Marriage tourism

In India we have it easy, indeed too easy. You want to get married or marry someone off, all you have to do is pitch a tent in a public park (of course, there is the small matter of getting an approval from the authorities; a little greasing or pulling strings does the trick). If difficult in Chennai, Delhi always beckons. Race to the bottom!

But, it is not so easy in the United Kingdom [1]. “Five supreme court judges [of UK] have spent a day wrestling with notions of God, nirvana and what constitutes worship.” Why? Not exactly because they had nothing else to do, but pretty close – they had to decide whether a wedding ceremony conducted in the “chapel” in “the Church of Scientology’s building on Queen Victoria Street in the City of London” is legal enough to be registered as a marriage.

If you did not know, the City of London is a posh address. Of course, you do not blame a bride for choosing a fancy locale for her wedding. This is what one Ms. Louisa Hodkin wished for her wedding, both the groom and the bride belonging to the Church of Scientology. Now, it gets tricky.

Apparently the so-called “chapel” does not meet the necessary criteria as per the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855; yes, you read that right – the law is 158 years old! More relevantly, Church of Scientology goes not farther back than early 1950s!

The attorney for the “registrar-general of births, deaths and marriages” who denied registering the “chapel” argued that Scientology “does not involve worship of a divine.” But, this is only the start. “If [the office of] the registrar-general has wrongly registered Buddhists or Jains [not worshipping Gods] then they should be de-registered.” Ouch! I pity the couples who may have gotten married in the places of worship of these religions. In one stroke the attorney had annulled so many marriages – if only Pope Francis had it so easy!

The judges have their task cut out for them. On the other side of the aisle a Liberal Democrat peer argues that the Church of Scientology enjoys an annual tax break of GBP 300,000. He implies that this can be justified only if the Church of Scientology is treated as a religion, and the “chapel” be registered. That is a tough nut to crack. There is more: In Australia, “Scientology has been accepted as a religious denomination.” The judges were not content to let sleeping dogs lie. They “brought in Islam, Unitarianism, Quakerism” to develop comparisons.

How will this all end, none has a clue, not even one of the judges who commented, “Nirvana is a state which an individual attains, the state your lordships [the judges] attain quite often at the end of a case.”

I offer my services to the lordships and also to Ms. Hodkin. Let the couple, along with their family and friends – and do not forget the priest – just fly down to Delhi; a plane-load, it can be. I will arrange for a theme tent in an open area, garishly proclaiming Church of Scientology (we are good at garishness).  

If the above sounds too down market, I have another option. There is a branch (or whatever you may call it) of Church of Scientology somewhere in South Delhi, I think in Hauz Khas (say, upper middle class?). The ceremony can be held there. And, the marriage can be registered in India. The lordships can wait for their next case to attain nirvana.

Either way, India can add marriage tourism to its medical tourism to earn foreign exchange.

India will be the tourist haven!

Raghuram Ekambaram  

References

1.    Scientology case has judges debating the meaning of religion, Owen Bowcott, The Guardian, July 18, 2013.

P.S. We think we in India are over regulated!