The surname ruling: when law overlooks living tradition

'THE LAW MAY GIVE PERMISSION, BUT IT CANNOT GIVE BLESSING'

- DR RAJENDRAN GOVENDER

INDIAN cricket captain Virat Kohli and his wife, Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma, celebrated their wedding in a private ceremony. I Supplied

(I Supplied)

WHEN the Constitutional Court recently ruled that a married man may legally assume his wife's surname, it was hailed in some quarters as a victory for gender equality.

Yet, in communities deeply anchored in cultural and religious systems, the ruling has stirred unease.

Last week in Chatsworth, the Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Rights Commission (CRL Commission) convened a community dialogue with religious and cultural leaders as part of a nationwide engagement programme to gauge how ordinary people viewed this landmark decision.

At the Silverglen Cultural Centre priests, scholars, elders and youth gathered not in defiance, but in search of understanding. The purpose of the dialogue was simple, yet profound: to listen. Before laws reshape the fabric of social life, the people who live by those traditions deserve to be heard.

The Chatsworth engagement revealed that, within the Hindu community, surnames are not administrative conveniences, but sacred vessels of lineage. They signify ancestry, clan identity and spiritual continuity. To alter that lineage is not a personal choice alone - it reverberates through generations, affecting rituals, social relationships and family honour.

Community members argued that this conversation should have occurred before the court's ruling, not after.

As one elder poignantly asked: "How can you rewrite the grammar of our culture without first learning its language?"

Much of the dialogue centred on the Hindu marriage rituals that define the spiritual logic of lineage.

In Hinduism, marriage is not merely a legal union; it is a sacrament - Vivaha Samskara - where two souls unite under divine witness.