Governing Hindu marriage or interreligious marriage?: secularism from below and state-society relations in the adjudication of marriage in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines state-society relations in the adjudication of marriage at the cusp of two policies, namely the Indian state’s policy of affirmative action for marginalized castes and the recognition of religion-based personal laws. Based on qualitative research conducted in Mumbai, the paper discusses the dilemmas, and challenges of the fusion of inter-religious and Hindu marriages. Focusing on actions of state officials and societal actors, the paper highlights everyday acts of creative and irregular governance institutionalized in religious family law, legal processes and practices, and public records, while regulating marriage. When confronted with legal ambiguities and gaps between lived realities and legal categories, state officials improvise and adjust their actions to accommodate certain logics, practices and politico-legal subjectivities. These adjudicative actions, at times, expand the socially integrative structure of the Family Court, encourage collaborations with societal organizations, enable the state courts to protect religious freedoms and personal liberties of litigants, and subvert exclusionary notions of religion in law. In addition, the paper shows how boundary drawing between state and society in multitudinous ways becomes the administrative and analytical gateway to capture the state practice of secularism from below, question the coherence of statist legal categories, and grasp the governance ironies regulating inter-religious/Hindu marriage under Hindu law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".