Those guilty of "Within Gotra" marriage should be ostrasized by JAT's... Yes or No ?

Those guilty of "Within Gotra" marriage should be ostracized... Yes or No ?

  • Total voters
    95
sunillathwal said:
No, it does not make much sense to me!! :D

My last post was a reply to the seema´s post regarding the personal freedom and socity norms. Though I was indulging in what people call "reductio ad absurdum" but my point was sincere.

Anyway, continuing in same vein: my conclusion stated ´.... should be allowed.´ ´NOTis a must for happiness...´. i.e, one of the options not the ONLY option!
I mean: yes, not-murdering bring happiness and (as we proved) so does murdering. Hence, putting someone in jail for his/her act of achieving some happiness (read murder) seems total absurd to me.

Let me reprahse it: ¨Murdering should NOT be criticized/ frowned upon/ discouraged as it does NOT harm anybody else or society in large. What happens between two people is their personal bussiness.¨

[..and of course this conclusion is solely derived from the statement that marrying in same village should be allowed, should NOT be subjected to any criticisim as it does NOT harm anybody else or society in large rather gives happiness to the couple.]
Click to expand...

Somebody allows his/her kid to marry in same gotra or not, is strictly someone's personal business. But, it doesn't remain a personal matter when someone kills somebody, for happiness or whatever other reasons.
 
Last edited:
... and as i said earlier i am just extraploting the ´personal freedom` logic to ridiculous proportions. I do not literly mean ´murder´.

Very easily, i can put forward numerous examples where by above stated logic, court laws are abusrd. eg: A couple kissing on the road, all the sub-section of HMA, etc.
 
sunillathwal said:
... and as i said earlier i am just extraploting the ´personal freedom` logic to ridiculous proportions. I do not literly mean ´murder´.

Very easily, i can put forward numerous examples where by above stated logic, court laws are abusrd. eg: A couple kissing on the road, all the sub-section of HMA, etc.
Click to expand...

The area of personal freedom ends where it touches the boundaries of prohibited acts defined by the Law.

Personally, You have every right to convince yourself that this whole world is absurd but that doesn't prove it so.
 
vijay said:
Good question.
Consult a good lawyer to get a detailed list of the acts which falls under Criminal activities.
Click to expand...

Lawyer ke batawega tanne nahi bera?
Kyonki Aisa kanoon ki kitab mein likha hai aur kanoon ki kitab mein isliye aisa likha hai ki samaj ise galt manta hai.
Par dikkat to yaa e hai ki tum samaj ko nahi mante.jab tum samaj ko nahi mante to fir uske banaye kanoon sahi kaise hue?
 
vijay said:
Because Killing someone is a crime.
Now, i suppose that i should not expected to answer the stupid questions like why soldiers do this professionally.
Click to expand...

Vijay, read my first post once again... my preposition. My entire arguement was based on certain assumption (seema´s post reply) and conclusion was that Court laws are abusrd (or Killing is not a crime).
You can NOT start your arguement by the Conclusion.
 
vijay said:
The area of personal freedom ends where it touches the boundaries of prohibited acts defined by the Law.

Personally, You have every right to convince yourself that this whole world is absurd but that doesn't prove it so.
Click to expand...

If your laws are ABSOLUTE then why there have been so many amendments in law? Think about that.
 
sunillathwal said:
Vijay, read my first post once again... my preposition. My entire arguement was based on certain assumption (seema´s post reply) and conclusion was that Court laws are abusrd (or Killing is not a crime).
You can NOT start your arguement by the Conclusion.
Click to expand...

How can you reach at the conclusion on the basis of mere assumptions but without arguments ?
 
sunillathwal said:
If your laws are ABSOLUTE then why there have been so many amendments in law? Think about that.
Click to expand...

Its not my Laws but it is Constitution of India.
You can try to amend it by making honor killing a legal act or any other desirable amendments.

But until then killing someone is a crime.
 
rakeshsehrawat said:
Yes Vijay it makes some sense The thing he want to prove was different but he may have choosen wrong example.
Please answer this question I Stand nude infront of your house is there any problem?
Click to expand...

yo naa maaney , chaahey kimmey kah le,vijay bhai jisse maanas bhot kam pedaa hoyaa karein,inney sambhaal kein kissey measuem me dharwaa do, surakhsit naa koye iney thaa le gaa tph,ke khoo -khaa gaa to ,fer itnaa budhimaan paraani paawe ni gaa.
 
ssindhu said:
no limit to personal freedom until and unless it affects other people significantly. tell me what's wrong in it? if my neigbour (or my own kid whn i have one lol) marries in same gotra, how does it hram me or anybody else.
Click to expand...

Society, law and morals, by definition, put limits on personal freedoms as much as they guarantee them. How it affects other people is only one of the considerations, but NOT the only consideration. If we forget law of the land and talk about justice from first principles, then principle of greatest good of greatest numbers AS WELL AS principle of upholding the fundamental rights of any minority are important.

What you consider as insignificant may be significant to others and vice-versa. For example, someone may kill an animal sacred to a particular community during that community's festive occasion. This may be insiginificant to the members of the community who are atheist. But the religious members would be affected very siginificantly. In matters of faith, there is no objectivity. And hence laws pertaining to personal domains are hardly objective. A community majority may decide that their greatest good is in having a particular law and the rebellious minority usually has to fall in line. It doesn't matter who is right.

Anyways, personally I believe that a law on this matter is going to be ineffective; it can merely give ego massage to some and political opportunity to others. Already discussed at length.
 
One should not of necessity, assume that Ms Sindhu believes in what she writes.

Being a journalist by profession, it is her task ( as she sees it)to ask and/or be provocative, to see what reaction arises.

To appreciate ones culture and community, one has to become educated/aware!

To do that, one should familiarize oneself with our historical traditions. A good place to start is to read the extensive material here and the yahoo Jat history group.

Ms Sindhu poses an important question, which deserves reflection.

Kapil puts the parameters well.

For the rest of us, perhaps we need to study our traditions and their history.

Assuredly, it is unlikely that this is the first time such discussion has happened in the Jat community.

It will not, and should not be the last.

We need people like Seema Sindhu

Ravi Chaudhary
 
brahmtewatia said:
the khap/gotra issue has become more confusing than ever before... more so, by the media and by the non existant HR skills of our fellow JAT representatives who have failed, time and again, to put the matter across the public in a meaningful way. from the various TV episodes on the matter, i learnt that those presenting the show haven't got an iota of knowledge of JAT customs and traditions... what more they can't even pronounce the word "khaap" phonetically correct.

to my observation, i found them confused on two separate issue's : no.1 khap diktats/murders and no.2 gotra issue's. a confused amalgamation on the two issue's with improper ratiocination deriving to illogical conclusions is making a mockery of our rich customs and traditions. eventually leading to the emergence of various other issue's within the issue, thereby making the situation even more worse.

it is highly deplorable to see that those who haven't got the faintest idea of the social fabric of village life are becoming the spokesperson of the media... honestly, i feel like kicking hard on their butts.

these pseudo intellectuals in control of media house from the confines of their plush air-conditioned studios have allegedly said that the ostracism of those found guilty of "within gotra" marriage as inhuman and barbarous.

mr. v.p. singh has rightly pointed out in one of his previous post that - "our society has been proscribing and ostracizing all those dissidents, who were found to be indulging in the irresponsible acts of skirting the bounds of civility and societal norms... and that has been the best deterrent so far".

would appreciate your views on the poll. imo and as rightly pointed out by jagmohan sir in one of his earlier posts... "that we must not allow these pseudo intellectuals who control the media houses to go beyond a certain point in Khap and now our custom/tradition bashing".
Click to expand...

have you ever heard of any case of khaps ostrasizing a father/uncle or father/brother-in-law who has raped their daughter or daughter/sister-in-law? or say killing such ppl? no. that they leave to court of law in case it gets reported. but they themselves are taking the law in hand for same gotra marriage. who the hell they are
 
How could I miss this thread for so long, a treat to read. I am amazed to see the opinion of people who are specialist in everything, constitution, political science, Physics, Biology, mathematics, Chemistry and what not. Jatland is privileged to have them here.

British constitution ke baare me ek baat padhi thi political science me, agar wo aap logon ki samajh me aa jaye to mujhe lagta hai ye jo samaj aur kanoon ki baatein hain wo thodi saral ho jayengi. Angrezi kamjor hai isliye hindi me likh raha hoon.

"British sanvidhan parampara aur sanyog ka shishu hai."

Remember that British constitution is one of the oldest constitution.

ab aap log pata laga lo kanoon kahan se aaya hai?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top