Himachal wedding between two brothers and a woman challenges ideals about marriage, love and consent

In July, the Trans-Giri region of Sirmaur in Himachal Pradesh hit the headlines when two brothers married a single woman in a traditional wedding ceremony attended by hundreds of guests. The marriage sparked a debate in India.

The brothers, who belong to the Hatti tribal community, had participated in “jodidara” – a local custom of fraternal polyandry that allows brothers to marry and live with one woman. While polyandry is not new to the region, the attention it received – and the circulation of videos and images of the event on social media – raised a larger question about the role of tradition in modern times, especially when it involves marriage, gender and transgresses legal norms.

Polyandry has been a part of India’s cultural history for centuries. In India’s Himalayan regions – the focus of my PhD research on gender, marriage and sexuality – fraternal polyandry was primarily undertaken to prevent the subdivision of scarce land among male siblings and to ensure that family labour was pooled.

But polyandry is not limited to the Himalayan region.

Anthropologist Paul Hershman, in his ethnography of rural Punjab, documents a version of polyandry among Jat Sikh families in which a woman is married to several brothers, for similar material economic ends.

In such communities, polyandry was a survival strategy in a challenging environment tied directly to landholding practices and kinship values. The lower sex ratio of women was also a reason for this kind of marriage. The oldest brother would be defined in a legal sense as the husband, but all brothers would share in the economic, sexual and parental roles played by the wife.

In time, a clutch of socio-legal and demographic shifts have contributed to the decline of polyandry in these regions. The introduction of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, banning the practice, was among the most pertinent.

Moreover, changes in inheritance laws requiring that property be divided equally among male siblings made it no longer economically necessary to have a relationship with several brothers.

Though polyandry is not recognised under the formal Hindu Marriage Act, tribal communities such as the Hattis have continued with their own set of customs and traditions relating to marriage and inheritance. The government has extended protection to these customs by permitting such traditions to continue in tribal areas.

In areas such as Sirmaur, polyandrous unions, though not formally registered, are socially accepted and have been given informal legitimacy when it comes to family rights and property matters.

What is particularly interesting about last month’s marriage in Sirmaur is its visibility and the language of consent, along with a modern vocabulary of emotional understanding, equality and consent. When interviewed by local and national media, Sunita, the wife, confidently stated that this was her choice. She had a mutual commitment to both men, she said, and she understood their relationship was based on mutual care and responsibility.

This demonstrates a modern awareness of partnership, emotional labour and shared obligations. This change indicates a larger shift in the social understanding of relationships for tribal communities. Consent is no longer silent or assumed: it is verbal, claimed and asserted publicly.

This understanding of those who participate in this marriage seems different from the way it would have been, even a generation ago. The brothers too spoke directly about “sensitivity”, “mutual respect” and “emotional balance”.

The modern framing of this relationship as one of mutual choice and emotional negotiation demonstrates how even longstanding customs can evolve, absorbing new values within the purview of older structures. Tradition is being reimagined.

Sunita’s statements have become a topic of debate, particularly among those who see her marriage as a welcome public show of agency within a customary arrangement often denounced as backward. It calls into question whether polyandry and related practices actually allow women to exercise power against the norms of patriarchy.

In a national context in which Hindu monogamous marriage has become the normative legal and moral framework, practices like polyandry are simply framed as “being against Indian culture” or “a shameful act”.

Polyandrous marriages challenge a singular understanding of Indian family norms. There is also an unsettling communal understanding of the practice, as if it is an extension of polygamous marriages permitted for Muslims.

The marriage between Sunita and the Negi brothers compels us to ask: are our laws capable of accommodating the fluid realities of love and kinship that live outside the nuclear family? Can we imagine justice not just through conformity but in the recognition of a multiplicity of lived experiences? Most importantly, can we respect forms of consent that are produced and reproduced from within a community and its traditions?

Tanvi Sharma is a Research Scholar at the Department of Political Science, Panjab University, Chandigarh.