By – Taniya Khangembam
Reimeingam (name changed) thought she was welcoming a future of harmony when she wed a Tamil man she had met while working in Bengaluru. Rather, she was torn between two worlds: one that condemned her for stepping over racial bounds, and another that, in theory, promoted diversity. She was referred to as a “traitor to her roots” by some of her neighbors in her hometown. She was treated as “the Northeast girl” at her in-laws’ house, with little regard for her roots.
Northeastern Indian women continue to face severe societal reaction when they marry outside of their communities in a country that prides itself on its motto of “unity in diversity”. This stigma is ingrained in societal institutions that are influenced by politics of race, gender, and identity. Sociological analysis of this problem shows how a system that maintains cultural boundaries in the name of honor and tradition morally criticises women’s individual decisions.
The Northeast region of India, with its diverse range of ethnic communities, tribes, dialects, holds a special and intricate place in Indian culture. Subsequently, maintaining ethnic identity becomes crucial for many of the communities in the region, particularly those who have endured historical marginalisation and forced assimilation. However, women are frequently disproportionately responsible for this “preservation”. They are viewed as agents who can dilute cultural purity rather than as independent individuals when they decide to marry outside the society, whether it be inter-community, inter-caste, or inter-religious.
Women in these kinds of marriages encounter social as well as familial criticism. They are charged with abandoning custom, destroying their sense of self, and becoming “less than” their ethnic background. The idea of the “outsider within,” as proposed by sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, is especially pertinent in this context. Although these women stay “within” their cultural contexts, they are isolated from both their natal and marital houses because they are perceived as having crossed moral lines. Their identities end up being contested. Sociologists remind us that culture is dynamic and ever-changing. However, many cultures have a conservative approach to women’s marriage choices, viewing marriage as a means of maintaining community identity. That identity is guarded by women, and their “defection” is viewed as a cultural betrayal. This relates to honor codes and symbolic capital, as proposed by Pierre Bourdieu, in which women’s conduct is strongly correlated with their reputation in the family and community. For instance, there may be concerns about cultural dilution when a Khasi woman marries a Bengali or a Meitei woman marries a Punjabi man. Her marriage is viewed as a crossing of carefully guarded symbolic borders rather than as a union of two people.
However, when the spouse is white, socially influential, or economically wealthy, a silent exception is frequently made. The criticism frequently changes to appreciation or tolerance if a Northeast woman marries someone from a “higher racial” group, such as an American, European, or someone from an affluent metropolitan background. The same marriage may be celebrated in communities that pride themselves on tradition and purity if it results in social capital, material prosperity, or international recognition. This indicates a strong materialistic bias in the application of cultural purity, which is more about status and prestige than ethnicity.
Sociologists refer to this kind of selectivity as a continuation of colonial hangovers, in which wealth and whiteness are still viewed as indicators of progress and being close to authority is valued even when it goes against social norms. A woman is condemned if she marries into a group that is economically disadvantaged or politically ostracised. However, she becomes a symbol of upward mobility if she marries into affluent circles. This duplicity reveals the fallacy of cultural preservation arguments.
What occurs when these kinds of marriages break down? Returning home after a divorce becomes exile if getting married outside the community is viewed as betrayal. In addition to experiencing marital dissolution, many Northeast women who marry outside of their tribe or group are also customarily charged for daring to violate communal borders. Men are rarely subjected to this stigma. After divorcing a non-local lady and moving back to his hometown, a Naga or Assamese man frequently regains acceptance from the community. However, women turn into live representations of “failed defiance,” as though their own pain warrants social censure.
Eventually, even their children who are of mixed races who understand the language, observe local customs, and live in the community, are also treated with suspicion. These children are denied property rights, clan status, and excluded socially since they are viewed as the “outsiders within.” Sociologically speaking, this is a reflection of what Pierre Bourdieu refers to as symbolic violence which is the potent but unseen means by which societies impose conformity. The community punishes the mother for her violation and sends a message to others that this is what happens when you cross the line when they reject a woman’s child.
The propensity to attribute “demographic erosion” to women who marry outside of their community is a particularly risky trend in some regions of the Northeast. These women are accused by some ethnic groupings of undermining the tribe’s “continuity” or “purity”. Although there is no scientific evidence to back this claim, women who marry outside the country are accused of contributing to demographic imbalance in states with strong identity politics. In place of scapegoating women, the true causes of demographic shifts such as migration, job-seeking mobility, declining birth rates, land dispossession, and urbanization are disregarded.
All of these shows the politics over gendered and class double standards where tradition is responsible for women and low income and middle class individuals while there is tolerance for men and high income individuals. It may be said that a man who marries outside is adventurous. A woman who does the same is viewed as being unfaithful, self-centered, or lacking in morals. Hence, we must change the conversation from purity to plurality, from control to consent, if we are to effectively handle this problem. To question conservative conventions and uphold women’s autonomy, community elders, religious leaders, and women’s organizations must collaborate. Such instances ought to be highlighted by journalists, filmmakers, and educators—not as warning tales, but as illustrations of bravery and agency.
(The author is Research Associate, North Eastern Social Research Center, Guwahati, 781003. Email ID: taniyakhangembam2@gmail.com)