“I am convinced that the real remedy is intermarriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by Caste will not vanish…The real remedy for breaking Caste is intermarriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of Caste.”

- Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar identified endogamy as a central mechanism through which the caste system has been historically preserved and perpetuated. In Annihilation of Caste, Dr. Ambedkar noted that the rigid boundaries of caste are maintained not only through social and occupational segregation but, most fundamentally, through control over marriage. By mandating endogamy the caste system ensures its continuity across generations, thereby institutionalizing hierarchy, exclusion, and discrimination.

Inter-caste marriage directly challenges this mechanism. It is precisely because of its potential to change social relations and norms, that such unions invite intense social backlash, including what is commonly called “honour killing”. The terms “honour killing” and “honour crime” are misleading and dangerous labels. There is nothing honourable or justifiable about these acts. The word “honour” perversely masks what these crimes truly are: murders and acts of violence designed to punish individuals for asserting their autonomy. It is crucial to reject any suggestion that these acts are connected to honour, and to recognise them instead as grave violations of individual rights and dignity that demand urgent legal and social intervention.

The violence these crimes involve is frequently directed at either or both partners. Women who assert their agency and choose partners outside the sanctioned boundaries of caste face severe punishment, ranging from confinement and ostracism to assault or murder. Men from oppressed communities bear the brunt of the violence, brutally attacked or killed as a warning to others who might similarly defy caste norms.

The roots of this violence run deep. The manusmriti, which strips women of autonomy over their bodies and their choices, places them under the permanent authority of fathers or husbands or sons. What is called an “honour” killing today is, at its core, the enforcement of manusmriti’s rules. It is precisely this order that the Constitution of India was written to dismantle.

It must also be noted that “honour”-based violence is not confined to inter-caste relationships, but also to inter-religious marriages. Inter-faith unions have increasingly become targets of organised intimidation. 

The scale of the problem is significant, though not recognized, and undercounted. According to the National Crime Records Bureau Report India witnessed 530 such “honour” killings since 2015. It must be noted that this was included as a crime category only after 2014, and was therefore only recorded from thereon.

The Supreme Court has, time and again, taken serious cognizance of “honour”-based crimes, especially those targeting inter-caste and inter-faith couples, recognising them as not only criminal acts but also as violations of fundamental rights under the Constitution, and in fact even called for a law to be passed in this regard. Karnataka, which has witnessed a troubling rise in such crimes in recent years, has now answered that call, with a law that is the product of decades of struggle by activists, and civil society.

At its heart, this law is an affirmation of a foundational constitutional principle, that the freedom to choose one’s partner, to marry, and to live with dignity is a fundamental right. Violence, threats, harassment, coercion of any form inflicted in the name of honour or tradition are violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights. The law makes explicit what the Constitution guarantees, that every person, regardless of caste, community, or religion, has the equal and inviolable right to marry the person they love, without any hindrance from anyone, including the parents and other family members. 

The main aspects of the law are: 

The right to choose: The law begins with a clear and unambiguous affirmation that every person has the right to liberty, freedom of expression, and the freedom to marry a person of their choice. This is irrespective of caste, religion or community. Any attempt, by an individual or a group, to obstruct that choice is a criminal offence. 

Criminalising the full spectrum of harm: The law does not stop at murder. It criminalises the entire range of violence and coercion inflicted in the name of “honour”, ranging from physical threats, social and economic boycotts, excommunication, and symbolic disownment rituals.

Obligations on the State: The law places a legal duty on the Government to train officers, run sustained public awareness campaigns, and ensure that the law reaches those who need it most. 

Fast Track Courts: Dedicated courts are to be established so that justice for victims is swift and certain, not lost to the delays that have long plagued such cases.

Institutional oversight: The Eva Nammava Vedike (translit. ‘He is Ours’ Forum) and district-level Monitoring Committees are established to oversee implementation, address grievances, and ensure that the law does not remain a promise on paper.

While welcoming this much-needed legislation, it is necessary to express concern regarding the provision prescribing a minimum punishment of five years for murder committed in the name of honour. This stands in contrast to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which mandates life imprisonment or the death penalty for murder. There is no justification for treating honour killings less seriously than ordinary murder and this incongruity must be urgently corrected.

The passage of this law marks a beginning, not an endpoint. The Government must ensure strict enforcement of the law. It must also follow through with concrete action, and provide schemes and incentives to encourage inter-caste marriages, including ensure reservations for inter-caste couples and various other steps in this regard. 

The Constitution’s promise of fraternity is a call to actively dismantle every structure that divides, excludes, and degrades. The caste system and religious divides are precisely such structures, which fracture society and deny the possibility of fraternity. The Karnataka law is one step in that direction. However,  laws are only as strong as the will to enforce them, and the deeper work of dismantling caste prejudice and cannot be legislated into existence. As a society, we must confront the fractures that run through us, the hierarchies and divides of caste and religion that have been inherited, normalised, and too often left unquestioned. The larger work belongs to all of us, to break these structures of inequality and exclusion and together build a society on the constitutional promise of equality and fraternity.

NOTE:

1. Eva Nammava, Eva Nammava” is part of a vachana written by the 12th century social reformer Basavanna, meaning “He is ours” or “He is one of us” in reference to the message of universal humanity and connoting equality and dispelling castes and religions. Basavanna, who rebelled against the caste system to lay the foundation of the Lingayat faith system—an amalgamation of all castes—used the words meaning ‘he is a part of me’ to say all people are one.