Response to Law Commission's recommendations/draft bill on honour kiilings

K

kapdal

New member
As mentioned on the Shakti Vahini thread, Law Commission of India had come up with recommendations and draft bill to curb honour killings. You can see that here:

http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report242.pdf

A consultation phase had preceded the final recommendations, but it doesn't look like any one from the community or Khaps responded to that. Last night, I sent an email response to the Law Commission on the above report, requesting their perusal as they didn't get any comments from the Jat community. I had shared the same with some of the members on email earlier. I am sharing it here as it may be of general interest (it'd need a few posts - so please bear with me - if someone wants to have the pdf version, please send me a visitors message with your email ID). Please feel free to share more widely in the community - would be glad if the material is of any use in the supreme court case that is on the same subject. I would like to thank bhartiji, phool bhai and deswal bhai for providing some documents that were most useful.

Members are invited to share their thoughts on Law Commission's report and my response. I request all to keep the discussion to these reports or the court case. I'd also like to note that although my response is very critical of the media and the policymakers, the community needs to introspect its stand on honour killings as well - any such crime in our community is a shameful blot and shouldn't get any support from any section of the community. It would be most desrirable if Khaps themselves start issuing strong critical statements against such crimes and their perpetrators.

***********************************************
Sub: Response to “Prevention of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances (in the name of Honour and Tradition): A Suggested Legal Framework”, subsequently referred to as the ‘Report’

Respected Sir / Madam,

This is with reference to the above Report available on your website[1] - the respondent would like to counter some of the inferences, assertions and recommendations of this Report. Please note that for the purpose of this response, the term Khap Panchayat or Khap has been used to refer to the traditional organizations of that nomenclature in Haryana and Western UP. While these Khaps are present in various communities of this area, it is evident that most of the popular discourse has focused on the Khaps belonging to the Jat community – as is also clear from the direction of the case on honour crimes in the honourable Supreme Court. The response for most parts is applicable for Khap Panchayats belonging to all communities, but where the effect is primarily on the Jat community, the response emphasises the same. The respondent would hope for your kind consideration on this matter, more so as it is evident that all the responses to the initial consultation paper were either hostile or indifferent to the Khaps. The respondent would also like to clarify that he has prepared this response in his individual capacity and holds no brief for any Khap Panchayats or anyone else. Learned members of the Law Commission need not be reminded that a fair and just system is open and flexible towards the dissenting views.

“Auditur et altera pars. (The other side shall be heard as well.)”

1. The stated objective of this framework and draft bill, as per honourable home minister’s statement in the parliament, was to curb the menace of “honour killings”. This unfortunate crime has been reported from all parts of India and is indeed common across the wider South Asian region. Therefore, it is surprising that most of the bill is focusing on Khap Panchayats that are common only in certain parts of North India (mainly Haryana and Western UP), and that too only in certain communities. Is the Report based on a fact-based conclusion that Khap Panchayats are behind a majority or a significant percentage of honour killings and hence need to be specially targeted? The Report doesn’t cite any data that the Government or the Law Commission may have access to – indeed section 1.5 mentions that some of the states were requested for certain data, but it was never made available to the Commission. Also, the Commission needs to re-examine the assertion in Section 1.4 that honour killings are mostly reported from the states of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and U.P. – This seems to be influenced by the sensationalist reporting of Delhi-based national media organizations. Honour killings have very recently been perpetrated in other states like Kashmir, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Odisha & Andhra Pradesh[2][3][4][5][6][7][8].
[1] http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report242.pdf

[2] http://www.kashmirtimes.com/newsdet.aspx?q=10765

[3] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-25/hubli/35999137_1_honour-mandya-kalghatagi

[4] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chennai-...-in-alleged-honour-killing/311356-62-128.html

[5] http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MA...n-kills-daughter-for-love-affair-2889008.html

[6] http://www.indianexpress.com/news/man-kills-sister-for--illicit-affair--carries-head-to-cops/1042243

[7] http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291584/man-son-held-odisha-honour.html

[8] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/article3736573.ece
 
Certainly, the Law Commission can’t be of the view that a crime in the vicinity of national capital carries much more weight than a crime committed elsewhere, as far as drafting of a law is concerned.

2. There are two pertinent fact-based questions that arise vis-a-vis the focus on Khap Panchayats in the Report’s proposed framework:

  • What is the % of cases where a Khap Panchayat’s role in honour killing(s) has been proved in a court of law or where a Khap Panchayat is a suspect?
  • What is the % of honour crimes related to Sagotra marriages over all honour crimes committed across India?

It appears as if the above factual examination was not done prior to preparing this Report, probably due to lack of availability of data*(see note at the end of the para). In the absence of this analysis, is the Report making a presumption that a Khap Panchayat must be involved in an honour killing that happens in its area of influence? The fallacy of such a presumption in the absence of relevant evidence is obvious. Even so, for the sake of argument, the presumption is examined further. Khap Panchayats have stated their issues only with the Sagotra marriages (discussed in detail in point 5). Moreover, marriages contravening Sagotra customs are rare because of the voluntary following of these customs by an overwhelming majority of the communities that the Khap Panchayats represent or claim to represent. Hence, it is the respondent’s assertion that the percentage of honour crimes related to Sagotra marriages over all honour crimes committed across India is miniscule. Therefore, the special emphasis on Khap Panchayats in the Report is unwarranted and seems influenced by factors discussed further. Of course, the Government with the huge resources at its disposal is much better placed to establish the facts on this matter. The respondent sincerely believes that it must do so before reaching any conclusions with respect to the negative role of Khap Panchayats. It follows that rather than finding scapegoats in this debate, there is a need to understand the social context behind honour killings with an open mind (discussed in points 3 and 4).

*At the time of finalising this response, a report has just come out in the Tribune [1] that a Haryana resident has received information from the Haryana Govt. in response to an RTI application that Khap Panchayats in Haryana were not involved in any honour killing incident as per police records in the period 2001 to 2011. At the time of sending the reply, the respondent didn’t have sufficient details on this news item to make relevant amendments to this response. But suffice is to say, that if true, the above analysis would become even more favourable to Khaps, and the inference that Khaps are being unfairly targeted gain even more currency.

Honour crimes – social context

3. Although the Report starts promisingly in Section 1.2 with an examination of honour crimes across the world, it sadly doesn’t seem to keep that context in mind when it comes with its recommendations. An honest attempt to tackle this heinous crime can’t shy away from the


[1] http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130114/haryana.htm#7
 
Last edited:
sociological aspects of the crime. A detailed sociological examination is beyond the scope of this response, but the respondent would like to make the following observations. Lest it is misunderstood, the idea is not to provide a justification for the crime but to understand the context behind it. Most of the honour crimes are committed by the victim’s family members – in many cases the victim is hitherto a loved member of the family and still the family feels compelled to act in a ghastly manner. In several cases, there is no external pressure on the family - they feel an implicit pressure to commit the crime due to their own deep-rooted beliefs about honour. In a country like India, where the concept of Mother India is routinely evoked as an image to rally the nation’s honour, and where all religions and popular culture reinforce the concept of “female honour”, it is not surprising to see that vast sections of society have entrenched beliefs on the subject. Ironically, the media, which on certain subjects goes on a “modernization” overdrive, is itself inflicted with the same notions of “female honour” as was observed in a New York Times article in its review of Indian media’s reporting of rape incidents [1].

4. On the other hand, there are cases where there is an explicit pressure on the concerned family by sections of the society, which could be a religious body, a village body, a caste body or just neighbours who are nuisance makers. A comprehensive analysis of the various kinds of external pressures in each kind of honour crime is needed prior to coming up with recommendations to curb those external pressures. The Law Commission seems to have convinced itself of the negative role of Khap Panchayats behind honour killings of all kinds due to the grossly prejudiced media accounts (discussed in detail in point 8). It is quite obvious that there is a different context and motivation behind each type of honour crime – with the broad classifications being family coercion, inter-caste restrictions, inter-religion restrictions and Sagotra restrictions. Family coercion, especially with respect to females, namely the desire of parents to unilaterally decide who their children, especially daughters, will marry, is a negative feature of most communities in India since time immemorial. With changing times, the youngsters including females are becoming more vocal about their choices and this has led to increasing conflict with family members still rooted in their old beliefs. It won’t be surprising if this factor contributes for a major chunk of honour crimes – while the respondent doesn’t have any data to conclude so, it appears so from informal observation. Increasingly, there are families who let their children have a say in the choice of their partners, but only if the choice is within the restrictions of caste, community or religion. There are several honour crimes that happen in the case of inter-caste, inter-religion or Sagotra marriages, which are just another form of family coercion. It is important to note that this is a type of crime that would take place even in absence of any external pressure. As far as external pressures are concerned, they could come in as diverse shapes and forms as India’s polity. It is beyond the respondent’s ability to conduct a detailed analysis of these pressures – however, the Report doesn’t even acknowledge this fact as it only goes into the role of Khap Panchayats. Taking the example of Jat Khaps that have been most vilified - even if one wishes to imagine the worst about these organizations - it is still impossible to blame them for honour crimes where there is no Jat angle. In light of this and the various examples cited earlier in point 1, the question arises that why are other religious
[1] http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/when-reporting-rape-in-india-a-focus-on-shame/
 
bodies or organizations that put external pressures in the case of inter-caste or inter-religion marriages, not covered in this Report?

Issues with the Report

5. The respondent has two main issues with the Report. Firstly, the Report is discriminatory against the Khap Panchayats, contributing unwittingly to media’s pernicious propaganda (discussed in detail in point 8) and reinforcing the negative stereotypes of rural communities (such as Jats). Secondly, under the pressure of seen to be doing something, the Report makes some recommendations that will do more harm than good. But before going into those, the respondent would like to acknowledge the positive recommendations in the Report, namely Section 5.1 (not including honour killings in Section 300 of IPC) and Section 6.1 (not shifting the burden of proof on the accused). Such suggestions mooted by some sections were absurd and illogical beyond the pale of doubt and the Commission did well to reject the same. Having said that, there are still recommendations in the Report that go against the spirit of jurisprudence:

  • The presumption proposed in Section 6.1 that implicates all members of an assembly linked to an honour killing, merely on the grounds of participation, is illogical as it apparently stems from a lack of understanding of the nature of Khap Panchayat proceedings. Again, it appears that the Report has been influenced by the sensationalist accounts of Khap Panchayats in the media as the Report assumes that every such assembly takes place to perpetrate the crime and that all the participants of the assembly are likely perpetrators. In reality, a Khap Panchayat is an open assembly of rural folks which not only has active participants like the parties in conflict and those who seek to mediate between them and/or discuss the issue in the assembly, but also passive spectators present there just out of interest. To illustrate the point with an example, a Panchayat may congregate to discuss a variety of issues of interest to the community. Only one such issue may be a Sagotra marriage conflict. Now it may so happen that the Sagotra dispute remains unresolved and subsequently, some parties involved in that issue, perpetrate an honour crime. Firstly, it defies common sense to implicate in the crime a casual or passive spectator of the proceedings of the Panchayat on this matter, who in all likelihood won’t even be aware of the ill intent of the perpetrators until the crime hits the newswires. Secondly, it is very likely that the victim and parties sympathetic to him/her were also present in the same assembly – it is absurd to implicate such sympathisers of the victim in the crime. Thirdly, the parties who were acting in good faith and trying to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of both sides are also unfairly targeted by this presumption.

  • The above presumption is not only illogical and unfair but also draconian, as it gives power to the law enforcement agencies to implicate entirely innocent rural folks. It is quite likely that such provisions will be abused either to extort money from the poor villagers or to make them scapegoats when the enforcement agencies are unable to catch the real perpetrators.

  • The threshold bar against congregation of assemblies proposed in Section 11.1 and the powers conferred to a SDM/DM in Section 11.4 are against the spirit of the Article 29 (1) of the constitution that confers a right on every section of citizens to preserve their culture. Khap Panchayats are traditional rural bodies prevalent in these areas from time immemorial and representing the culture of this section of citizenry. It is a form of grassroots democracy where the rural folks meet and discuss social, economic and political issues relevant to them. The law enforcement agencies can use such draconian powers to falsely implicate innocent people with a false accusation of disturbing a proposed marriage, when the objective of the assembly may have been to put pressure on the administration on certain local issues. It is also easy to imagine how the politically powerful could threaten such assemblies if they try to mobilise politically against them. In summary, the provisions will impinge on the democratic rights of these rural communities and may be used to violate their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably without arms.

It is not the respondent’s argument that an unlawful assembly that forcibly comes in the way of a lawful marriage should not be barred. But there are existing provisions in the IPC to prohibit such unlawful assemblies. The pre-emptive measures proposed in the Report are highly flawed as they are based on an incorrect and biased understanding of Khap Panchayats and would end up doing more harm by encroaching on their various democratic rights and freedoms.

Discussion on Sagotra custom

6. It is also important to understand Khap Panchayats’ position on the matter as it is same as the position of the people of that area. Of the various kinds of marriages that attract honour crimes, the only one that Khaps have stated an opposition to is Sagotra marriages. It is important to note here that opposition to Sagotra marriage is not the same as support for honour killing. If one looks at the Jat community, this opposition to “Sagotra” marriage is the position of the overwhelming majority of the population. A survey conducted by Hindustan Times in 2010 had found 77% percent of respondents in Haryana against Sagotra marriages[1] – if the survey would have been carried out only amongst the rural communities, the result would have been much higher. So the image created in the media that Khaps are imposing this viewpoint on the masses in Talibani style is completely baseless. It is not important for the purpose of this response to explain the exact rules of Sagotra – but suffice is to say that it implies a concept of brotherhood. For instance, the Jat community (or any other community that believes in Sagotra custom) believes that any marriage that contravenes Sagotra rules is incestuous. Indeed, such widespread is the belief that the incidents of Sagotra marriages are very rare, since voluntary following of the custom is very high. There is a curious spin in the media that the custom is a superstition followed by illiterate peasants. This is clearly not the case as even most of the educated and “modernised” members of the community continue to follow this custom, even when they migrate to far-
[1] http://www.hindustantimes.com/India...otra-marriages-HT-survey/Article1-542384.aspx
 
Last edited:
flung lands. However, the continuous propaganda in the media of the custom itself being a medieval, barbaric practise has unfairly painted the Jat community in a very bad light – as is clearly evident from the highly prejudiced and hostile comments against the community on the social networks and blogosphere. It is worth asking the question – how is voluntary following of a system of brotherhood barbaric? It is yet another example of the shallow elitism, where modernization has acquired a totally bizarre meaning. Such is the level of ignorance on this issue, that even this Report is affected by the same prejudice. Below are a couple of extracts from Section 8:

“Apart from legislation to effectively curb honour related crimes, it is equally important that the steps should be taken to organise counselling programmes for the village communities, for instance to explain to them that Sagotra marriages are not opposed to law, religion ‘sadachar’ or medical science.”

“The spiritual or religious leaders or respected elderly persons like retired officials and political personalities, members of legal profession, teachers, etc., can be requested to address the village gatherings and explain to them the real position and the need to shed superstition and abominable practices.”

Why is this custom a superstition and abominable practice warranting a need for organising counselling programs for the village communities? It appears that the Law Commission is taking the position that the Sagotra custom is a social evil that needs to be uprooted. It is high time that this arrogance of civilizing rural communities is dropped – what is needed is a reverse counselling to understand the position of the village communities.

Father of our nation, MK Gandhi felt that India lives in its villages and that if villages perish, India will perish too [1]. He was a firm supporter of Panchayati Raj and believed in making every village a self-sufficient republic [2]. The new modernizers, on the other hand, are hell-bent on breaking the morale of village communities and its traditional models. Despite Khap Panchayats not being elected bodies, they still provide a traditional grassroots framework for communities to come together and discuss concerns central to them – the concerns which are hardly discussed in state or central legislatures.

None of this means that an honour killing of a couple breaking the Sagotra norms is justifiable. However, the members of the urban society that don’t belong to this community need to introspect on their own position. Here is a thought experiment – if two siblings are involved in an incestuous relationship and their parents kill them, what would be the position of the same members of the society who find the Sagotra custom abominable? Indeed, it would classify as an “honour killing” crime that impinges on the human rights of two individuals that chose a relationship in disagreement with norms of the society. But it won’t be surprising if the society at large takes a sympathetic view of this crime. Incest is not against the law of nature – it happens in other species – but the reaction of the society is determined by its beliefs. So why are there double standards when looking at another community’s beliefs? If for this community, a brother-sister relationship is defined by gotra,
[1] http://www.mkgandhi.org/revivalvillage/index.htm

[2] http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap78.htm
 
Last edited:
then it is a question of its faith. It is not asking for its standard to be applied to everyone else – but the liberal sections, ironically, are imposing their standards of modernity on the community.

7. It follows from the above point that the position of Indian legal system on Sagotra marriages, as also stated in Section 2.4 of the Report, is discriminatory against the communities following this system. Eminent women’s rights & social activist, Ms Madhu Kishwar had pointed out the hypocritical standards in a newspaper op-ed piece [1] - India didn’t implement a Uniform Civil Code such that religious minorities can follow their personal laws; and provisions were added to the Hindu Marriage Act to legitimise customary practice of marriages amongst many south Indian communities between first cousins and between maternal uncle and niece. However a demand from the Jat community to have similar rights on personal laws by making an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act has been rejected. It is natural that several sections of the Jat community feel discriminated against.

It is interesting that the position of law was different under British rule. British officers, despite carrying the white-man’s burden of civilizing the natives, conducted fulsome research on all aspects of agricultural communities’ customs and made provisions in the law to give those customs precedence over Banaras school of Hindu Law – as evident from one such comprehensive document “Manual of Customary Law of Sirsa District of 1882” [2]. Some of the extracts, as provided below, make for fascinating reading and one can’t wonder at the irony of British rule being fairer on this matter compared to Indian rule.

“The Hindu agriculturist is unaware that there is any written code of Hindu law which could ever interfere with his social life. The peasant is not in the habit of comparing the customs of his tribe with those of other tribes or other tracts of country, and thus has no idea of a Common Law of the land to which some of his tribal customs are exceptions.”

“According to the Panjab Laws Act, in questions regarding inheritance, &c., in cases where the parties are Hindus, the rule of decision is to be (1) custom, (2) Hindu Law, where there is no custom on the point.... Prima facie, one would hardly expect an elaborate code of law drawn up by Brahman pandits in Banaras to be consistent with the customs of the simple agricultural population of Sirsa. The different codes of Hindu Law were compiled by learned Brahmans, men who looked down upon the inferior Hindu tribes as hardly worth their notice, who had little sympathy with tribes other than their own, and probably took little trouble to ascertain their customs and ideas.”

“It appears, then, that, while the same principles underlie the Hindu Law and the practice of the Sirsa Hindus, many of the refinements of the Hindu Law are unknown to them, and many of its precepts are utterly at variance with their customs and ideas. The Sirsa peasant would often, with some reason, feel himself unjustly treated if his claims were decided in accordance with this Hindu Law instead of his own immemorial tribal custom; and may
[1] http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...318467_1_gotra-hindu-marriage-act-communities

[2] http://revenueharyana.gov.in/html/gazeteers/customary_law Sirsa1882.pdf
 
Last edited:
consider it fortunate for him that the Legislature has stated so decidedly that custom comes before the Hindu Law, and has so strongly discouraged the importation of its elaborate rules into the decisions of the courts of the Panjab, which are thus led to look for their guidance rather to those customs which have grown with the people, and seem to them to coincide with abstract justice, than to the Hindu Law-books, which contain many rules quite unsuited to their simple agricultural life.”

It is a shameful irony that the public servants of independent India committed to self-rule of “We the people” with a resolve to “secure to all its citizens JUSTICE, social, economic & political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity” could not take cognizance of simple customs of rural communities; unlike the colonial masters. This persistent refusal to engage these communities and instead adopting the arrogant approach of talking down to them, adds to their sense of grievance of not having a place in the new India.

Role of the media

8. It is not in the scope of this response to conduct a comprehensive research into media’s role – however a brief examination is necessary as this Report, much like the courts, has been influenced by the media. Unfortunately, the Indian media has completely eschewed a sense of balance in their reporting of honour killings. Khap Panchayats have been selected as a soft target – they fit the bill perfectly in the script of “we the modern liberals” vs “them the medieval feudals” – their lack of media nous and the inability to articulate themselves well in the English news channel debates are an asset to media’s campaign. The words feudal, talibani, medieval and barbaric have been used so consistently in the media propaganda that they have become part of normal usage in public discourse when talking about the Khaps and the Jat community. No distinction is made between honour crimes and social customs of the community that are considered as “complicated logic” [1]. Standard “khap operating procedure” has been described as casual rapes and murder of young women – as much as 10 to 12 killings per year in just one village were claimed in a report but not a single case was deemed worthy of proper journalistic examination [2]. Nor does the journalist bother, much like many others [3], with minor details like how casual rapes, gang-rapes or incest could happen in a village whose inhabitants swear by Sagotra brotherhood. It is extremely common to ascribe “Jatland” or “Khapland” to horrific crimes committed in places that have no Khaps and where neither the perpetrators nor the victims of the crime are Jats [4] [5]. Some of the journalistic excesses have been documented in the media [6] - reflecting how media is hell-bent in sensationalizing this sensitive issue by viewing all honour crimes through Khap-tinted shades. Prominent social activist, Ms Madhu Kishwar has also described in detail one such account of how a prominent media personality carried out a debate with a
[1] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-08/india/28084729_1_khap-panchayat-gotra-siwah

[2] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-08/india/28082335_1_khap-villages-girls

[3] http://articles.timesofindia.indiat.../28308732_1_minor-girls-karora-village-incest

[4] http://www.deccanherald.com/content/21139/jatland-horrors.html

[5] http://articles.timesofindia.indiat..._1_village-heads-family-members-family-matter

[6] http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Ne280712Khap.asp
 
pre-determined objective of blaming Khap Panchayats [1]. Such exposes on media’s role are few and far between and the consequence is that media’s exaggerated account of Khap Panchayats has become the conventional wisdom not only amongst the urban classes but also the law-makers and the courts. The effect is that Khap Panchayats and the rural communities they represent have been declared guilty without trial, of a horrible way of life that is medieval and Talibani and is entirely at odds with a modern India. It is hard to miss that the media has failed to put the same amount of focus on other organized groups and influential personalities involved in activities damaging to the social fabric of the nation, because of the implicit or explicit threat of force from those sections. It is a tragedy of the first order that it sends a signal to all the affected communities that they need to become more militant in order to be treated justly. Sadly, even academia, intellectual thinkers and policy makers have hardly taken any mitigating steps to ameliorate the situation.

Question of multicultural accommodation

9. It is quite evident from Section 4 that the honourable members of the Law Commission were guided by the laudable intent of protecting the cherished values of individual autonomy when drafting this framework. However, the Report doesn’t reflect any consideration for multicultural accommodation that is otherwise enshrined in Article 29 (1) of the constitution, which guarantees any section of citizens a right to conserve their culture. An issue that sees a conflict between the values of individual autonomy and multicultural accommodation is undeniably a complex one. Indeed, the correct choice may be to pick individual autonomy after a reasoned analysis – what is disappointing is that this Report didn’t even consider the question of multicultural accommodation necessary on this matter. One would also note that howsoever arguable it may be, but the Indian policy makers have routinely picked multicultural accommodation over individual freedoms, when such conflicts have arisen in the past – whether it is the Shah Bano case or the numerous examples of banning or censoring books and movies to accommodate the sensitivities of various sections of the society. Indeed, in the domain of personal laws, the Indian government’s choice of multicultural accommodation over individual autonomy is most evident – whether it is allowing of personal laws to religious minorities or the Hindu Marriage Act that restricts certain choice of relationships and makes provisions for other choices keeping in mind different customs of different communities (but not all of them, with the demand of Jat community being a notable exception, as has been noted earlier).

The respondent would urge the Commission members to re-examine their proposals after considering the question of multicultural accommodation in this matter. A paper by Aisha Gill in the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences on “Patriarchal Violence in the Name of ‘Honour’” [2] makes several interesting observations & recommendations that are worthy of deliberation by the learned members – some relevant extracts are provided below, with the final extract being particularly relevant to this discussion:

[1] http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1617

[2] http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/aisha.pdf
 
“In answering the question of who should decide what is the appropriate response to conflicts between multicultural recognition and equal protection, cultural minorities must be included in the governance of practices that affect them, with those whose basic interests are at stake having a greater say.”

“Providing mechanisms for vulnerable internal minorities to voice their opposition to cultural rules and practices that reinforce their vulnerability can help facilitate the contestation of cultural practices within minority communities”

“If particular cultural rules or practices are consistent with respecting the basic interests of vulnerable members, then, of course, there is room for cultural accommodation. While some of the cases that we have highlighted have focused on reprehensible practices defended in the name of culture, this should not lead us to dismiss all minority cultural practices as similarly reprehensible. There exist many cultural practices that make a positive difference to individual members. Cultural accommodation is sometimes necessary to secure the social bases of self-respect for cultural minorities, as well as addressing the social and political disadvantages that stem from minority cultural status. Thus, the claims of cultural minorities should not be denied fair hearing simply on the grounds that they are unfamiliar to the majority culture.”

The underlined statement rings particularly true on this matter – the rural communities being equivalent of cultural minorities. The discourse amongst intellectual commentators, courts and policy makers has hardly been sympathetic to the claims of these agricultural communities. Instead, the discourse reeks of an elitist bias and prejudice against the traditional organizations of agricultural communities (Khap Panchayats) and the customs practised by them.

Conclusions

10. Good intentions don’t necessarily result in good results. While the Commission’s good intent of curbing heinous honour crimes is unarguable, the Report, if implemented, would unfortunately make a bad situation worse. It is evident that the subject deserves a comprehensive analysis on the subject of honour killing in its entirety, which has not been undertaken. Instead, probably under the pressure of showing quick results, a short-cut of focussing on Khap Panchayats has been chosen in line with the conventional wisdom propagated by the media. No effort has been undertaken to understand the position of Khap Panchayats or the associated communities. With the focus on Khap Panchayats and the associated communities, news of honour crimes that have no relation to these communities, continue to trickle in from all parts of the country – but have not been considered worthy of attention by either the media or the policy makers. In its continuous search for sensationalist stories, media has not only twisted facts, but has even been willing to run a vilification campaign against these communities. The results expectedly are dangerous. On one hand, there is an unprecedented level of prejudice against these rural communities amongst the urban classes. On the other hand, there is a brewing discontent within the rural communities at their gross misrepresentation and the inflexibility of elitist discourse in preaching reforms to them without even attempting to understand their position. The concept of multicultural accommodation has not even been considered worthy of a discussion. The Report, if implemented, will add fuel to the fire, by impinging on several democratic freedoms and rights of these rural communities and adding to their sense of grievance by unfairly targeting their traditional organizations.

In light of the arguments discussed in this response, the respondent urges the Law Commission to reconsider its recommendations. A wholesome analysis of the scourge of honour crimes is the need of the hour to come up with effective measures to curb them.
 
It is important to know the psyche of the demented anti-family, anti-society, leftist lawyer Indira jaising representing shakti vahini. Earlier she has poorly drafted domestic violence act for which Supreme Court slammed her. More than judicial its the personal vendetta against established values and traditions.
 
Last edited:
अति सुन्दर और सटीक i हमारे समुदाय को कपिल सरीखे लोगों के नेतृत्व की आवश्यकता है i जो लोग नाम, शोहरत और चौधराहट के चक्कर में खाप या बिरादरी के स्यंभू नेता बने हुए हैं या आप लोगों ने गलती से बना रखे हैं, वे जाट समुदाय की बची-खुची इज्ज़त का भी मटियामेट कर देंगे i इसलिए समय रहते इनको हटा दो और पढ़े लिखे, सुलझे हुए, इमानदार, लोंगों को आगे लाओ जो हमारी आवाज़ को प्रभावी ढंग से मीडिया, कानून कचहरी और समाज के सामने पेश कर सके i सर्व-खाप की तरफ से एक सशक्त मीडिया-कोश बनाने की इस वक्त सख्त जरूरत है i मेरा यह सुझाव है कि कपिल से इसकी जिम्मेवारी सँभालने का अनुरोध किया जा सकता है i
 
bharti said:
Excellent piece of work.

Wish our community had more Kapils.
Click to expand...

I was about to say the same but you have stolen my words. Anyway, diamond is always found in rare quantity. Hats off to him for this excellent piece of work. It needs to be widely disseminated in print media. Those in Delhi may use their resources and energies in this regard.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Meeting was held at CSDS, New Delhi. Bharti ji, Narender ji , Raka Ji, Suresh Deshwal Ji and myself were representing our forum. Meeting was chaired by Bharti ji.

All three legal experts were present for the present case in the Supreme Court.

Khap representation was from Dahiya khap by Ex-ACP Dahiya sahab, Tulsi- for Maham Chaubisi .

Notable and intellectual persons present :

- Ch Gian Singh ( Head- Ranbir Chair at MDU and author of famous article - Banning Khaps would be a retrograde step)

-Col. Mehar Singh Dahiya Ji - a famous Jat activist and spokesperson for Dahiya Khap

-Deewan Singh ji- an activist from Mundaka Village and of course Madhu Kishwar herself.

There was one representation from Gujjar Khap of 84 villages from UP and another from Brahman Khap.


Various inputs were given by all members and a copy of Kapil's report was given to all notable people and lawyers. It has been proposed after discussion that a next meeting would be held on 4th Feb(3 PM) and by 30th Jan an initial draft would be prepared by all three lawyers which would be circulated among all and be discussed on 4th Feb meeting.

Meeting was brain-storming,fruitful and positive. Madhu Kishwar and CSDS was fully supportive and eager to assist Jats and Khaps on this matter.

Anyone willing to advice,suggest on the present case are heartily welcome and can put it here or can e-mail to Narender Ji, Bharti ji or myself.

Fortunately or unfortunately this case has brought us the opportunity to present ourselves in the Supreme Court in a realistic, genuine and positive light. Guys,lets win this case atleast for the sake of ourselves and our coming generations.
 
Last edited:
kapdal said:
All of you deserve a special thanks for devoting your precious time to vounteer for all the work on the ground.
Click to expand...








Kapil dalal Ji namaskar, this is the special thaks for you. kapil ji main apko aur bhi document donga jaidi hi.............

RTI to apko samar ne bhej di hogi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top