Sorry not Hindus ...Religion of Jats

[narenderkharb]

And I always wished that we could do more constructive things in the lil time that life spares us !

AAp log to rojh ae kaaro ho yoh constrictive Kaam Ke Chaala hogaya bhai jai aaj haam nae bhi Kar Diyaa to ....

On a serious note we should take a short/long sleep break now.

 

[ravichaudhary]

If we can let us try and bring the discussion in some narrow focus.

Why did the Khaps make this declaration- that Jats re not Hindu?

An incident occurred, whereby the Indian Secular courts, are passing judgment on the social customs of the Jats, ( which do not allow same Goth marriage).

The Indian court says same goth marriage is allowed under their law, (and under the Hindu Marriage Act???).

In other words the Hindu marriage act interpreted by the court allows same Goth marriage.

This is against the Jat customs, and had got the Jats riled up, and making them state that in that case, they are not Hindus.

I.e. if Hindu Law allows same Goth marriage, then Jats are not Hindus.

So it is a broader question of what law shall apply.

Perhaps for Jats, a separate law needs to be passed?

That is what I understand the Jats are saying through their Khaps

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[sunnymann]

Ham hindu the, hindu hain aur hindu rahenge.:rock

Ham jat the, jat hain aur jat rahenge

 

[sjakhars]

Loosing argument....hahaha

I did not loose the argument, neither my temper. Whatever I said above was bcoz I pity on the knowledge and intelligence of the people who send out this kind of "Fatwas", welcome to the land of Talibanis.

Some simple questions:
1. Why did these khaps tell us now that we are Buddhists and not Hindus now, why not 100s of years ago? Can you or you khaps answer this?
2. Why we do not have pictures/statues of Buddha in our homes in place of "Ram", "Krishna", "Balaji" and other Hindu deities? Or are these all deities Buddhist?
3. Why do we recite all the mantras which come from Vedas, Upnishadas, aaranyakas, Puranas etc. etc.? Or do you think all these mythological books are Buddhist literature?
4. Why "Janam, maran aur paran" rituals are done according Hinduism? Why do you invite Pandits (Brahmins) for all these rituals?

Simple basic rule of such discussions...

As you loose on arguments you will show more desperation ,Sarcasm and offense in your posts .Take it easy bhai ji.

 

[ravichaudhary]

One single question:
Why did these khaps tell us now that we are Buddhists and not Hindus now, why not 100s of years ago? Can you or you khaps answer this?

Basically everyone has forgotten their history.

Unless we study the topic, we will not know that Rohtak was a major Buddhist centre.

That does not mean that all Buddhists followed Jat customs.


In Eastern India for example, we find at that time, references to 1st cousin marriage. The Jats will not permit that.

Jat have been Vedic, Buddhist, Jain, and more recently Sikh, and Muslim.

But are Jat following orthodox Hinduism.??

The Priest( Brahmin) relationship with the Jats is one, where the priest( in traditional villages) will not accept 'Pukka' food but only ' kacha" food.

One wonders why this is and also how old the custom is!.


Again the question will come down too is: which law shall prevail

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[sjakhars]

Common civil code

Ravi Ji
Courts do not ask Jats to get involved in same Goth marriages, we are/were unable to make our new generation aware of our traditions, customs and social norms. One side we advocate for Common civil code and on the other side we want separate law for ourselves, this is called Talibanism/fatwaism.

If we can let us try and bring the discussion in some narrow focus.

Why did the Khaps make this declaration- that Jats re not Hindu?

An incident occurred, whereby the Indian Secular courts, are passing judgment on the social customs of the Jats, ( which do not allow same Goth marriage).

The Indian court says same goth marriage is allowed under their law, (and under the Hindu Marriage Act???).

In other words the Hindu marriage act interpreted by the court allows same Goth marriage.

This is against the Jat customs, and had got the Jats riled up, and making them state that in that case, they are not Hindus.

I.e. if Hindu Law allows same Goth marriage, then Jats are not Hindus.

So it is a broader question of what law shall apply.

Perhaps for Jats, a separate law needs to be passed?

That is what I understand the Jats are saying through their Khaps

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[raj_rathee]

The Haryana Jats that I know certainly don't seem to qualify as "Hindu".
For that matter I don't think they fall under any religion as such. Their
religion is the land...pretty much.

Also, I think Indian Law needs to accomodate the various social
systems that have existed for many centuries. Enforcing some conjured up uniform civil code without consideration of centuries old customs
and practices and artifically categorising people into
certain religions is unjust and should be rebelled against.

 

[jitendershooda]

If we can let us try and bring the discussion in some narrow focus.

Why did the Khaps make this declaration- that Jats re not Hindu?

An incident occurred, whereby the Indian Secular courts, are passing judgment on the social customs of the Jats, ( which do not allow same Goth marriage).

The Indian court says same goth marriage is allowed under their law, (and under the Hindu Marriage Act???).

In other words the Hindu marriage act interpreted by the court allows same Goth marriage.

This is against the Jat customs, and had got the Jats riled up, and making them state that in that case, they are not Hindus.

I.e. if Hindu Law allows same Goth marriage, then Jats are not Hindus.

So it is a broader question of what law shall apply.

Perhaps for Jats, a separate law needs to be passed?

That is what I understand the Jats are saying through their Khaps

Ravi Chaudhary

This is the core of the discussion.

Jadojehad hai apni manyataon ko recognise karne ki .... whether what we were following since centuries were something to do with welfare of society/individual or they were all hoax. Should we leave all behind and get wrapped under one cover "hindu".

What is HINDU/ DHARAM to me?
I have born in a family which follow some customs and traditions. Those are dharam for me.

1) Kiloi Shivaji mandir is very much near to our fields. I asked severally to my grand parents and parents even ... if they been there ... they said NO never ... and now you can see kilometer long lines on shivratri.
2) We never took "Phools" to ganga or garh-ganga though we worship pitr's/kanagat
3) We never married in our village and left few gotras.
4) We have certain set of tyohar's

So for me this is dharam. Yes, there can be some issues with our practices that needs to be addressed and removed timely. But if govt say that they legalise same gotr and cousin marriage for we people then we have right to ask them to either recognise our practices (those needs to be after discussion) or dont bind us with some name like "Hindu" because I dont know any hindu religion if its practices doesnt match to be basically.

Dont we see the present system/law faulty when such cases occur daily here and there. Either they are more flexible or they didnt addressed many things logically during the national building (constitution, laws etc).

 

[cooljat]

I somewhat disagree with the statement made by Khap Panchayats. Albeit I believe Jats never been religious or god fearing in a way. They always condemned of hardcore religious rituals like sculpture worship, going to mandirs n like that, Jats always been 'Karmayogi' and believed in only Hard Work n' never say die attitude.

But still All of Jats reside in UP, Rajasthan, Haryana, MP, Delhi n near about areas follow Hindu rituals n' customs in their daily course of life and on major events like child born, festivals, marriages, funeral etc. DON'T WE?

Agree with it or not! Jats do follow Hinduism, although not hardcore Hindu followers but they're, that's why we are called as HINDU JATS ! It depends what customs u follow, like Sikh Jats follow Sikhism n' Muslim Jats follow Islam, ain't sure how hard-core they're for their religions/faiths.

Even though, I myself not a follower of Hinduism, rather am an atheist .. to be precise am spiritual not a ritual BUT still in some imp events of life I'll have to follow Hindu customs.

Hence it proves, we all are HINDU JATS not Buddhist or other.


Rock on
Jit

 

[prashantacmet]

Parshant

To cut a long story short Khap heads wanted to make it clear that we were First Vedic Dharmi than Buddhist we have certain customs and traditions that are our own and we value them.So far you don't interfere in our affairs we have no problem with you.However we were never formerly inducted in Hinduism from Buddhist past .So laws made for general Hindus does not hold good for us .This does not mean that Jat Khaps declared themselves as Buddhists but some were saying we are Vedic Dharmi different from Sanatni Hinduists and some thought of making our own religion ,in-fact Intellectual and KHAPS ARE VERY DIVIDED ON THIS ISSUE .What I predict is they are going to declare themselves as Vedic Dharmis different from from Brahmanical or Sanatani version of Hinduism and later who knows we may see rise of a Jat Dharam.

Kharab ji...Now I am convinced...I guess title of the thread is making ppl outrageous

 

[svikas]

If we can let us try and bring the discussion in some narrow focus.

Why did the Khaps make this declaration- that Jats re not Hindu?

An incident occurred, whereby the Indian Secular courts, are passing judgment on the social customs of the Jats, ( which do not allow same Goth marriage).

The Indian court says same goth marriage is allowed under their law, (and under the Hindu Marriage Act???).

In other words the Hindu marriage act interpreted by the court allows same Goth marriage.

This is against the Jat customs, and had got the Jats riled up, and making them state that in that case, they are not Hindus.

I.e. if Hindu Law allows same Goth marriage, then Jats are not Hindus.

So it is a broader question of what law shall apply.
Ravi Chaudhary

Sir, per the original article,
A factual error was made when the khap said that all Hindu communities can marry in the same gotra (via Hindu Marriage Act 1955). Least they should read before shooting their mouth off. This is totally incorrect, there are Hindu communities other than us who forbid same gotra marriages. IOW, "same gotra marriage is forbidden" is not our sole preserve, there are others who follow it as well as part of their tradition.

Before 'reforms' under JN Nehru in the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, sa-gotra marriage was banned. As I read the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, it allows each community(incl us) to adopt its own rules/customs BUT not make rules as you go along. I would request you and others also to go through the Act and give their opinions.

Since these khaps are too sensitive touch me not types and cannot take any criticisms, they should be advised not to take knee jerk decisions, if a khap decides to take lives of innocent boys/girls or are kidnapping kids to punish parents for same gotra marriage, they'll be criticized and called names by media and others.

Lastly, shouldn't this thread be in Current Affair/some other section?

 

[sjakhars]

saanchi baat

Sach baat to ye hai ki hum apne hi bachon ko apne riti riwaz apnane ke liye prerit nahi kar pa rahe aur jab wo in riti riwajon, samajik prathao ko todte hain to hum samvidhan ko dosh dete hain, agar hum itne hi jagrook hain to apne balak aisa karte hi kyun hain, hamare ghar me bachpan se ye baat saamne aati rahi hai ki hum chaar goth taal ke shadi karte hain, hum me se kisi ke bhi ye khyal tak nahi aaya, in chaar gothon ki ladkiyan hamare liye bahan hain, aisa bhaav aata hi nahi. agar hum apne bachon ko ye baat samjha nahi sakte to galti hamari hai na ki samajik prathaon ki ya bharatiya samvidhaan ki.

 

[jitendershooda]

Before 'reforms' under JN Nehru in the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, same-gotra marriage was banned.

Vikas,

I have read on internet and found the only link which you have provided in this regard. This says that early to 1955 same gotr marriage was banned but after that on mutual consent the couple can do so legally. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[kapdal]

Le Kapil pahle teri iss page aali ne dekh lenya...



History is not mere speculation ,, Jats have recorded Buddhist by various authors at various times.There are both direct and indirect references regarding that .Chinese in Han chronicles mentions for the first time about Jats residing on river Sihun being follower of religion of Fo (Buddhism). Even in Buddha times King Uddayan who is mentioned as Jat in Arya Manju Shri Mulkalpa bows his head to Gautam and follows BUDDHISM ,Arabian Muslim writers in Chachnama refers about Jats being followers of Buddhism mentioned as Samanis they followed the custom of honoring by tieing a turban on head .Various kings considered Jats like Asoka ,Kushana and Harshwardhana are reported followers of Buddhism.In fact the entire Area of Jat inhabitance that is Silk Road from India is reported under Buddist influence.


Now let us move on What these Hindus granths tell about Jats ....


Majmul ul Tawarikh mentions from ancient Sanskrit literature that there was no Brahman in Land of Jats and they were settled there on the request of sister of Duryodhan .

Puranas call this land as land of Malecchas and a Brahman should never visit these lands .If he visit this land he must take bath and clean himself before doing any thing.

Mahabharata wrote a lot about these adharmi Jartas and I should not quote that defamatory material which is already known to other historian .

Another Puran calls these Sakas Pahlavas and Kambojas Jats as Degraded Kashtriyas as they didn't follow Hinduism (Brahmans)

So in short we may say Yes Jats did adopt Buddism and were though alien by Hindu priests .

Narender, I had raised many other points. Picking a line or two and then replying on that is quite convenient, but serves no purpose.

Nevertheless, I didn't say History is merely speculation, I said mostly. It changes the meaning quite a bit. It is mostly speculation because you will always get contrarian accounts/records of an event. Even historians' interpretations never match each others. There is always a story in history. So you can't say that so and so wrote this, hence proved. Whatever you have stated above is not a fact. It can't be proved or disproved. A fact is something that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. One can prove that Earth is round. You have selectively taken a few interpretations to claim that Jats were Buddhists. There would be several other historical accounts that would be contrarian. For example, the interpretation of Asoka being a Jat is based on his grandfather Chandragupta Maurya's surname that is believed to be same as Mor gotra of Jats. However, there are other interpretations- son of a maid called "Mura", belonged to a clan of peacock tamers, belonged to a Kshatriya clan of Moriya. Can anyone prove which one of these is fact? We can only speculate and then pick the speculation that sounds most logically consistent.

The above is merely a response to the history argument. The thrust of that particular post of mine that you replied to was about the present. Whether Jats were Buddhists or not is besides the point. If we were, we were not the only ones. During Asoka's reign and subsequently, it is believed that most of India was Buddhist. But then Buddhism became extinct in India. And most of the natives had customs/traditions/religious inclination that can be broadly termed as Hinduism. What we know is the present and very recent past on which everyone has a much stronger handle. Our customs/traditions/gods/festivals, etc. show a significant overlap with the other practitioners of Hinduism. We have our own unique customs as well just like others have. But what do we share with Buddhists? If we are Buddhists, then his teachings, his life story, the tenets of Buddhism, etc. should all be common knowledge amongst our people. Is it? I bet if you go to the average household and ask about Buddha, they'd start telling you about ghar ka boodha..

 

[svikas]

Jitendra Bhai, there are conditions to fulfill before a proper Hindu marriage can be done, in the same link, read clause 5 (iv) and (v) for conditions and clause 3(f) and (g) for definitions. Mutual consent is only for divorce for the rest one has to provide a recognized custom or usage. Hope to have answered your question.

 

[ravichaudhary]

original article

Sir, per the original article article,
A factual error was made when the khap said that all Hindu communities can marry in the same gotra (via Hindu Marriage Act 1955). Least they should read before shooting their mouth off. This is totally incorrect, there are Hindu communities other than us who forbid same gotra marriages. IOW, "same gotra marriage is forbidden" is not our sole preserve, there are others who follow it as well as part of their tradition.

Before 'reforms' under JN Nehru in the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, sa-gotra marriage was banned. As I read the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, it allows each community(incl us) to adopt its own rules/customs BUT not make rules as you go along. I would request you and others also to go through the Act and give their opinions.

Since these khaps are too sensitive touch me not types and cannot take any criticisms, they should be advised not to take knee jerk decisions, if a khap decides to take lives of innocent boys/girls or are kidnapping kids to punish parents for same gotra marriage, they'll be criticized and called names by media and others.

Lastly, shouldn't this thread be in Current Affair/some other section?

Dear Vikas ji

thank you for very relevant information.

let us eliminate speculat
the article is reproduced


""We are no part of Hindus a separate tribe/race : says khap panchayat

Jansamwad News
Jhajjar. Aug 2(jansamwad): It seems that Jats have decided to fight those who recently criticizes the khap’s decision and even using the terms such as Tuglaki Farmaan for the khap’s. Today, In Jhajjar a rally was called by the pardhan’s of various khap’s to discuss the recent media reports, recently, media called the khap’s decision’s as Tuglaki Farmaan.


The Khap says about recent gotra controversy, we (jats) are a race/tribe not a caste of hindus or anyone else and have our own customs/culture. One of the Khap member said that jats never accepted Hinduism formally. The khap further says our customs/cultures doesn’t match that of hindu’s.


When asked about the legal aspects of the recent gotra controversy, they
said that according to Hindu Marriage Act anyone can marry who are of marriageable age(except minor). According to Hindu Marriage Act , you can marry in the same gotra, and even in blood relation. But this is not permitted in our community. We strictly follow our custom/culture in our community and we have certain guidelines/rules for a valid marriage, says the Khap. We won’t allow anyone to break this custom at any cost, says one of the khap’s pardhan . They further said since we have different custom/cultures and doesn’t match that of hindus, how can Hindu Marriage Act be applicable on us. The law must protect your customs/cultures.


This law (Hindu Marriage Act) is only 50-60 years old, but our custom/culture is about 2000 years old says the khap. We strongly condemn the media for using such words for the khap panchayat. Before saying anything the media must understand the culture/customs of our community says the Khap.


Jansamwad/2 aug/ Parveen kumar singh

http://www.jansamwad.com/LatestNews.aspx?dv=Div46 ""

 

[ravichaudhary]

Hindu marraige Act extracts

Thanks to Vikasji


THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
(Act 25 of 1955)[18th May, 1955]

Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus.

An Preliminary
1. Short title and extent.-(1) This Act may be called the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories.
'

2. Application of Act.- (1) This Act applies,-


(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj;


(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and


(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion is, nevertheless, a person wh (3) The expression "Hindus" in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it om this Act applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section.


3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-


(a) the expression "custom" and "usage" signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformally observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family:


Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy; and


Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family it has not been discontinued by the family;


(f)(i)"Sapinda relationship" with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation(inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation;


(ii) two persons are said to be "sapinda" of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them;


(g)"degrees of prohibited relationship " - two persons are said to be within the "degrees of prohibited relationship"-


(I) if one is a lineal ascendant of the other; or


(ii) if one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or


(iii)if one was the wife of the brother or of the father's or mother's brother or of the grandfather's or grandmother's brother or the other; or


(iv)if the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or
children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters.

Hindu Marriages


5. Condition for a Hindu Marriage.- A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:

(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;


(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
'
"""


What do readers interpret the Hindu marriage act to permit?


How does it apply to the recent controversy.

Note ::in many south Indian hindu communities, Brahmins 1st cousin marriage is permitted. daughter is offered first to the mama.

That is a valid local custom- sapinda rule is avoided.


Please discuss

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[ravichaudhary]

From a reading of the Hindu Marriage Act, it appears to me
that the Court will permit same goth marriage, 1st cousin marriage, ifsuch custom is a local custom.


The language of the act is very clear- that local custom will prevail over the other provisions of th Act.

Thus in the in recent Haryana case, the Court should have followed the local custom, which forbade marriage in the same goth, and ALSO( VERY IMPORTANT) in the neighbouring village.


Had the Court followed the Act, this tragedy would have been avoided.

The young man would have known that he could not marry under the Hindu Act, but would have to convert- become a Muslim. The girl would have also known that.



Should the Jats bring a PIL to Supreme Court to clarify the issue, so that the lower Courts have a clear direction?



Vikasji, Thank you again, for bringing focus to the topic.


Ravi Chaudhary



T

 

[sjakhars]

Kyun???

Ravi Ji,
kya isi karan Khap panchayat ne kaha ki hum Hindu nahi Buddhist hain? aur ab jab aap ye kah rahe hain ki local custom will get priority over the HMA 1955 then why we need to say that we are not Hindus but Buddhist when only a PIL can serve the cause?

 

[ravichaudhary]

Ravi Ji,
kya isi karan Khap panchayat ne kaha ki hum Hindu nahi Buddhist hain? aur ab jab aap ye kah rahe hain ki local custom will get priority over the HMA 1955 then why we need to say that we are not Hindus but Buddhist when only a PIL can serve the cause?

At this point I am not getting into the detail of the argument.

Historically, it is wrong to harp too much on whether Jats were buddhists, Jain, or for that matter worshippers of stones.

That is not the core issue.

The issue is what the law is, and also is the Law reflective of society, and is it a just law?


The Hindu Marriage Act, appears to allow a ' free for all' .!!!

Is that what society wants?


I suggest we focus on that.


Ravi Chaudhary