intergenerational contract implies care of old parents by grown-up children (Kabeer 2000).

In addition to this, it is important to note that we had started by looking at negotiation as something which achieves the middle ground (i.e., reach compromise and hence probably mutually beneficial) for the negotiating sides. However, the narratives here and in the last section suggest that negotiation is not always done or does not always achieve mutually beneficial solutions. Sometimes (or often) these negotiations aim to change or challenge perspectives of the other and seek solutions that may be more beneficial for one side that may have asserted more strongly or consistently. This is evident in the narratives presented in this article. For example, Shaheen started saying ‘no’ although she accommodated a lot initially. Rekha (see previous section) maintained her stance of not changing her identity and ensured that this was agreed upon before her marriage. Along with process of negotiation, process of resistance is evident in interactions of interfaith couples with their families. Narratives of women and men specifically reflect a scenario similar to Thapan’s (2009: 170) observation of twin processes that are part of everyday lives of women—‘compliance and resistance, submission and rebellion’ as they assert themselves and their identities. While compliance or submission is partly visible in the number of wedding rituals that an interfaith couple agrees for, resistance and rebellion can be understood through efforts to protect one’s identity in terms of one’s religion or faith, and exposure of children to both faiths instead of only the one followed by father. Presence of this resistance and assertion, and hence one’s agency, is not surprising for this group of respondents as expression of agency has been found to be higher in self-arranged and semi-arranged marriages (Jejeebhoy et al. 2013).

Celebrating Diversity and Socialisation of Children

The kind of environment prevalent at home and the kind of messages that children receive about various religions or faiths is an important aspect of their socialisation process. However, even when children may not be there, individuals in interfaith families make attempts to set a culture that respects diverse faiths. Celebration of festivals of different faiths is a common aspect of interfaith families of all five respondents from Dhanak.

In my family we celebrate both the festivals … like we keep budgets for both … Diwali, Rakshabandhan, Holi and Eid etc.… As we live separately [from parents] in a rented accommodation, we visit my partners family on the occasion of Eid and celebrate Eid and other festivals … while my parent/siblings come to my place on some occasions as per their feasibility.… We don’t follow superstitious things … and just enjoy our present times wherever, whenever whatever way possible … we have lived and are living as humans.… Keeping other issues aside…. —states Rekha living with her husband, who is a Muslim.

This celebration of different festivals generally happens in interfaith families out of mutual respect for each other’s faith (An-Na’im 2005). Chopra and Punwani (2005) too found in their study that there was participation in each other’s customs and festivals among individuals in interfaith marriages in Mumbai.

In the families of respondents from Dhanak, an outlook of respecting diversity and communicating openly seems to have evolved and the same is encouraged among children as well. Zaheer emphasises:

We share and talk about every possible thing in and around our lives. The children are encouraged to be inquisitive.

Javed also talked about exposure of his daughter to both religions.

We got our marriage solemnized under SMA without conversion and are living happily. We have a daughter and she is getting exposure of both the religions. —Javed

Among interfaith couples, there is a trend to

…avoid branding their children with a specific religion because for them humanity is the essence of all religions. They prefer writing ‘others’, ‘humanity’ or leaving the column blank while filling forms for birth certificate, education institutes, passport, etc. The attempt to dissociate their children from one specific religion till they attain maturity should not be mistaken as their dissociation from their respective religions after their marriage. It is rather an attempt to raise them with inclusive faith based practices and against religious biases and stereotypes. (Iqbal 2014b: 7)

This narrative emphasises how Dhanak members tend to avoid deciding and naming religion of their children with the belief that children would be able to decide for themselves on reaching maturity. This, however, does not mean that parents, that is, interfaith couple would not follow own faith or religion. Individuals in interfaith marriage from Dhanak, as evident in earlier narratives in this article, largely stay with their pre-marriage identities.

The common aspect in the narratives of Javed, Rekha and Zaheer is of ensuring exposure to diversity in upbringing of children. The narratives suggest respect for each other’s faith and expression of this respect and acceptance through celebration of festivals. One of the key indicators of this respect and acceptance is the emphasis on diversity and neutrality in socialisation of children. Hence, instead of promoting one person’s religion to be the primary one, couples were of the view that children need to be exposed to both sides, and their religion or faith may not be chosen by parents for them. In the study by Ansari and Anjum (2013) too, quite a few couples were found to provide space to their children to experience religious practices and ideology from both sides. However, there were many couples where father’s faith and culture prevailed in life of children. Whether or not this might happen in life of five respondents from Dhanak cannot be really predicted at present as none of them has a child near or above the age of 18.

Interfaith Families: How Different or Similar from Others in Functioning?

As evident from the narratives in earlier sections, the domains of negotiation in case of couples opting for interfaith marriages are by and large in respect of how the marriage is to be performed, the identity of the partners post marriage, religious practices and socialisation of children. The process of negotiation is a continuous one and there is diversity in the manner in which it is carried out. However, do these aspects make interfaith marriages markedly different from other kinds of marriages? To understand this from perspective of such couples, respondents from Dhanak were asked about their view vis-à-vis functioning of their family as compared to others.

While some of the respondents from Dhanak view celebration of diverse festivals and a culture of non-discrimination as aspects that make their families different from others, some did not see themselves functioning too differently from others (i.e., those who were not in interfaith marriages). Shaheen, who lives as a nuclear family with her husband, shared:

I don’t think that my family functions any different compared to other families except that we have to get new clothes on more festivals than others. However, once the kids come in the scene, I feel that to some extent it will function differently as I would like my kids to be proud of and cherish the advantage of knowing two rather than one [religion/faith]. I hope this will inculcate a lot more consideration and sensibility in them.

Although there is similarity with other Dhanak respondents in terms of exposure of children to both religions/faith, Shaheen’s narrative indicates how she does not think of herself and her husband as a couple that is too different from others. In a way, according to her, interfaith couples do not lead very different lives as compared to the other couples around them. Shaheen also shared:

It’s been 3 years since our marriage. Prior to that, we knew each other for 10 years. Since both of us belong to the same place in UP, there were no major differences in our general lifestyle and eating habits (had our eating habits been different, I don’t think there would have been a relationship between us). —Shaheen

This suggests that sustaining relationship as a couple in a nuclear household may require similar strategies and conditions as any other nuclear household, especially when individuals have a similar lifestyle and have known each other for several years (as in case of Shaheen).

For Javed, however, although the aspect of living in a nuclear family is similar to Shaheen’s, there were also ‘many new things’ that they as a couple experienced.

There is not much difference in the functioning of the family, if we see it as a nuclear family (me, my wife and daughter). In our nuclear family we celebrate almost all the festivals, which is new for us also as we come across many new things. —Javed

Hence, although individuals in interfaith families may have their own peculiar struggles, not every couple would see themselves to be too different as a family. This may also be because of the level of integration that these couples may have achieved with their respective families. Shaheen and Javed as well as others are connected with their families and, therefore, may not see themselves to be too different from majority of families. Their everyday life, then, may not seem to them too different from ordinary when one looks at their engagements in terms of visiting each other’s families, celebrating festivals, managing own household as a nuclear family, bringing up children, etc.

Yet interfaith families face scepticism. Considering the extent of negotiations that a couple is involved in, it is not surprising that people assume there would be a conflict in such a marriage (Ansari and Anjum 2013: 15). Connecting findings from other studies and their own study, Ansari and Anjum (2013: 157), however, state that in spite of stress and opposition that these marriages face, the divorce rate is low. In the context where divorce is stigmatised, respondents in their study shared that

[T]he success of marriage is a compulsion to prove that their decision was not wrong. They understand that they will not be supported by parents/relatives. This also happens as they have a long lasting and deep understanding with each other, the strong bonding emerging from overcoming all hurdles together. (p. 157)

Hence, post-marriage support of families is a significant factor according to Ansari and Anjum. We are also aware that post-marriage support to a woman generally varies with her choice of family-arranged or self-arranged marriage (Grover 2009). Generally, support from one’s parental family is limited or none after a self-arranged marriage. This has been reported by at least one of the respondents from Dhanak. However, even for those who shared greater involvement of parental families before and after marriage, their narratives reveal how issues of identity and expectations remain even if certain level of support exists.

Level of post-marriage support and the compulsion to prove that decision to marry was right—are both these factors linked with the strength of bond between an interfaith couple? This needs to be studied further for Dhanak members. However, one can argue that individuals who exercise their right to choose a partner (whether or not from the same religion) are likely to work with the assumption that they need to make the relationship work. More than the aspect of ‘compulsion’ to make the relationship work, it may be a desire to make the relationship work and lead life as an ‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ couple. This would probably contribute to less of an open rebellion by interfaith couples and more of transformations towards re-integration with families (as noted by Mody [2008] as well). The same seems to be largely true for respondents from Dhanak as well. Although one may have refused to fulfil certain expectations of the family, connection and interaction with families were sustained (even if this took some time post marriage).

Changing Perceptions in Families

As the process of negotiations attempt to redraw boundaries and expectations within families, some changes are inevitable. Families of interfaith couples may have shown resistance to the alliance earlier and may continue to do so for a considerable period of time. However, continuous interactions are likely to facilitate change as evident in Javed’s narrative.

[B]oth the families had certain pre-conceived notion/assumption about each other’s religion, which we have not done anything consciously to break it. Many assumptions that were generic had been now broken down on their own by mere interactions and discussions. —Javed

According to Rafia, the experience with an interfaith marriage made both families more open towards interfaith marriages.

Now our family is open towards marriages in different/other faiths…. Love marriages are not denied as it used to be earlier. Now, our parents have started accepting inter faith marriages if the match is perfect otherwise. —Rafia

How parents respond to their adult children exercising the right to choose (their partners) and opting for an interfaith marriage is deeply influenced by what they think and believe. All parents have some culturally shared ideas about the important aspects in life of children and their rearing (Tuli 2012). However, there is heterogeneity among parents in terms of these beliefs and ‘what is adaptive and how it is attained will differ on the basis of their personal experiences’ (Rosenthal and Roer-Strier 2006, cited by Tuli 2012). That there have been changes in parents’ perspective based on their personal experiences within the family (due to presence of an interfaith couple) is evident from Javed’s and Rafia’s narrative. This suggests that if couples and their families continue to interact, this may pave the way for gradual changes in the level of resistance and outlook towards interfaith marriages and their son-in-law/daughter-in-law who comes from a different cultural background. Interactions, as the narratives indicate, offer opportunities to challenge assumptions of parents about the other religion/faith and its practices. Hence, it becomes possible for people to respect diversity. This is true not just for parents but also the individuals in interfaith marriage as found in the study by Saheli as one of their respondents shared:

I am more sensitized towards and aware of the problems faced by minorities, their psyche, insecurities and fears. Also, convincing my family and extended family gives me hope that by opening up dialogue and with persistence one can reduce the impact of rising communalism in society. Because of my marriage, some of us couples who have married outside our religion or community, have come together and are trying to understand the complexities of issues involved in such marriages. (Hindu Punjabi woman married to a Syrian Christian —Saheli 2007: 60)

Hence, interfaith marriages have the potential to build a strong base for community level changes towards greater sensitivity and acceptance vis-à-vis different faiths/religions. Focusing on marriages between castes and communities, Mody (2008: 1) also states that ‘a study of such marriages could reveal important dynamics of social change’. Ansari and Anjum (2013: 16) believe that these marriages reflect the ‘genuine extent of heterogeneity’ in a society, promote pluralism and diminish ‘ideological monopoly’ of different religions. This seems to be validated by the above narratives.