"Should the Govt amend HMA to ban 'same-gotra' marriage"?

[sanjaymalik]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Its the same thing. Village consists of people and people have some or other gotra. Isn't it ? No village is officially known by the any specific gotra. We consider that village x belongs to Y gotra for our general knowledge or such stuff. We call My mama's village, fufa's village etc ... are they really their villages ? Village is an entity where people from many gotra and many community resides. Obviously, some specific community or gotra may dominate the village by population but that doesn't meant that they will decide the marriage rules in that village.



The sentence in blue is the main thing as people in Khap dominated area declare these as brother villages and imposing the rule that they can not make marriage relationship. Not only this, they declare 10-15 or more surrounding village as borther villages ( Bhaichara ) and don't allow marriage relationship. Not only for the dominated gotra but the people of other gotras are forced to obey them instead of a collective decision or letting it be decided by themselves. If a rare case happens ( infact it happens rarely .... as you said about the villages ), they are supposed to feel heat from the Khaps.



I am not saying that Amendment can not be done, Obviously it can be done and if govt feels its right to amend certain rules they can do it overnight by calling upon a special session of Parliament or any other process supposed to follow. I

I am talking about the significance of the amendment and impacts it may bring or not. Traditions and customs are followed by the people by their own will but not by the any force.

You may say that let amendment happen then we can see its after effects .... i may differ here as i beleive that law should amended after lot of thought process. What if the suggested amendment bring so many complexicity and other bad things in our lives ? Do we need to fight again to write off the amendments forced by us.

What is the better way ... fighting once or twice ?

What kind of significance and impact may be of this amendment, i think you have very good forseeablity n can elobarate the same, so as we can also discussed about them.

And every Act is subject of amendment that's why our legislature put a clause to this effect then further amendment. Even our Constitution which is the essence of every thing and base of each and every Act is being amended every six or seven months.

Amendment always go through regorious process of dicusssion, consultation, advice etc with all pros and cons before get nod from Majority and notification.

 

[sjakhars]

The law can not write everything in the constitution. It is impossible but when we say that same gotra marriage and same village marriages are considered incestuous in Jat society and incestuous relations are prohibited in constitution then we have a right to ask for an amendment and get our custom included in the restrictions. The main demand is to restrict marriage within same gotra (doodh ka aur khoon ka rishta) and same village and this is being practiced in whole Jat society. I have seen in Rajasthan that we exclude 4 gotras, we do not marry in same village and this is the main demand. As I said earlier, other minor things can be decided in due course because this amendment is not going to happen today or tomorrow. We have to agree on our basic customs. We need to listen what people are asking and lets collectively decide what exactly will be the amendment, just ridiculing the idea does not solve the problem.

What is the better way ... fighting once or twice ?

 

[sanjaymalik]

I raised this question earlier also. Is this amendment that people are asking such that it won't leave any way for two people of same gotra/ same village to marry (without changing name etc) ? If yes, then it won't matter that 80% people want this amendment and it can't happen as it is violation of basic human rights of rest 20% and laws are not made by following majority.
If it does leave a way out, then I don't see why people are trying so hard to get it?

Every right whether be basic or Constitutional is subject to some reasonable restriction. All these are reasonable restrictions.

 

[rakeshsehrawat]

Every right whether be basic or Constitutional is subject to some reasonable restriction. All these are reasonable restrictions.

To Mr. Jakhar :- Iske samajh mein itne loga ki baat na ayee kyun khamkha latapeen ho rahe ho?
To Ms. Kusum :- Who make laws? Do we import people to do that for us? How laws are made?
To Vijay:- Bhai tu itna bawla to na lagta tere itne loga ki kahi samajh na aawe.

 

[kusumdhochak]

I had suspected this question will arise.. True that there is restriction in HMA/SMA on marrying cousins etc. It was probably put in considering some scientific reasoning. One can of course say that it should not be there and it can be discussed separately. Existence of one restriction does not justify adding more restrictions. I think basic human rights should be respected unless there is a fear of some problem that can affect adversely a large proportion of population. Possibility of same gotra marriages doesn't seem that big a problem.

There are restrictions in HMA about marriage within cousins, sister-brother etc. so don't you feel that these restrictions are violating the basic human rights. Who is the govt. to stop a marriage between a real sister and brother if they both agree to marry with each other? Its their matter and let them take the decision. Basic human rights are not absolute. If you go with the basic human right concept then no one can restrict you anywhere. Do you think that is good for the society and the country?

 

[kusumdhochak]

Every right whether be basic or Constitutional is subject to some reasonable restriction. All these are reasonable restrictions.

Forcing a culture on people does not seem to be reasonable restriction to me. Any ways no one is forcing anyone to not follow their culture.

To Rakesh: One doesn't need to import people to decide what is basic right. There are enough people here who can think logically.

 

[rakeshsehrawat]

I had suspected this question will arise.. True that there is restriction in HMA/SMA on marrying cousins etc. It was probably put in considering some scientific reasoning. One can of course say that it should not be there and it can be discussed separately. Existence of one restriction does not justify adding more restrictions. I think basic human rights should be respected unless there is a fear of some problem that can affect adversely a large proportion of population. Possibility of same gotra marriages doesn't seem that big a problem.

People are killed in Jat community
People are killed in Sikh community
People are killed in Haryana Punjab Rajasthan UP Bihar what bigger problem are we waiting for?

 

[vijay]

People are killed in Jat community
People are killed in Sikh community
People are killed in Haryana Punjab Rajasthan UP Bihar what bigger problem are we waiting for?

Put all those killers behind the bars.

 

[vijay]

The law can not write everything in the constitution.

That sums up everything.
When we talk about amendment on the basis of customs, traditions and belief it becomes much more complex and difficult.

 

[kusumdhochak]

Your customs are what you follow, theirs are what they believe in. You shouldn't take it as an attack on your customs. That is where the problem lies. People are taking it as attack on their beliefs. You can always keep following yours. Two different people are entitled to different belief.

Now the police is protecting the offenders and they come out with their "chaudi chhaati" in the village and bully our customs. We want the law to take effect so this can be prevented because some youngester are too modern to follow our customs.

 

[rakeshsehrawat]

Put all those killers behind the bars.

We need more bars as this is still going on
Do you think Putting behind bars is only solution?
Again your thought :- There are many loopholes in law to play with
Gawahi kun dega? Chore aale bhi muh fer ke keh de hain chalo badhiya hoya isi aulad to anpute chokhe.

Ek common kahawat hai" Lakh jaye Sakh na jaye" Log izzat ke liye koi bhi kurbani dene ko tayar hain Fauji bhi to desh ki izzat ke liye jan jokhim mein dalte hain. Mana wo bahaduri ka kaam aur aur meri tulna tumhe galat lagegi. Apni aulad ko marne ke liye kitna bada kaleja chahiye ye socha kabhi.
Still it is called HONOUR KILLING why not murder?

 

[sjakhars]

You do not need to suspect, it was obvious.
So, you mean to say that everything in the law books and constitutions is scientifically proven? One side you say that inbreeding/ marrying within cousins/siblings is prohibited due to some scientific reasons but in the same HMA south Indians are allowed to marry with cousins, a girl can marry with her maternal uncle. So this scientific reason goes for a walk when these exceptions are practiced. This exception was put in the HMA due to traditions/customs practiced in south India not due to scientific reason, correct?
Now lets talk about the basic human right to equality. This exception is given to south Indians but when Jats ask some restrictions/exceptions according to their customs, it is denied. Doesn't it violate the fundamental right to equality to Jats? Why don't all the human rights activist protest against this?
What if Jats bring a scientific reason behind this amendment? Jats are asking to include same gotra marriage to be added in the definition of inbreeding so in fact we are not going against the HMA but helping to stop inbreeding as it is prohibited in the HMA and according you and others inbreeding is not good. If you look at all these, you can see that Jats are following the HMA by avoiding inbreeding and also they are following the scientific reasons as well. The only thing needed is to redefine inbreeding.

I had suspected this question will arise.. True that there is restriction in HMA/SMA on marrying cousins etc. It was probably put in considering some scientific reasoning. One can of course say that it should not be there and it can be discussed separately. Existence of one restriction does not justify adding more restrictions. I think basic human rights should be respected unless there is a fear of some problem that can affect adversely a large proportion of population. Possibility of same gotra marriages doesn't seem that big a problem.

 

[rakeshsehrawat]

You do not need to suspect, it was obvious.
So, you mean to say that everything in the law books and constitutions is scientifically proven? One side you say that inbreeding/ marrying within cousins/siblings is prohibited due to some scientific reasons but in the same HMA south Indians are allowed to marry with cousins, a girl can marry with her maternal uncle. So this scientific reason goes for a walk when these exceptions are practiced. This exception was put in the HMA due to traditions/customs practiced in south India not due to scientific reason, correct?
Now lets talk about the basic human right to equality. This exception is given to south Indians but when Jats ask some restrictions/exceptions according to their customs, it is denied. Doesn't it violate the fundamental right to equality to Jats? Why don't all the human rights activist protest against this?
What if Jats bring a scientific reason behind this amendment? There are some scientific studies which tell us that inbreeding is not good. Google it and you will find.

Jat kad si human mein aa gaye?
We to Vehshi janwar hain Talibani hain apne bacho ko khud mar dete hain

 

[kapdal]

I had suspected this question will arise.. True that there is restriction in HMA/SMA on marrying cousins etc. It was probably put in considering some scientific reasoning. One can of course say that it should not be there and it can be discussed separately. Existence of one restriction does not justify adding more restrictions. I think basic human rights should be respected unless there is a fear of some problem that can affect adversely a large proportion of population. Possibility of same gotra marriages doesn't seem that big a problem.

Kusum,

Laws pertainting to personal domain of individuals are not necessarily based on freedom of choice or logic or basic human rights. They always have a cultural context. The Hindu Marriage Act post independence was not based on any scientific logic. If that would have been the case, there would have been a uniform civil code across all communities, strictly based on logic. I think the law just tried to codify what was already prevalent without contravening with any community's customs. The same can be seen in democratic societies across the world in examples like banning abortion, same-sex marriages, etc. etc. I am not saying this is the ideal, but the ideal doesn't happen in the real world. Codified law in nation states is a much more recent phenomenon compared to rules/customs of communities/cultures. The acceptance of law is contingent on it getting on the right side of existing culture.

Having said that, I don't see how the Hindu Marriage Act contravenes our customs. Those saying that it does are either not clear themselves, or trying to intentionally misrepresent the law. The law is generic and based on the least common principles that all communities within Hinduism agree to. There are no special clauses for South Indians (happy to change my mind if someone shows me a clause that names any particular community). All it does is to NOT make illegal, marriages within cousins, when the custom is prevalent in the community. It is much different from making a marriage illegal when it conflicts with a custom. That is the only way out, when you are making a generic law that does NOT HURT anyone.

What we are demanding is pretty much like a specific law for us different from other Hindus (like there is one for Muslims). Yes, the law can be amended (or a new law passed for Jats) that takes into account own + mother's gotra, specifically for Jats. But those are the rarest of the rare cases even in our community. Would that be enough? What about the other customs that it won't take into account, and are much more commonly broken by the "rebels"? And from a national point of view- why make an exception for one community, everyone else is then going to demand special clauses for themselves. If the community considers these customs as so important, why can't it ensure that its flock are voluntarily adhering to the same? They can practise any form of social boycott they want (eg. A Parsi marrying a non-Parsi is not considered a Parsi anymore).

 

[sjakhars]

No. it does not. If it sums up everything then we do not need any law or constitution at all, period. would you like to be in that state?

That sums up everything.
When we talk about amendment on the basis of customs, traditions and belief it becomes much more complex and difficult.

 

[sjakhars]

when the custom is prevalent in the community. It is much different from making a marriage illegal when it conflicts with a custom. That is the only way out, when you are making a generic law that does NOT HURT anyone.

Taken from kapil Dalal's post above.

Marrying in same gotra and same village hurts the custom of Jats and these kind of marriages can be legalized under HMA so HMA is hurting Jat customs and that is the exact reason why a demand for amendment is being raised.

 

[vijay123]

Mind your own business, HC tells khaps

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Mind-your-own-business--HC-tells-khaps/620105

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday sent a strong signal to khap panchayats or caste councils, asking them not to behave like “paternal figures” and termed those indulging in unlawful activities as “lawless goons”.
Coming down heavily on a petition demanding prohibition of intra gotra (clan) marriages and amendment in Hindu Marriage Act, the division bench of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Jasbir Singh told the self-styled khaps to “mind their own business”.
Observing that India is a “free country” and there was nothing wrong in “people getting married as far as the marriages are according to law”, Chief Justice Mudgal remarked, “Peace can be assured only by arresting handful of lawbreakers who are roaming freely.”
Questioning the motive behind filing such a petition, an angry Chief Justice said: “How are you bothered if they (couples) don’t want to follow the customs but follow the law. Let society look after itself. This is none of your business in interfering in somebody’s marriage. You people stick to your customs and ensure that your children are married according to gotras but do not enforce these customs on society.”

Raising a strong objection to the demand of amendment of Hindu Marriage Act and issuing a legislation for prohibition of intra gotra marriages, Justice Mudgal observed, “How can the court give such a direction? Show us one Supreme Court judgment which enables the court to pass such directions to the legislature to issue a legislation.”

Chandigarh: Demanding a ban on same gotra marriage, the Akhil Bhartiya Jat Swabhiman Sangathan on Monday gave an ultimatum to the Haryana government and the Centre till May 22 to change the Hindu Marriage Act in this regard or face an agitation. The Sangathan has organised a Sarvjatiya Mahasammelan at Jind on May 23 to chalk out its future strategy. The organisers said the rally will be attended by people from Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. It has sent letters in this regard to the President, the Prime Minister and the chief ministers of all states. It has also demanded a review of the punishment meted out to the guilty in the Manoj-Babli murder case.

 

[vijay123]

Anyone knows who is this "Akhil Bhartiya Jat Swabhiman Sangathan"? I think khaps should disown such self style organizations sprouting everywhere and doing more damage to jat cause. Aisa lagata hai ki is gotra vivad ke chakkar mei log ab apni rajniti chamkane mei bhi lag gaye hai.

Chandigarh: Demanding a ban on same gotra marriage, the Akhil Bhartiya Jat Swabhiman Sangathan on Monday gave an ultimatum to the Haryana government and the Centre till May 22 to change the Hindu Marriage Act in this regard or face an agitation. The Sangathan has organised a Sarvjatiya Mahasammelan at Jind on May 23 to chalk out its future strategy. The organisers said the rally will be attended by people from Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. It has sent letters in this regard to the President, the Prime Minister and the chief ministers of all states. It has also demanded a review of the punishment meted out to the guilty in the Manoj-Babli murder case.

 

[virj]

In an All India Poll 87% people want amendment. Mind you that include all communities North, West, East, South. Dhobi, Teli, Jat , Baniya. Amendment will apply on to the people as per where they are domiciled.(Recently HC said that HMA may not apply to people who are permanently settled overseas). I assume it wont apply to NRIs(where both are settled permantly) and south, south-east, North-east or other areas where it wont be passed. I assume out of those 13% who are against amendment at least 10% could be Muslims or refugees or south Indians who dont follow this. How could we be blind to such a clear verdict. Moreover those who say Govt cant put restrictions. I have said earlier somewhere all those things are restricted which are agaisnt social norms or against morality. (like theft, incest realtionship sex in public place, prostitution (why ??? It satisty basic human need and should be legal?,polygamy, smuggling etc etc). Even daru is banned in gujrat. Govt can put on restriction to anything which it think is ruining society.

A society needs to be restricted on certain things. I think the law should listen to 87% people and do something for them otherwise as I said earlier make a universal Marriage ACT.

Some blind people think its only khaps who is pressurising for this gotra ban. Wake up !! No Khaps is doing what more than 87% Indian want. Even other communities are behind them.


P.S. My English is not that good. Please dont point out spelling mistakes.

 

[vijay123]

There is a difference between what activity you perceive as immoral and what govt perceives the same. Most of people here would feel gays are a blot on society but govt thinks otherwise. Few decades back people view child marriages as normal thing but govts did not. Same way we jats think that same gotra marriage is incestuous but govt does not. They only consider a relationship as incestuous only if it is among very close relative. Though personally the people in govt wont accept the same when it comes to someone in their family but while ruling they have to draw a line between what society thinks and what is a personal liberty. So much so that they would be ready to make the amendment in HMA to ban same gotra marriage but there would be this loophole that people who are not closely related but from same gotra can register the marriage under SMA (Special Marriage Act). The logic is that tradition or beliefs can not be thrust upon an individual as that infringes on his/her personal liberty or fundamental right to freedom. That person can say that he does not believe in the so called custom and opt to be out of that custom. Now his/her family and neighbors boycott such couples, it is purely there choice. They can disown, disinherit such couples, or do whatever they want to.

Moreover those who say Govt cant put restrictions. I have said earlier somewhere all those things are restricted which are agaisnt social norms or against morality. (like theft, incest realtionship sex in public place, prostitution (why ??? It satisty basic human need and should be legal?,polygamy, smuggling etc etc). Even daru is banned in gujrat. Govt can put on restriction to anything which it think is ruining society.