Cross-Border Marriages and the Politics of National Interest: A Growing Dilemma in Bharat

Paromita Das

New Delhi

When tragedy strikes a nation, it often uncovers uncomfortable truths that lie hidden beneath the surface. After the horrific Pahalgam attack, Bharat was not just grappling with grief and anger — it was confronted by an internal crisis that had been silently growing for years. The government’s sudden directive ordering Pakistani citizens to leave the country within 48 hours was not merely symbolic; it revealed a disturbing network of cross-border entanglements that had, for too long, evaded scrutiny. Among the most shocking revelations was the Sarhatpar Marriage Project — a pattern in which Bharatiya women had married Pakistani men, continued to live in Bharat, retained their Bharatiya citizenship, and participated fully in the Bharatiya welfare system.

This discovery, disturbing as it is, opens up a critical national debate: What is the line between personal choice and national interest, and has that line already been crossed?

Love Across Borders or Loopholes in Loyalty?

Cross-border love stories are not new. In theory, they evoke the universal idea that love knows no boundaries. But the reality in this context is far more complicated. When Bharatiya women marry Pakistani men yet choose to hold onto their Bharatiya citizenship, it creates a legal and moral grey area. Why, in a country of over a billion people, would one choose to marry across a hostile border, and then expect to continue enjoying the benefits of Bharatiya citizenship?

Such marriages, in many cases, have become a conduit for easing access between the two countries under the pretext of familial ties. These arrangements not only blur the lines of allegiance but also open up serious loopholes in Bharat’s internal security. Children of these unions — even with one Pakistani parent — were found studying in Bharatiya government schools, reaping the benefits of Bharatiya taxpayer-funded schemes, while their allegiance or emotional loyalty often leaned across the border.

This isn’t just a case of dual identity, it’s dual intent — where the benefits of Bharat are enjoyed, but the emotional and political leanings stay with Pakistan. It’s not just troubling; it’s dangerous.

Political Silence and Selective Outrage

Equally disconcerting is the reaction from political quarters, especially those aligned with secular and opposition ideologies. Instead of acknowledging the threat posed by such dual-allegiance arrangements, some leaders went on the defensive. As houses of identified terrorists were demolished using lawful processes and explosive means, their sympathizers cried foul. Their concerns were not for the victims of terrorism, but for the alleged “innocent” family members of terrorists whose whereabouts had remained mysteriously unknown for years.

The hypocrisy here is glaring. If a young man is missing from his home for three years in Kashmir and the family fails to report it to authorities, does it not indicate complicity or at least willful ignorance? The same political groups that turned a blind eye when Hindu homes were set on fire in Bengal now preach secularism when action is taken against terrorism in the Valley. Such selectiveness doesn’t reflect genuine secularism — it reveals political opportunism at its most cynical.

Congress, TMC and the “Gunman” Gloss Over Terror

When political parties start labeling terrorists as “gunmen,” it’s not just a matter of semantics. It reflects a deep-rooted failure to recognize — or perhaps a deliberate attempt to downplay — the threat of terrorism. From the Congress’s half-hearted condemnations to TMC’s overt appeals for leniency towards families of terrorists, the larger message is clear: the vote bank matters more than the national interest.

Even more disturbingly, some commentators and leaders have attempted to portray the Pahalgam attack as a “secular terror act,” as if trying to remove the ideological motivation behind the violence. But this distortion of facts is not just misleading — it’s manipulative. It dilutes the seriousness of terrorism and dangerously normalizes the role of extremism in domestic politics.

When Love Becomes Strategy and Sympathy Becomes Suicide

There is nothing wrong with love — even cross-border love. But when love is used as a strategic backdoor into a sovereign nation, it is no longer just a personal matter; it becomes a matter of national concern.

The Sarhatpar Marriage Project, whether orchestrated or simply enabled by systemic oversight, poses a very real threat. It allows for emotional and legal manipulation, cloaked in the language of romance and human rights. But rights must come with responsibilities. If someone’s heart lies in Pakistan, perhaps their body should too. National loyalty is not a fashion to be worn when convenient and discarded when uncomfortable.

Bharat, as a democracy, must be compassionate — but never complacent. Citizenship must mean something. The protection it offers must not be extended to those who use it as a shield while emotionally or ideologically aligning with a hostile power.

Bharat Must Choose Vigilance Over Sentiment

The days of innocence are over. In an era of proxy wars and ideological infiltration, every loophole is a battlefield, and every document of citizenship is a potential weapon or shield. The Sarhatpar Marriage Project is not just about weddings and paperwork — it’s about strategic manipulation of legal systems, emotional narratives, and social platforms to destabilize a country from within.

Bharat’s recent crackdown is not an overreaction — it is a delayed correction. The government’s 48-hour expulsion order may seem harsh to some, but it reflects a deeper urgency: the need to reclaim sovereign control over identity, borders, and belonging.

Those who argue that love should conquer all must also accept that nationhood comes with non-negotiable boundaries. When politics begins to place emotions above national security, it becomes not governance, but gamble — one that Bharat cannot afford.