A 24-year-old’s marriage outside caste lines has faced fierce opposition from the dominant Vanniyar caste members in his village.
Published Feb 12, 2025 | 2:00 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 12, 2025 | 4:29 PM
Caste groups are discriminating Sasikumar and his family over him marrying Sandhya, a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
Summary: In Kanavaipudur village, Vaniyambadi, 24-year-old Sasikumar and his family faced social ostracisation after his inter-caste marriage to Sandhya. When his grandmother passed away, village members denied burial rights, forcing the family to cremate her 10 km away. They also faced threats, economic boycott, and workplace discrimination, pushing them to seek police intervention. Despite filing an SC/ST Act case, authorities have only promised peace talks, raising concerns over delayed justice.
Just 200 kilometres from Chennai, Tamil Nadu’s capital, lies the Kanavaipudur village in Tirupattur district. A semi-urban village with minimal agricultural activity, most residents here work in construction or small-scale incense stick manufacturing units.
For 24-year-old Sasikumar, a BSc graduate, the village has been home for three generations. But his April 2024 marriage to Sandhya, an MSc graduate and college friend triggered a nightmare that has pitched his community against him and his family.
Sasikumar belongs to the Vanniyar community, classified among the Most Backward Classes and the dominant caste group in the village, while Sandhya belongs to the Adi Dravidar community, a Scheduled Caste. Their marriage outside caste lines has faced fierce opposition from Vanniyar caste members in his village.
The couple’s Kanagammal house
The opposition manifested in multiple ways. His mother Amudha, aged 48, was forced to sign a document stating “she prioritised the village” over her son. After staying at his wife’s home for three months post-wedding, Sasikumar’s return to the village was met with a complete social boycott.
Six months ago, during a local festival, villagers verbally abused Sasikumar and physically removed him from the premises. They openly mocked his wife’s caste and publicly declared him unwelcome. Despite this, he chose to stay and fight for his rights.
Villagers have been explicitly warned not to interact with the couple. Local shopkeepers have been instructed not to sell them groceries. Those who defy these orders risk similar ostracisation.
This violates Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which explicitly prohibits caste-based discrimination and mandates equal rights for all citizens. The villagers’ actions deny Sandhya and Sasikumar their fundamental rights to dignity and equal treatment.
The crisis peaked on 5 February when the village denied burial rights to his 80-year-old maternal grandmother, forcing the family to cremate her 10 kilometres away.
The village leaders reportedly told the family, “Since you married a woman from a lower caste, you are now considered lower caste too. Your family has no place in this village or its cremation ground.”
Village Temple
According to Sasikumar those who denied permission were the village head Babu (referred to as “Village Gounder – Naattamai”), Panchayat President Palani (an AIADMK functionary), and key members Balu, Velu, and Udayakumar.
They blocked access to Sasikumar’s house, preventing an icebox from being brought in for his grandmother Kanagammal’s body. His sister, who married within the same caste and lives in the village was barred from seeing her grandmother’s remains, and her child was forbidden from contacting Sasikumar.
After conducting the last rites in Minnoor village, the family faced fresh threats. The dominant caste group demanded they leave Kanavaipudur and surrender their property, threatening violent consequences including assault and forced eviction.
The discrimination even reached Amudha’s workplace, when she was forced to “take leave” from a local incense stick manufacturing unit for two days. The factory owner, Palani, admitted to South First that he had yielded to pressure from village elders. Only police intervention secured her reinstatement.
Sasikumar and Sandhya
On 7 February 7, Sasikumar and Sandhya filed a formal complaint at the Vaniyambadi Rural Police Station. Inspector J Baby registered an FIR under Sections 189(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, based on the initial complaint.
The SC/ST Act mandates investigation completion within 60 days and immediate protection for victims. Yet, police have not taken decisive action thus far. Rather, the couple allege that the police suggested an “amicable settlement,” reportedly telling them, “You are young. There’s no need to escalate this. Let’s resolve this smoothly.”
This, despite filing a case under the SC/ST Act, reconciliation efforts cannot replace legal action, and police inaction is itself a punishable offence. “The DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police) investigating the case is responsible for taking strict action against those who denied Sasikumar’s family their burial rights and issued threats. If the DSP fails to act under Section 3, they can also be punished under Section 7(1),” said lawyer PP Mohan, who is known for his work on honour killing and caste discrimination cases.
PP Mohan
He further explained that under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the law can punish police officers for negligence in handling cases related to atrocities against SC/ST individuals.
Section 4 states that if the Station House Officer (SHO) fails to include appropriate sections in the FIR, they can face imprisonment ranging from six months to one year. Section 3 criminalises various atrocities, including denial of burial rights, social boycotts, and threats.
This makes the perpetrators liable for punishment. Section 7(1) holds police officers accountable if they fail to take necessary action under Section 3. The law can imprison them for negligence or inaction.
Furthermore, the police initially omitted the issue of social boycott, until Sandhya submitted a revised complaint on 8 February requesting additional charges under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act, which specifically criminalises social boycotts.
However, the couple allege that they were advised to return after two days because the DSP was on leave.
When South First approached him, Suresh Kumar, an officer from the Vaniyambadi Police Intelligence Division, said that they would arrange a “peace negotiation” under the sub-collector’s supervision and that actions were underway.
However, Sasikumar and Sandhya remain deeply sceptical, believing that such measures are often delaying tactics rather than genuine efforts to ensure justice.
Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front (TNUEF) District Committee member Saminathan, who is actively supporting Sasikumar and Sandhya’s legal battle, said, “Even in this era of scientific innovations, caste discrimination still prevails. Despite the government’s stance against untouchability, many people blatantly disregard it.”
He further said that if the police fail to conduct a thorough investigation, TNUEF will organise a demonstration demanding justice.
As Sasikumar and Sandhya put it, “We could leave everything behind to live peacefully, but oppression follows us wherever we go. That’s why we choose to fight and live with dignity on our own soil.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
