Madhu Kishwar wrote an article titled “A Question of Balance” regarding khap panchayat. Blogger Indyeah critiques it here . While this blog is an analysis of Indyeah’s article, it is actually the mindset that produces such articles that is attempted to be criticized here.
Quoting from Madhu Kishwar’s article- “No civilised society can sanction murder simply because some people claim a particular person brought them “dishonour”. Likewise, no civilised society can allow a small minority of self-appointed social reformers to decide arbitrarily which identities have sanctity and which must be banned out of existence through statist coercion“. Indyeah asks-
“When she(Madhu Kishwar) writes about NOT allowing a small minority of self appointed reformers to decide arbitrarily as to which identities should have sanctity , does she then also extend this reasoning to cover France’s burqa ban that she supports wholeheartedly? Why no emphasis by her on first finding a consensus among the Muslim society there? It was okay to have a small minority of self appointed reformers to decide on the burqa ban in France?”
The burkha is worn publicly in society and not just in muslim areas or just within muslim households, so it is a society matter. Banning it in France is the decision of that society. They have a right to decide how their society should be. Similarly khap also have a right to decide how their society or community should be. Madhu Kishwar is consistent on that point.
“Pull the Muslim women out of the medieval age she says or else they will be stuck there forever. Okay. One accepts she has a point there. (Though the word BAN is like this bone stuck in my throat). But why an about turn by her on the khap issue in India then? Why no calls for ‘pulling the community out of medieval age?”
A possible reason why the word ‘ban’ sticks in throat may be that in these times of political correctness bold actions and words are intimidatory to a PC, for whom words such as that are to be used only when the ‘minority’ community demands that it be used, to assuage its ‘hurt sentiments’ caused by some book or cartoon, not otherwise.
The blogger seems to have accepted that khaps are ‘medieval’, which means it is to be taken as ‘primitive’, ‘abhorrent’, and with an expiry date well in the past. In ‘modern’ ‘progressive’ society, to which that blogger belongs, it is the accepted norm that anything pasted with the label ‘medieval’ is to be condemned. She is following the general norm of this society- that of ‘calling a dog mad and killing it’. But in this blind attempt to label apples as oranges she misses the point that khap is a democratic system that works on consensus among its constituents, not something that claims legitimacy on the basis of what is claimed to be the ‘words of a god’ or prophet. It is a democratic system for governance at local level.
Wikipedia says about functioning of khap– “The Khap is a system of social administration and organization in the republics of Northwestern Indian states such as Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh since ancient times. Khap is a term for a social-political grouping and used in a geographical sense. Other parallel terms are Pal, Ganasangha, Janapada or republic. The concept of Khap is ancient; written references are found as far back as Rig Vedic times. … The Panchayat system is territorial and highly democratic. Every village has its own Panchayat. … All decisions are taken after open-hearing, full and voluntary expression of views and consensus vote. A number of villages grouped themselves into a Gohand, gohand actually means neighboring villages, a number of Gohands form a ‘Khap’“.
Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University writes about Democracy in Ancient India– “The experience of Ancient India with republicanism, if better known, would by itself make democracy seem less of a freakish development, and help dispel the common idea that the very concept of democracy is specifically “Western”.”
There is a major difference between respecting democratic traditions that foster self-sufficiency, as in the case of khap, and imposing dehumanising edicts claimed to be coming from ‘god’, as in the case of certain islamic injunctions. The blogger fails to discern this.
“A ban in France would have been fine HAD the Muslim population, specifically the Muslim WOMEN been asked . Had there been a poll. The democratic consensus that Ms Kishwar writes about here.”
The decision in France is taken by a democratically elected government. The blogger forgets that fact in her eagerness to bestow upon ‘muslim population’ the decisive rights on what society should accept.
This is also a pointer to the the mindset created in india by the ‘intellectuals’ and ‘academicians’. A mindset that wants muslims to have first claim on nation’s resources, unmindful that this was the policy of ‘medieval’ muslim marauders! The mindset that causes a PM to lose his sleep thinking about the plight of the family of one muslim suspected for ties to Glasgow bomber, the same PM apparently does not lose any sleep over the plight of the families of thousands of Indian soldiers and paramilitary being mudered in the hands of muslim terrorists in Kashmir.
This mindset is what Babar and Aurangazeb imposed, that muslims are superior, and the rest, inferior ‘dhimmis’, who should pay jizya. The ‘intellectuals’ of today apparently do not recognize their own such ‘medieval’ mindset!
“Seems like the kindergarten example of ‘If you wont agree to the rules, even I won’t’. ‘Other’ religious minorities show no inclination to be part of a consensus on UCC, writes Madhu Kishwar and therefore Ms Kishwar argues even Khaps should be allowed to have their own personal laws.”
While the blogger bestowed upon the ‘minority’ muslim population the right to decide how society should be, she refuses to extend to the majority even the privileges that are given to such ‘minorities’, lest it be ‘kindergartenish’. This is the convoluted conception of ‘equality’ in ‘modern’ times.
“If in future, as Madhu writes, Khap Panchayats will give freedom to any couple that wants to get married under the Special Marriage Act, then where is that freedom now? Why the demand for amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) ? An individual would like to use the Special Marriage Act to get married to the person of his/her choice IF there are certain obstacles in the way . But to FIRST CREATE an obstacle(the proposed amendment) and THEN say that oh! you have the Special Marriage Act for your benefit??? Absurd in the extreme!”
The proposed amendment in Hindu Marriage Act is required to legitimize the existing, accepted, norm in Jat society of Haryana. Those who want to opt out of those norms are free to do so using Special Marriage Act. Only, they will then be opting to forgo ties with the community. The proposed amendment is necessary to protect the community from any future claims made by such people upon inheritance or relationship.
“After all, the whole issue is about choice. Two individuals want to get married to each other and the khap panchayats citing age old tradition don’t allow them to do so.”
Choice making is not the sole right of those two individuals. The people who remain in the community also have the right to choose whether they want people who violate their norms to remain in their midst.
“So the couple escapes(or tries to) and is killed before or after getting married. Depends on when the Khap panchayats catch hold of them. And it is named ‘Honour’ killing . Just exactly whose ‘honour’ it is, is yet to be determined.“
Khap is not limited to the people who did the murder, or the people who instigated that murder. There are numerous khaps all over Haryana, Rajasthan and UP. To use one off incident to tarnish the entire people is absolutely incorrect and unjustified.
This type of focusing on one incident committed by few individuals and to denounce the entire community for that incident is typical behaviour of ‘intellectuals’.
They deliberately refuse to see that ‘hindus’ are not limited to the people who pushed widows into a funeral pyre. They are not just the people who burned ‘dalits’. Not just the people who brought down a dilapidated structure built over a temple in Ayodhya, not just the people who were convicted for riots in Gujarat. Focusing on only these acts and to label ‘hindus’ accordingly is the proclivity of present day ‘intellectuals’ and ‘media personalities’. Interestingly they reverse the process when ‘minorities’ are involved, while they focus on the few bad apples among what they call ‘majority’ community, they overlook the overwhelmingly numerous bad apples of ‘minority’ community produced by a polluting theology. Then they ascribe terrorist acts by muslims and christians as ‘reaction againt the fascist oppression by hindus’.
This behaviour may be traced partly to the fear instilled in some sections of society by past tyrants like Aurangazeb and their present day successors who vociferously and sometimes physically assault critics, and partly due to the macaulayite indoctrination imposed by british, euphemistically called ‘education’, that indoctrinates people that they and their culture are worthless. So between the likes of Aurangazeb, Macaulay and their successors, the ‘intelligensia’ finds relief in self-flagellation and attempts to portray themselves as ‘modern’ and to condemn every practice of their ancient culture as ‘medieval’.
“So khap panchayats that don’t allow two individuals to get married now will ‘allow’ or ‘give the choice’ to their sons and daughters to do so in the future? After the amendment? Apparently Ms Kishwar thinks so. She seems to think that once the amendment is made, Khap Panchayats will undergo a change of heart and will agree like little kittens to any wish of their children to marry within gotra. And that they will lose their bloodthirsty tendency. If according to Ms Kishwar, Clan or family members of such rebels have the right to disown and disinherit such persons but cannot be given the right to hound them to death, then why are the clan members not already doing so ? They need an amendment to change their heart? But wait! The proposed amendment is EXACTLY what the khap Panchayats want so WHY would they become all docile AFTER their wish has been granted???”
The amendment, as said before, will protect the khap community and its properties from any lawful claims upon it with regard to inheritance or relationship by people who do not conform to its laws.
The mention of ‘docility’ indirectly points to the crux of the issue. It is the stand taken by khaps claiming the right to decide for themselves, the right to independent thought, the right to continue their traditions, that is troubling the blogger.
Those who have surrendered their rights to independent opinion to ‘intellectuals’ and media personalities feel agitated to see people they consider as ‘uneducated’ claiming that right. They want to teach their ‘inferiors’ a lesson in ‘modernity’. They feel insecure to find Madhu Kishwar championing such cause.
They want khap to be docile like they themselves are, to the overbearing self appointed ‘reformers’, who are in turn docile followers of their western overlords and paymasters.
Insinuating ‘bloodthirstiness’ on khap is similar to the way native americans were caricatured in that manner before exterminating them and grabbing their lands.
The last question in the quote above expresses their subconscious fear that khap may not become docile even in the future, and therefore need to be stifled, gagged, labelled and exterminated right now, in a pattern similar to how independent aspirations of native people were subjugated or subverted by colonialists in the past to prevent any possibility of rebellion or insubordination.
“There are many communities that are still outside that all important sphere called education and are still stuck in a medieval mindset. So are they to be allowed to do what they want?”
The ‘all important sphere of education’! The same that converted these people into coconuts (as defined by Richard Crasta in ‘Impressing the Whites’) and brown sahibas and sepoys, that which makes them members of the club of ‘modern’ and ‘progressives’! How can these people allow those who do not belong to this club to do what they want ? Only club members have decision making powers. Like in the ‘good’ old colonial days- (traditional)indians and dogs not allowed in the club.
“There are many communities that are holding on to certain questionable practices even now. If one extends Ms Kishwar’s arguments regarding ‘preservation of tradition’ vis a vis the khap panchayats to other ‘traditions’ of other communities as well then where will it lead us?”
Any practice that is not sanctioned by the high divas of modernity is of course ‘questionable’ and condemnable! Everybody should owe allegience to the god of ‘modernity’ that these people are believers of, all non-believers are denied right to existence like in those medieval times that these people ironically claims to condemn.
India, by reviving its valuable traditions would gain self-respect, be able to function on its own terms, having its own concepts, devolving power to local units, allowing diversity of thought and practices in democratic manner- like how it was before the marauders from west came here with their monotheistic mandrax. But if that happens, these ‘progressives’ and their god of ‘modernity’ would be rendered powerless. That agitates their minds.
“Where does one draw the line in giving communities the power to choose which traditions they want to keep and which ones they want to discard? Those youngsters who are dying for simply making a choice are also a part of this very same community right?”
Devolving power, giving independence of thought to others, is anathema to followers of monotheistic religions. It is this fear that motivates the blogger to think of drawing lines to keep others confined within.
Citing one example of ‘dying youngsters’ is a rehash of the tactic used by colonialists and missionaries to caricature natives as imbeciles, unable to think and act for themselves and needing the guidance from their ‘masters’, based on select incidents.
“HOW will these communities EVER come out of the old mindset? When will they advance on the path to progressive thinking? A vicious circle again? “
The plaintive cry apparently is- When will these communities join my club, and stop becoming a threat to my religion of ‘modernity’ and ‘progressiveness’ ?
“As a commentor writes in response to Ms Kishwar’s column, ‘For, the constitution not only lays down the framework of governance, but also expects the state to perform a pivotal role while facilitating Indian society’s forward movement towards meaningful social change'”
The man made document ‘Constitution’ is now being attempted to be used to justify depriving the rights of individual communities using state power, much in the same manner claims in bible were used to justify colonialism at one time.
‘And sometimes scattered young voices calling out for change and dying for it speak more loudly than that of a collective Khap Panchayat. But only to those who want to hear.’
Drama is a favorite of these ‘modernists’. They instictively slip into that mode. These people straining to hear the scattered voices of ‘dying youths’ are of course STONE DEAF to the cries of the majority. After all, they are indoctrinated to consider that only ‘minorities’ have rights!
“Madhu Kishwar’s arguments are shaky at best. If there is a more logical presentation of facts one might feel compelled to listen. Not so the case here.“
The arguments put forth by the blogger are shameful at best, being mere copies of western colonial propaganda, duplicitous and subversive otherwise.
The blogger’s critique of Madhu Kishwar comes across as more of an instinctive reponse rather than a studied one, for if she had cared to study khaps, she may realize that it is a democratic system, actually much more beneficial than the centralised government that we have now. Instead she seems to have merely followed the line laid out by ‘intelligensia’ and media.
What is instructive is the way this instinctive response of a person whose thinking is obviously moulded by english language newspapers and TV channels reveals uncanny resemblance to colonial ideas.
It reveals the depth to which colonial thought has penetrated ‘english speaking society’ of ‘modern progressives’, a society composed of ‘coconuts’, brown sahibas and other sepoys of western empire.
When will these people gain independence from their colonial mindsets ? Do they even seek it, or are they like the Uncle Toms and house niggers of yore, content in their present state, having internalised the indoctrinations of present day colonialists, blind to the shackles on their mind and intellect, programmed to come out with responses such as these whenever any serious issue comes up.
The ongoing debate on khap is also a part of the debate over centralized, homogenized, globalized society that ‘modern’ people attempts to create on the lines of monotheistic western thought as against the diversity respecting localized society that Indic culture fosters.
Elsewhere, on khap–
http://psenthilraja.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/khap-democracy-and-vote-democracy-a-comparison/
Comments 
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 11, 2010 at 7:09 am
Indian Homemaker
Khap Panchayats have been involved in murders and in trying to force young couples to not get married. It does seem that their demand is politically motivated.
I feel if two willing adults are willing to marry then they should not be stopped just because they are born in a community that does not permit their marriage.
If the heads of the Khap do not wish to marry within their gotra, they need not, but why compel other members to follow the same rule? We have had arranged marriages in my family where same gotra marriages have taken place, generally an aunt adopted one of the bride or the groom – so same gotra marriages are not really unheard of. This seems to have become an issue because the killers saw their power is being checked by the legal system. They need an excuse to continue their bullying and extortion.
We Indians go our of way to prevent marriages where a man and a woman have chosen each other, in a world where there is so much unhappiness, girl babies are being killed, brides are being beaten, mentally tortured or burnt alive, parents are spending their life long earnings to get their daughters married (or they don’t let them be born) – why not let two willing people marry each other and create a happy, compatible, dowry-free marriage?
Haryana might see more such killings because now there is a shortage of girls, since there is little respect for girls they can either be bought from other states or they can be forced to marry whoever has the power to marry them. The girl’s choice is not considered- in fact I read someone said, ‘only prostitutes choose their partners” – with such disrespect for a woman’s wishes – is it any wonder the state has a gender ratio of 750:1000
June 12, 2010 at 4:08 am
Incognito
>>>Khap Panchayats have been involved in murders and in trying to force young couples to not get married.
Policemen have been involved in murders and corruption, politicians have been involved in the same, bureaucrats have been involved in the same.
Do you suggest the institution of policing, politics and bureaucracy should be discarded ?
>>>I feel if two willing adults are willing to marry then they should not be stopped just because they are born in a community that does not permit their marriage
If your son expresses interest to marry his cousin, will you not discourage him ?
gotra is likewise extended family.
While an individual’s likes and dislikes are valid, a community consists of number of individuals and their interest and customs should not be sacrificed at the altar of selfish interest of two individuals.
>>>If the heads of the Khap do not wish to marry within their gotra, they need not, but why compel other members to follow the same rule?
Suppose your son tells you- “If you do not wish to marry your cousin, you need not, but why compel me to follow the same rule ?”
Then ?
>>>We have had arranged marriages in my family where same gotra marriages have taken place…
Why do you think others should necessarily follow your practice ?
>>>This seems to have become an issue because the killers saw their power is being checked …
I hope you use the term ‘killers’ everytime that you talk about police, politics and bureaucracy. and also armed forces, because some of them have been alleged to have stage managed encounter killings in Kashmir.
>>>We Indians go our of way to prevent marriages where a man and a woman have chosen each other …
In India man and woman are considered sub set of family, which is in turn considered a sub set of community. Individuals who want to opt out of being such subset of subset should eschew related benefits too.
Community living is a responsibility; while it provides enormous advantages to its members through strength of relationship, it also requires the members to reciprocate, to foster the customs of the community and to strengthen it.
Destroying the indigenous communities is a well used technique to set up its individuals for consumption by predatory western cults.
>>>…in a world where there is so much unhappiness, girl babies are being killed, brides are being beaten, mentally tortured or burnt alive, parents are spending their life long earnings to get their daughters married (or they don’t let them be born) – why not let two willing people marry each other and create a happy, compatible, dowry-free marriage?
If these two ‘willing people’ are swayambhus, i.e., people who took birth on their own and grew up by themselves, let them do whatever they want.
But if they have been brought up by a community, they owe something to that community, they owe not to put their selfish interest above reasonable community practices.
The technique of dragging in ‘unhappiness’, ‘girl baby killing’, ‘bride beating’, ‘mental torture’ etc., to spurce up ones’ point have been over-used by ‘modern’ ‘liberals’ who then denegrate the indigenous culture to peddle their favorite western ideology.
Self-flagellations such as “We Indians go our of way to prevent marriages …” are also cliched.
>>>Haryana might see more such killings because now there is a shortage of girls, …
If there is shortage of girls, it means there are more prospective grooms that she can choose from- so she has a good chance of finding a groom suitable to her and her community’s liking, isn’t there ?
>>>in fact I read someone said, ‘only prostitutes choose their partners”
Which prostitute has that luxury ?
On prostitution- http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/legalization-of-prostitution/
Taking what you read somewhere, about what someone had said, as representative opinion of the people of Haryana and then to condemn that state and its people is incorrect.
dhanyavaad
June 12, 2010 at 9:22 am
Indian Homemaker
“Tikait’s moral code is simple. In his own words: Same-gotra marriages are incestuous, “No society would accept it. Why do you expect us to do so? Incest violates maryada (honour) and villagers would kill or be killed to protect their maryada.” “Love marriages are dirty, I don’t even want to repeat the word…Only whores can choose their partners.” ”
Read more here,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Only-whores-choose-their-partners/articleshow/4984378.cms
June 12, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Incognito
The Slimes of India is known for doing hatchet job on behalf of its paymasters.
It maintains its record here.
Right from the first word,- “Squatting on his haunches, dhoti clad and bare chested….”, it attempts to influence the reader and take him/her along the line it wants the reader to tread.
The rest of the ‘report’, for anybody familiar with such hatchet jobs by the ‘liberal’ media, follows the well worn path.
It is the patronising of propaganda rags such as these that shapes the minds of people to produce critiques as cited in the blog above.
One, whether Mahendra Singh Tikait is squatting on ground or standing is immaterial to the content of what he has to say. To elaborate on that and on his dress is an attempt to create impression in the mind of the reader that Shri Tikait is not of the ‘class’ as that of the ‘reporter’ or his reader. Second, khap is not confined to Shri Mahendra Singh Tikait.
Third, to take one sentance that he uttered, to tweak it and to use that rather irrelevant, and factually incorrect comment, as headline is perfectly in line with the journalistic ethics that the Slimes have been known to practice for long.
What exactly wrong did Shri Tikait say ? And how is it binding opinion of the people of Haryana ?
He said-“We live by a moral code where honour has to be protected at any cost.”
It is good to live by certain codes and discipline, unlike the ‘liberals’ who only value money!
“Same-gotra marriages are incestuous, No society would accept it. Why do you expect us to do so? Incest violates maryada (honour) and villagers would kill or be killed to protect their maryada”
These are prevalent views in other places too.
“Love marriages are dirty, I don’t even want to repeat the word…
Ok, so Shri Tikait thinks ‘love marriage’ is dirty, he does not want to use that word. Fine. let him have his opinion without being looked down upon by a supercilious ‘reporter’.
“Only whores can choose their partners.”
Either the prostitutes that Shri Tikait is familiar with may be a part of the lucky few who happens to have such privilege, or Tikait does not know the life of a prostitute well and relies on gossip and bad mouthing.
Moreover, right from the puranas it is well known that indian traditions conduct swayamvar where the girl chooses her partner. So Shri Tikait is wrong on both counts.
Yet, instead of pointing out this obvious incorrectness of his opinion to Tikait during the interview, the reporter uses this as the headline, without informing his reader about its factual incorrectness. Such is journalistic ethic of Slimes.
Why not use that sensible sentance about maryada, which has more relevance to the subject under discussion, as headline?
because it would not help the ‘reporter’ in misleading the reader, would it ?
“Education has contributed to “this dirt”.‘
The ‘educated’ ‘reporter’ and his editorial board is testimony.
“Recently an educated couple married against the samaj’s (community’s) wishes in Jhajjar. We hail the panchayat’s decision to execute them…The government cannot protect this atyachar (immoral behaviour).”
Kasab came here, shot down people he considered “kaffirs”, a commendable act as per certain islamic traditions, but indian court has decided to execute him.
It is because, as per the custom accepted by indian society, killing people, kaffirs or otherwise, is a crime, atyachar.
If the trial was conducted in pakistan, most likely he may have been released, like his mentor, without punishment, on some pretext or other.
Khap community have certain customs. Those from the community who violate the custom are likely to be condemned.
Whether execution is justified or not depends upon the particular case. In the case of Kasab, it is. In the Jhajjar case it may not have been.
But that instance of miscarriage of justice is not justification enough to tarnish and condemn the entire people and the system.
Instances of miscarriage of justice have never been used as excuse to launch relentless attack on any judicial/legislative/executive institution in this country, to allege them as ‘colonial remnants’ and to seek their destruction.
Afzal Guru eating away indian tax payers money is testimony of that.
Bhopal massacre ‘verdict’ after 26 years, is testimony.
No verdict on Bofors even after 26 years is testimony.
No chance of verdict in 2G spectrum scam is testimony.
In fact the ‘media’ have been in the forefront in diverting attention from many cases of corruptions, most notable recent ones being those of scam Raja and NDTVari.
“Panch means parmatma and ayath means court. He also says panchayats have tradition on their side: they existed during Mughal and British rule and the rulers “never interfered’’. He scoffs at the laws of the Indian state, calling them “the root of all problems. That’s your Constitution, ours is different.’’
What about Shri Raja who demonstrates that ‘scoffing’ much better, and Shri Manmohan Singh who keeps that Raja as Cabinet Minister?
What about ‘justice’ Paul Daniel Dinakaran, and the Supine Court that puts him as Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court ?
What about the horse trading conducted in the floor of the parliament by worthies such as Mulayam, Laloo, Pawar, Manmohan and Sonia ?
What about the rampant corruption indulged in by corporate bosses, middlemen and government bureaucrats at the highest level of government?
And last but not the least, what about involvement of media people like Vir Sanghvi and Barkha Dutt in manipulating allocation of Cabinet ministerial posts ?
What ‘respect’ for ‘Constitution’ and ‘laws of the Indian state’ are these worthies giving, that they expect better from Mahindra Singh Tikait ?
““Villagers give precedence to caste panchayat judgments rather than that of the courts’’ “I recoil with shame when I read about them,’’ Chidambaram lamented. ”
Many responsible, conscious indians recoil with shame when they watch the activities of Chidambaram and his colleagues in parliament and outside, and recoil with revulsion knowing how much precedence Chidambaram and his colleagues give to court judgements. Shri Chidambaram would do better to limit his sanctimonious sermonising to his grandchildren and spare the rest of the populace.
“Additional SSP Raja Babu Singh says Jats like to brag. “Panchayats settle minor disputes. We’ve never come across any case of honour killing,’’ he claims. “If khaps violate the law, action is taken.’
Here is something factual that is buried in the end and papered over by the ‘reporter’.
The ‘reporter’ went to Tikait with the purpose of sensationalism. That he has to tweak an irrelevant and factually incorrect comment by Shri Tikait to create headline effect and spurce up the concoction with ‘anecdotal accounts’ and hearsay is deplorable.
That Indian Homemakers recommend such revolting, duplicitous, propaganda material for reading is even more so.
namaste
June 14, 2010 at 10:38 am
senthil
Incognito.. I think, we should not waste our time in explaining to those who say “Its individual wish to marry any one”..
As madhu kishwar writes, the HMA act currently bans a lot of marriages.. marriage b/w father and daughter, mother and son, father-in-law and daughter-in-law etc.. and in that, it also bans marriage b/w a man and the widow of his brother.
I will leave out all other bans and take only the last one.. why should the law ban marriage b/w a man and the widow of the brother..
And where does the individual rights go, which these pseudo-liberals often resort to?
If the law can ban a marriage b/w a man and widow of his brother, what is the problem in banning marriage b/w people of same gothra, who are considered as brothers and sisters..
Instead of explaining things to them, which their closed mindset will never open up, we have to restrict ourselves in exposing their double standard, and moral hollowness…
If marriage is b/w two individuals, let them allow (& even encourage, as part of modern liberalism.. after all for a marriage, a boy and girl is needed) their son and daugther to marry and then speak about others..
June 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Incognito
namaste
In some cases, it may not be so, that closed minds will never open up.- https://incognitocomments.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/we-farmers/
dhanyavaad
July 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
I agree with you that the law should really have no right to ban marriages between any two adults – even brother or sisters.
However, just because one aspect of the law is restrictive, doesn’t mean we have to introduce another restrictive law.
Incidentally, I’m ambiguous as to whether real brother/sister marriages should be allowed to have children cause in this case, the freedom also carries with it a 25% chance of congenital mutations. 25% is quite high. If we do assume however that having children should not be allowed, then what’s the point of allowing marriages?
However, this doesn’t mean we should ban inter gotra marriages. The probability of congenital diseases between second cousins is just 1.56% and beyond that is just 0.781%.
So you see, the fear of inter gotra marriages producing congenitally deformed children is vanishingly small since most marriages of these sorts are not even three degrees close.
July 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm
senthil
/** However, just because one aspect of the law is restrictive, doesn’t mean we have to introduce another restrictive law.
**/
But the problem is the conspirical silence of those moral upholders, on the aspect of HMA.. if you dont agree with HMA, then please fight against that, before opposing the khaps..
/** However, this doesn’t mean we should ban inter gotra marriages. The probability of congenital diseases between second cousins is just 1.56% and beyond that is just 0.781%.
**/
Probability doesnt make realities.. In gothra setup, the paternal lineage is same, whereas the maternal side varies.. So, if we take the Y chromosome, it is same for all males in a gothra.. because the Y chromosome can be carried only by male heirs of the family.. But the X chromosome can be carried by either male of female..
So genetically, all males in a gothra are brothers, and all females are sisters..
Secondly, the marriage of cousin brother & Sister is normal in south india.. how many cogenital deformity have we found out? are there NO deformities in other marriages? There are lot of mentally disabled children whose parents are NOT relatives..
And lastly, the relation is NOT based on genetics alone.. It exists in the mental plane.. Do any one take a genetic test, before accepting a person as brother or sister? The relations are out of love/attitude..
So when a whole community believes that same gothra people are brothers and sisters, who are the urban elites to negate this?
July 10, 2010 at 2:00 am
Bhagwad Jal Park
Thanks for your reply.
As you said it’s not genes alone. Don’t you feel that if two people fall in love, they already don’t view themselves as brother and sister?
No one falls in love with their brother or sister due to the Westermarck effect. So there’s no danger of that happening. If love happens, it’s only because the young people naturally don’t consider themselves brothers and sisters!
So who are we to force them into thinking that they are brothers/sister?
July 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm
senthil
When two people view themselves as brother and sister, naturally they dont fall in love.. that is how most of the cultures in the world is about..
/** If love happens, it’s only because the young people naturally don’t consider themselves brothers and sisters!
**/
Suppose if a brother and sister got separated in their childhood and later happens to meet each other without knowing the truth.. and over a course of time, they fall in love.. and after that, they come to know they are brothers and sisters and have a common father and mother?.. what will they do? Or how would the Hindu Marriage act deal with them?
/** So who are we to force them into thinking that they are brothers/sister?
**/
We are NOT forcing.. but its the couple’s parents, who could not accept this marriage.. Do you say, parents dont have any rights over the child?
Or do you think, that marriage is confined only b/w the couples, and in no way related to any one else?
The problem is multi-fold.. one is that the parents of the couples could not accept them.. Second is that, when the whole community believes people of same gothra as brothers, they could NOT allow such brother-sister marriage within their community, which will otherwise disturb the social harmony..
July 11, 2010 at 3:50 am
Bhagwad Jal Park
What you say is right. Brothers and sisters can get separated at childhood, meet, and fall in love later. But it happens so very rarely that I’m sure you’ll agree it doesn’t make sense to make a separate law over it. We don’t usually make laws to cover just one or two cases.
“Do you say, parents dont have any rights over the child?”
Only till the child is an adult/marriageable age. After that, I don’t think parents don’t have any rights over their children. Do you?
“Or do you think, that marriage is confined only b/w the couples, and in no way related to any one else?”
I think if other people want to get involved, it’s upto the husband and wife to let them. No one has the right to force their involvement onto the two, wouldn’t you agree?
“which will otherwise disturb the social harmony”
But what is social harmony, and why is it important?
July 11, 2010 at 2:08 pm
senthil
/** But it happens so very rarely that I’m sure you’ll agree it doesn’t make sense to make a separate law over it. We don’t usually make laws to cover just one or two cases.
**/
But my question is that will the law allow such marriages, even if its rare? Even if they marry against law, they will face all legal problems as they are NOT recognized by law..
It is the same case, that i am advocating for same gotra marriage.. Same gotra marriage is a rarity.. but media manipulates it as a big issue.. The way the media carries the news is to ostracise the khap community.. that’s entirely different issue to debate..
/** Only till the child is an adult/marriageable age. After that, I don’t think parents don’t have any rights over their children. Do you?
**/
In western countries, the state sponsor for the expenses of the child, and hence parents had little role in bringing them up.. But in india, it is the parents who bear the entire expense in bringing up a child.. right from their education to medical expenses, to living expenses, the children depend on their parents..
And how fair is it, to suddenly go against their parents just because one starts to earn?.. DO they have any sense of gratitude? Or do these urban elites atleast speak about it?
Before we speak about individual rights, we should speak about individual duties.. Rights comes only after duties..
So, the parents have the right to interfere in their childs marriage, if they find it unethical.. if you say they dont have, then i will say, it is the most cruel stand against each and every parent in india..
/** I think if other people want to get involved, it’s upto the husband and wife to let them. No one has the right to force their involvement onto the two, wouldn’t you agree?
**/
Marriage in india is a community function, and a family function.. If marriage is confined only b/w the couples, then it is NOT at all a marriage.. Its a living together..
I am sorry, Your concept of marriage itself is mis-represented..
July 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
Thanks for replying Senthi.
I agree that same gotra marriages are rare. But here, people can die! I don’t feel it’s the same as just brother/sister accidentally falling in love since no one gets hurt.
And how fair is it, to suddenly go against their parents just because one starts to earn?.. DO they have any sense of gratitude?
Don’t you think parents have children for their own selfish reasons? No one asks to be born. When people become parents, it’s their duty to care for the child to the best of their ability. In fact, it’s illegal for a parent to not do this.
So why do you think a child should feel gratitude? No one asked him/her before giving birth. And once they’re born parents have to take care of them. Just by doing their duty doesn’t give parents the right to dictate another human beings future…
“I am sorry, Your concept of marriage itself is mis-represented..”
But what are you comparing it with? What is “represented” then and why is it the correct one?
July 12, 2010 at 3:49 am
senthil
/** I agree that same gotra marriages are rare. But here, people can die! I don’t feel it’s the same as just brother/sister accidentally falling in love since no one gets hurt.
**/
I agree with you that people cant die.. but oppressing Khaps is NOT the solution here.. what is the stand that we have to take? Either to create awareness among the younger generation on the need to respect community ethics, or to oppress and destroy the khap institution?
Is there any social analysis of why these honour killings happen? What we are seeing is only labelling, slandering and villainising the traditional institutions, a mark of christian inquisition..
Honour killings should be prevented.. there’s no second thought in it.. But it should be prevented by positive way, and through effective mediation.. By creating awareness among younger generation, we can prevent the very such occurances of same gotra marriage..
/** Don’t you think parents have children for their own selfish reasons? No one asks to be born. **/
If the children dont want to be born, let them end their life themselves.. why should they suck their parent’s resources?
The basic duty of a parent is to provide food, shelter and protection to their child.. But the parents, take enormous effort to send their child to school, to fulfill their children’s wishes, to send them to a college of their choice etc etc..
A child studies atleast till his 20th age, and for all these years, he/she gets money from his/her parents.. What is the necessity of the parent to spend all these money?
/**When people become parents, it’s their duty to care for the child to the best of their ability. In fact, it’s illegal for a parent to not do this.
**/
So, when it comes to parents, duties come first.. but when it comes to child, there is no duty as per your logic.. dont you feel it as grave injustice?
Btw, what do you mean by illegal? who is the law to order the parents? Are they slaves to the laws? The purpose of the law is to maintain social order and NOT peek in to individual family’s affairs, like what a parent should do to his child..
/** But what are you comparing it with? What is “represented” then and why is it the correct one?
**/
I am not comparing..i am saying your stand that marriage is an individual affair b/w couples and no one else has anything to do with is wrong..
July 12, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
Senthil, people can’t end their lives just like that. Once a living creature is born, it’s in its nature to live. Even miserable people continue to live their lives instead of killing themselves…
Also, parents put their children through college etc. through love and because they feel it’s their duty. They don’t want to have children who don’t have good education etc etc. It’s also a matter of prestige, their own self importance and ideas etc.
It’s not as if they get no pleasure from it at all and they’re only doing it for the sake of their child. After all, they won’t do it for some stranger.
Yes – my parents took care of me and did their best for me. In return, I will do the same for my children when the time comes. I don’t owe my parents anything. That’s the nature of life.
And of course, the law cares more about children than parents. I’m a writer and write for legal blogs. Even in divorce cases etc, the court never looks at what the parents want – only what’s best for the child. This is as it should be. Parents brought the child into the world, now they have to look after it.
These laws are in place in almost every country I know.
“i am saying your stand that marriage is an individual affair b/w couples and no one else has anything to do with is wrong..”
What is right and why is it right?
July 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm
senthil
/** Also, parents put their children through college etc. through love and because they feel it’s their duty. They don’t want to have children who don’t have good education etc etc. It’s also a matter of prestige, their own self importance and ideas etc.
**/
That’s what i am saying.. parents love their children very much, and hence sacrifice themselves for betterment of their children. Unlike in western countries, where the parents live for themselves enjoying life, in india, parents live for their children.. Wont it be a lifetime shock for them, if their children had done a gravest thing, that they have never thought of?
When a parents chose to murder their child inspite the fact that they had spent all their life for bringing up, it shows how much they felt betrayed by their own child.. In my opinion, its more than a betrayal.. I have known many parents, who would prefer to go to jail by killing their daughter.. So no amount of law can solve this problem..
Its not just with parents child relation.. There are numerous love stories that end in betrayals? How many lovable husbands, murder his own wife, if he found her to be in secret affair with another guy.. you cannot go and say, it is his wife’s individual right to elope with any one..
Similarly, we can cite many other relations, where betrayal is unbearable.. like betrayal of friends, betrayal of superiors etc..
So we have to first understand the psychological impact of such marriages..
I am surprised with one thing..
Why is the learned elitists, not respecting the community ethics? Do they feel, that the rural people are ignorant idiots, while the urbanites are wise people?
If they urban elites, who are at policy making, cared to respect the sentiments of the rural people, they would take pro-active actions to prevent the root cause of honour killing, by creating awareness about community ethics..
/**Yes – my parents took care of me and did their best for me. In return, I will do the same for my children when the time comes. I don’t owe my parents anything. That’s the nature of life.
**/
This is the crux of the problem.. THis is a typical western mindset, which are being imposed upon india.. If you dont owe anything to your parent, why should the government enact a law, that punishes the child for ignoring their aged parents?
As per indian cultural values, a grihastha has multi-fold duty.. one is to protect and bring up his child.. second is to protect his father and mother.. and the third is to contribute to society.. and so on..
The faultline is that intellectuals like you and those at policy making and power structure dont acknowledge this cultural values, but a vast majority of the society believes in it.. Westernised Indians are always at loggerheads with the native bharath..
/** And of course, the law cares more about children than parents. **/
Who made that law my friend?
/** “i am saying your stand that marriage is an individual affair b/w couples and no one else has anything to do with is wrong..”
What is right and why is it right?
**/
Marriage is a community function, with parents having primary role and relatives having secondary role.. This reality cannot be understood by those urbanites, who dont know even their neighbour hood.. But in rural india, people live along with their relatives and as a community.. Their life is interwined with that of the community..
Hence marriage for a rural family is more of a community function, where relatives come to the family, participate in all the arrangements and execute the function collectively.. This is what is called a marriage..
If you are going to isolate this function just b/w a boy & girl, it is completely wrong.. as i said earlier, this is living together, and NOT a marriage..
July 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
It’s good to understand your point of view. There are differences in how we think and it’s interesting to get down to it.
But I think you demonize “western culture” too much. The government in the US for example, only pays for school. College is much much more expensive than in India. Parents in the US take out loans for their children for college that take more than 10 years to pay off.
Let’s acknowledge that those in the west are humans just like us and have the same feelings and emotions. We’re not really different. If history has shown us anything, it’s that people don’t change no matter the time, the culture, or the place.
Now to address your objections:
I’m not sure of what you feel here, but are you by any chance saying that betrayal gives the right to kill?
If my wife runs off with another man (and I’m married), I will feel betrayed. But I have no right to kill her. You can feel sorry for me as much as you want, but if I kill her I will go to jail like I deserve to. You can’t have a law enforcing gratitude. If my wife wants to betray me, that’s her choice. You can’t have a law saying – “Don’t betray this person.” unless there’s a written agreement saying you will not do this or that. And there’s no such agreement either in marriage, or in the parent/child relationship.
In any case, the child is not in a position to make such an agreement.
“Why is the learned elitists, not respecting the community ethics?”
If the whole community feels this way, then no one would run away! The fact that some couples do this means that the whole community does not share the same view.
It’s not the “Urban Elites” who are forcing communities. It’s the people in these rural areas who are not respecting the young couple’s wishes.
“Do they feel, that the rural people are ignorant idiots, while the urbanites are wise people?”
Do the village people feel that young couples are ignorant idiots, while those in the community are wise people?
“why should the government enact a law, that punishes the child for ignoring their aged parents?”
I never agreed with that law. In time, that law will go when it’s challenged in court. Not everything is perfect, but it’ll get there – no hurry.
“As per indian cultural values…intellectuals like you…dont acknowledge this cultural values,”
Are you saying a person has the right to force these cultural values onto another? People like me are not forcing our values onto anyone. You’re free to follow any Indian tradition you want as long as you allow others to live their lives as they want. And “others” includes couples of marriageable age.
“as i said earlier, this is living together, and NOT a marriage”
That is your view of marriage. And it’s not wrong – it’s just wrong for me. You’re free to view marriage in any way you want. No one is attacking your values.
But in the same way, if a couple want to get married in their own way, that is their way of viewing marriage. Who are you to force your ways onto them?
To each his own…
July 12, 2010 at 6:41 pm
senthil
/** But I think you demonize “western culture” too much…… **/
I am not demonizing western culture here.. i am opposing imposition of western values over indian people.. Here western always need not be US alone.. It includes europe too.. US pays for school fees.. In europe many countries have free education till college education.. medical facility is free there.. newly born babies are provided with financial assistance to its mother.. There is a strong social security there..
But in india, this social security is provided by the community in which a people is part of.. NOT through monetarily.. but through relationship base and psychological & physical support..
/** Let’s acknowledge that those in the west are humans just like us and have the same feelings and emotions.
**/
They have their own feelings and emotions.. and we have our own feelings and emotions.. When you could empathise so much for westerners, why NOT for the indian rural people? I could only remember the supposed utterences of Macaulay, that his english education would create a class of people who would be brown in colour but english in mindset.. i am feeling it first hand now..
The britishers had left 60 years before.. but the colonial legacy still hangs on..
/** I’m not sure of what you feel here, but are you by any chance saying that betrayal gives the right to kill?
**/
No one in the world kills by right.. Betrayal produces enough psychological impact, that when a person feels his life/life values is affected by another person, he attempts to kill that person, even if means loss of his own life..
Particularly in relations strongly interwoven through emotions, like parent child, husband-wife, the breaking of that relation means breaking of the entire family..
/** If my wife wants to betray me, that’s her choice. **/
Wow… typical western mindset.. i dont think, you will ever undestand bharatheeya values.. (I am specifically avoiding the word india)
For a westerner, wife eloping with another guy may be a common occurence and hence may not be a big issue.. in india, its not the case..
So please dont apply western values here..
/** If the whole community feels this way, then no one would run away! The fact that some couples do this means that the whole community does not share the same view.
**/
You already agreed, that same gothra marriage is a rare occurence.. how did a rare occurence negate the community values?
Secondly, is there any survey conducted on how many in a community supports this value and how many not?
The whole community may also believe in chastity.. and some womaniser may seduce a girl and corrupt her both pysically and mentally.. does that mean, the whole community does not believe in chastitiy?
The reason for such occurance of sagotra marriage is because of the influence of the western shit by the urban elites, through films and education.. NOT just because those couples believe.. Its the urban elites like you who are to be blamed, for disturbing the community harmony..
/** It’s the people in these rural areas who are not respecting the young couple’s wishes
**/
Its the young couples who are NOT respecting the community ethics.. as i said earlier, you dont know what a commune living is.. in a community life, every family informally adheres to a set of values.. this values will be followed only as long as every one follows it.. IF a small group of people violates it, it creates disturbances among the community..
If you dont know how it causes disturbances, again you dont know even A, B, C’s of commune living..
/** Do the village people feel that young couples are ignorant idiots, while those in the community are wise people?
**/
The couples are relations of the community they belong to.. Its the families of the couples who are at loss by their action … From that perspective, what the couple did was an unethical one..
But What relation does the urban people have with village people? What right do they have set standards and rules for the rural people?
/** I never agreed with that law. In time, that law will go when it’s challenged in court. Not everything is perfect, but it’ll get there – no hurry.
**/
I dont care whether you agreed or NOT.. but the fact that even if one person is punished by it, then you had lost all the moral standard in this debate.. and there are few persons who are dragged to court because of this law in my region..
/** Are you saying a person has the right to force these cultural values onto another? People like me are not forcing our values onto anyone. You’re free to follow any Indian tradition you want as long as you allow others to live their lives as they want. And “others” includes couples of marriageable age.
**/
Cultures are NOT a retail commodity.. to be either bought or to be forced to be bought.. Culture can exist only in a community.. So as the traditions.. You can go and see in any village, there will be atleast half-a dozen caste, each following its own culture and tradition.. No community forces culture upon others ..
It seems you are often confusing with religion and culture.. Both are different..
Btw, please dont lie that you people dont force any culture on others.. the biggest conspirator is the urban elites, who had been forcing western culture upon rural india, in all possible means.. When you over emphasize individual rights while being silent on individual duty, you are forcing the western values on india..
/** But in the same way, if a couple want to get married in their own way, that is their way of viewing marriage. Who are you to force your ways onto them?
**/
I think we have come a full round back to square one.. Its the couples family who opposes them.. and the parents have every right to do..
If you still insist on your point, please first oppose the government’s ban on brother-sister marriage, and then you can question the rural people.. You cannot set different standards for the government and the rural people..
If individual right is the only thing to be considered, you can very well argue for marriage b/w father and daugher and mother and son, brother-sister and hence first fight against the government to remove the ban on these marriages .. after all, for any marriage, a male and female is what needed..
July 12, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
“how did a rare occurence negate the community values?”
It doesn’t. It negates it only for the two people involved.
Since they no longer want to follow the community, they can be made to leave. But not killed. (As long as they don’t legally own property and want to stay there for course)
“and some womaniser may seduce a girl and corrupt her both pysically and mentally.. does that mean, the whole community does not believe in chastitiy? “
No. It means that the womanizer does not believe in chastity. He should not be made part of that community. It’s that simple.
“Its the young couples who are NOT respecting the community ethics..”
Exactly. That’s why they should not remain part of the community.
“If you dont know how it causes disturbances,”
If they’re not hurting anyone, how can they cause a disturbance?
“What right do they have set standards and rules for the rural people?”
No one has the right to set standards and rules for anyone. Apart from the law of course…
“When you over emphasize individual rights while being silent on individual duty,”
I’m not forcing you to favor your own individual rights. But if some couples want to do that, you shouldn’t force them to adopt your viewpoint.
“please first oppose the government’s ban on brother-sister marriage,”
Lots of things can be done simultaneously. We don’t need to just look at one thing at a time. We have enough people and activists in the country who can focus resources on more than one problem 🙂
July 12, 2010 at 7:18 pm
senthil
/** Since they no longer want to follow the community, they can be made to leave. But not killed.
**/
/** Exactly. That’s why they should not remain part of the community. **/
I agree.. but why should the couple come back to the village? There are few cases, where the khaps had facilitated the couples to go to some distant places like delhi or mumbai, and even asked the respective parents to give certain amount of money to the couple for initial expense..
Its the level of emtions that decide the reaction of the family.. some leave their children to go to unknown places..
The problem comes only when the couple attempts to live among the community.. and in some cases, with support of some communist groups, starts claiming their ancestral property..
What the government is doing is total oppression against khaps.. its worst than autocracy.. they had already destroyed many native systems in south india and other places.. But the khaps were more organised, and could survive so long..
As i said earlier, there is no positive approach to this problem, both from the government and the intellectuals..
/** No. It means that the womanizer does not believe in chastity.
**/
So you are saying, a womaniser can seduce a girl and its the girl’s individual right to get seduced, and that her family should not protect her..
What a logic sirji..
/** If they’re not hurting anyone, how can they cause a disturbance? **/
Dont you really know how disturbances be caused without hurting any one?
/** No one has the right to set standards and rules for anyone. Apart from the law of course…
**/
Does law comes from heaven?
/** Lots of things can be done simultaneously. We don’t need to just look at one thing at a time. We have enough people and activists in the country who can focus resources on more than one problem 🙂
**/
Please let me know, how many elites opposed the law that punishes children for ignoring elderly parents? Or how many opposed the HMA which bans marriage b/w a man and widow of his brother.. (let us leave brother-sister marriage for now)..
July 12, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
I’m glad we agree on something Senthil!
In the honor killings reports that we read in the news, the couple tries to leave but they’re tracked and killed. It’s this that I oppose.
I had not heard of khaps till last year. And the first thing I hear are statements like this from them:
“Khaps are like gods. They can do no wrong. If you are with us and continue to show us in good light nothing can go wrong,” says Chaudhary Karan Singh.
and
“We will not compromise on traditions. We will either kill or get killed,” says Om Prakash Malik.
and
“No one can stop such deaths. Not the Government or the Supreme Court. Even the military can not stop it,” says Choudhary Naresh Singh Tikait.
If statements like these are the first things I hear regarding them, can you blame me for being against them and supporting the government?
Here’s the video where they say these things: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/khaps-defiant-say-honour-killings-will-continue/126456-3.html
“So you are saying, a womaniser can seduce a girl and its the girl’s individual right to get seduced, and that her family should not protect her..”
Yes. Of course if the woman is underage, then it’s a different thing.
July 14, 2010 at 6:32 pm
senthil
Bhagwad,
I saw the videos.. and it seems selectively edited and used.. the full text is needed to gauge the content..
Fine.. for now i will take the video as it is..
The problem is NOT with khaps alone.. But with the urbanites and mainly the government..
Suppose, a major newspaper comes with an advertisement, saying that there is NO such thing called ethics or morality in life, and that any one including brothers and sisters in the same family can love and marry themselves.. and this advertisement is delivered to majority of people in the cities..
What do you feel will happen?
Next, if the same newspaper, arranges for the marriage of a real brother and sister, and then says its their individual right, and again advertises among people..
Wont they be total outrage in the cities? Will delhi people simply watch all these and accept “Yes.. its their individual rights?” ..
There will be total furore.. because something against a collective ethics is being violated here.. everyone would be agitated, because, they could NOT imagine such thing happening in their own family..
And now ask them, what will you do, if their son and daughter get married to each other? Will the parents bless them? Even the most educated person will say “I will kill them”..
Now what will the government do? Will it not enact more strict laws, close the newspaper and arrest the advertiser?
When urban people protest, the government respects.. when the rural people protest, its looked down upon and attempts are made to suppress that..
The problem is MORE with the mindset of the urban elites and their colonial government of india..
I dont have any better explanation to present my case..
I repeatedly say, that when brother-sister marriage happens, no community can accept.. Even the urbanits will prefer honour killing..
July 16, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Bhagwad Jal Park
Senthil,
I’m pretty sure that most people will not seriously think of killing their children – even if it’s a real brother and sister marriage.
They may be shocked, disgusted etc – but killing is out of the question.
Killing can be permitted only if the person killed is a threat to the well being of the person who commits it.
July 16, 2010 at 5:04 pm
senthil
Bhagwat.. its just a speculative comment.. Is there any survey or interview with a common middle class families?
YOu are obsessed with killing, whereas i am more focussed on the root cause..
August 24, 2010 at 7:39 am
Sandeep S
Senthil,
I would like to ask one un-related question here.
Are you aware of Hindu Marriage Amendment bill 2010, which is supposed to sanction more divorces.
I would like to know why such a law was thought out in the first place.
it would be interesting to know the people/groups who lobbied for such an amendment and also the funds which were used for this purpose.
Interestingly, In an School History book ( which is used in Some Indian schools in place of NCERT official book) { Oxford University Publication book} has a nice SOb story about this and how the Hindu women would be emancipated by this new bill. ( Isn’t that interesting enough???)
Another interesting thing in that book is that it has a special chapter of “Dronacharya’s special treatment of Ekalavya”.
Regards
Sandeep
August 24, 2010 at 3:31 pm
senthil
/** Are you aware of Hindu Marriage Amendment bill 2010, which is supposed to sanction more divorces.
I would like to know why such a law was thought out in the first place.
**/
I have my own views of these laws.. but what is this to do with khaps? now are you saying, the khaps are oppressing women and wives too?
btw, does all women in christian and muslim community are well off without any discrimination or oppression.. if NOT, then why Hindu marriage act only amended?
/** Interestingly, In an School History book ( which is used in Some Indian schools in place of NCERT official book) { Oxford University Publication book} has a nice SOb story about this and how the Hindu women would be emancipated by this new bill
**/
I havent read that book.. and i did not get what you are saying..