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

Do you support same Gotra marriage?


  • Total voters
    166
Would amendment also shut up neo-liberals like Jagmati Sangwan and Dr Chaudhary?

May be yes. One more point in support is it ?

I disagree,.

You do not wish to shut them up, yiou wissh them to come forward and face the music.

Any further comments on D. R. Chaudhary and his ilk ( he is not a 'Doctor' (P.Hd) as far as I can tell- what does D R stand for? ) etc to be on media thread, not this one.

Here please restrict your comments to the HMA draft.


Ravi Chaudhary
 
I wish to put my disclaimer again:

My views on any subject matter/issue discussed at Jatland have nothing to do with Administration/Moderation.
These are my personal views/opinions and do not reflect Jatland administration views.
:)
 
No comments! The language used below says it all, doesn't need words to make out. :)

Be happy.


I am posting on this thread/issue since the day one but you came to know about my STAND yesterday only. Well, i don't know when you will be having time to read my above quoted post to evaluate what i have written there. Because it seems that you just read the first line and commenting.

Any fool can write that we need an amendment to prohibit marriage within same gotra and same village. But it takes hell of a time to observe, research, analyze and to conclude the definitions of these terms.

Why don't you drop here few lines about the point i raised in my post ( as Kapil did so brilliantly ).

Definitions, references, explanations are supposed to figure out before the implementation.

Be happy if you want to do it otherwise.

Now, even critical analysis of the terms used in the draft is taken as frustration.

Wow, What a brilliant Draft. Its an excellent draft without any trace of confusion, doubts, complexity.

Lets get it done.

Cheers !



Ravi Ji,

I expected some constructive thoughts from the Respected Moderator whose post i quoted.
Sarcasm invites sarcasm.


Regards
 
Agree with Ravi Ji. They should come out and face the reality. Let them feel the heat.

I disagree,.

You do not wish to shut them up, yiou wissh them to come forward and face the music.

Any further comments on D. R. Chaudhary and his ilk ( he is not a 'Doctor' (P.Hd) as far as I can tell- what does D R stand for? ) etc to be on media thread, not this one.

Here please restrict your comments to the HMA draft.


Ravi Chaudhary
 
Invaluable input

Thank you Kapil Ji. You have put very good points. I always had faith in your intelligence. I have never doubted your wisdom. Certainly, I will not be able to come out with the details you have brought out. It needs a lot of research, analysis and brain.

Sanjay Ji gave us the basic sentences which can be added in HMA and later on your discussion with him has given this thread a professional feel.

Terms like Gotra, same gotra, the spelling of gotra (as suggested by Vijay Ji) need to be defined. What I make out is, we put our objective first, we put our draft lines based on our objectives and then define the terms used in the draft. Our work doesn't stop there. We have to bring out the points which can be raised while interpreting the draft amendment. That is why I said we once we have those couple of sentences, we can move further with explaining it from various aspects.

"is dhaage me pichhle kuch din se jo ho raha hai, jis tarah se hum kuch aur baaton ko khangal rahe hain, usse avashya hi hum kuch gyan prapt karnege, ek doosre ko kuch samjhayenge, ek doosre se kuch samjhenge. ho sakta hai hum sab kuch baaton par sahmat na hon par apne beech va-vivad ko ek sahi disha me le jane ki bhavna aayegi. Jatland ke adhikansh vad-vivad bas chalte rahte hain, kahin pahunchte nahi. Aaiye hum sab milkar is dhaage ko iske gantavya ki aur le jane ka ek imandar prayas karen. Dhanyawad."
 
Terms like Gotra, same gotra, the spelling of gotra (as suggested by Vijay Ji) need to be defined. What I make out is, we put our objective first, we put our draft lines based on our objectives and then define the terms used in the draft. Our work doesn't stop there. We have to bring out the points which can be raised while interpreting the draft amendment. That is why I said we once we have those couple of sentences, we can move further with explaining it from various aspects.

I don´t think spellings of gotra will be much of a trouble. Even now some poeple have different names in different official documents (like in marksheets, some of my friends have different surnames in different classes. eg S kumar, S Kumar Dahiya and simply Sandeep). Even my official name (passport) is Sunil Kumar but in some doucments (Voter ID card ) is just Sunil. It had nevery caused troubles... so far.

I believe, cases where people ´misuse´ their surnames (A Phoguat claiming that he/she is Foghat hence should be allowed to marry another Phoguat), will be very very less!! Anyway, one can always change his/her name by approcahing courts but that does not make him a different person. There will always be somebody who can identify him/her (and his/her gotra).

Even if the proposed draft is not full proof and there are some loop-holes (mis-spelt surnames, etc.), the purpose of propsed amendment is discouraging same-gotra marriages (and its consequences) and legalize our customs.
And if somoene is hell-bent on defying marriges laws, any number of clauses in HMA won´t stop him, he can always convert to Islam and by-pass HMA!!
 
Last edited:
I don´t think spellings of gotra will be much of a trouble. Even now some poeple have different names in different official documents (like in marksheets, some of my friends have different surnames in different classes. eg S kumar, S Kumar Dahiya and simply Sandeep). Even my official name (passport) is Sunil Kumar but in some doucments (Voter ID card ) is just Sunil. It had nevery caused troubles... so far.

Agree with you Sunil that surname/gotra generally don't create problems. It is because nobody have problem whether you are Dahiya, Malik, or X, Y, Z. But when you will marry, your surname/gotra will matter. It may/may not create issues as we are discussing here.

I believe, cases where people ´misuse´ their surnames (A Phoguat claiming that he/she is Foghat hence should be allowed to marry another Phoguat), will be very very less!!

People marrying in the same gotra are much lesser than your above calculations.


Even if the proposed draft is not full proof and there are some loop-holes (mis-spelt surnames, etc.), the purpose of propsed amendment is discouraging same-gotra marriages (and its consequences) and legalize our customs. well, that way whole HMA is not full proof, one can always convert and go around HMA.

Right ! We can put all our efforts but still there will be few WAYS.
 
Last edited:
Agree with you Sunil that surname/gotra generally don't create problems. It is because nobody have problem whether you are Dahiya, Malik, or X, Y, Z. But when you will marry, your surname/gotra will matter. It may/may not create issues as we are discussing here.

Vijay, you changed the essence of my post by breaking into three segments. :D Anyways.. let me try again.

Of course, my post was in context of same-gotra marriages. My point was that it can always be proved (in courts or otherwise) that gotra in question is 'same'!!


People marrying in the same gotra are much lesser than your above calculations.

You missed the whole point; take it this way: people marrying in same-gotra are very very less (as per you, agreed, say x%), What i said was was out of this x%, number of people who can misuse the 'surname-confusion' will be a minute %age (say y%) of 'x' i.e, total is xy/10000!!
x is greater than y or not, does not matter. Hope it is clear!!


Right ! We can put all our efforts but still there will be few WAYS.

That's why i said, discouraging. There is a law against murder, over-speeding, not wearing helmets But still people do it. Does that make laws against all these totally useless ? (i know it is slightly lame question).
More appropriate question from my side to ask is: Does this loophole in HMA make it worthy of NOT having HMA in first place?? Why we have HMA at all? Why not abolish HMA and have total freedom. (believe me it is a damn good question in the context of your arguments!!)
 
Last edited:
Vijay, you changed the essence of my post by breaking into three segments. :D Anyways.. let me try again.
...

Agreed!, I also see lot of merit in amending the HMA. It would definitely reduce the instances of honour killing (at least the same gotra ones).

However, when looked at the broader level, there are issues. At broader level, it is legalisation of a social custom of a particular society. This is a single case. But ones the demand is met, it's likely that communities would make more such demands. if things continue that way, the whole legal system would become a mess and ultimately collapse.

So, at broader level, how far is this demand justified and sustainable? If things like this go on, wouldn't people ultimately start debating on whether a particular ritual/practice is a social custom or not? When you look at the future, which way do you see things going?
 
More appropriate question from my side to ask is: Does this loophole in HMA make it worthy of NOT having HMA in first place?? Why we have HMA at all? Why not abolish HMA and have total freedom. (believe me it is a damn good question in the context of your arguments!!)

Good Question !

If that happens then on whom we will put the blame for corrupting our younger generation ?
 
Good Question !

If that happens then on whom we will put the blame for corrupting our younger generation ?

Well, how is HMA is being blamed for this?

Probably, what Sunil meant was to abolish HMA and bring in a uniform civil code. It had been demanded several times however, muslims strongly oppossing it everytime.
 

Ravi Ji,

I expected some constructive thoughts from the Respected Moderator whose post i quoted.
Sarcasm invites sarcasm.



While Vijay is the catalyst, my comments are not directed at him, but are more general, and directed at all of us.


Moderators' task is only to maintain a civil atmosphere. Tasking them with more than that will not do.


In the past, I have spoken to many of the members personally, and have been following their views and writings.

I have been impressed by the , across the board, depth of intellect, I have come across.

As such I expect , these active members to display a high standard, to raise the bar a notch above what we see here, and for them to set an example for others.

They are the future leaders, it is expected that they show leadership by example.

No more sarcasm on this thread. Use Mauj Masti for that

Please expect to be held to a higher standard of self - moderation and hold yourselves to that.


Any comments related to this post to be on

http://www.jatland.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?10-About-Jatland.com
"Civilized discussion guidelines at JATland !!!"

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary
 
Last edited:
While Vijay is the catalyst, my comments are not directed at him, but are more general, and directed at all of us.


Apologies if you think my post should be on the Civil Guidelines thread , I guess its a mix of what happened thus far in this thread as well so i decided to post here itself. While i appreciate your gesture of trying to bring about a sense of order to the discussion I belive it is a bit biased.

On a generic sense of any discussion , there are bound to be folks in "support" or "against" of the hypothesis (which here is the amendment in HMA and same gotra marriage).

There is not an iota of doubt that we all agree that we don't support same gotra marriage. All Kapil and Vijay are arguing is that the proposed amendment or for that matter any amendment will not bee fixing "everything". It would still leave loopholes that could easily be exploited. So it makes sense to think about it now that doing it later. Amendments are not like things which you can do every now and then. So in that sense Kapil and Vijay should be looked upon as being of extreme help in trying to make sure the work that you are doing is of good quality. Instead of thankfulness they have been awarded with fancy terms!

Also in any discussion there has to be a certain sense of sanctity for even the folks that are against it , it seems like the people who want the amendment are in a hurry (i can imagine everyone wants to get this done)! While i do not propose that we sleep over it for long but at least I would expect that the people who are being looked at "opposition to the act" (which in my opinion should be better termed as "critics") are shown enough acknowledegements of their viewpoints. Something like this would have helped:
""" While we understand that the proposed HMA amendment cannot "fix" everything but it would be a step towards making sure we have sanctity mechanism in place so that the offfenders do not find it trivial and easy to play with the customs. We also acknowledge at this point of time that there is more to do on this in terms of social engineering , spreading awareness , fostering common brotherhood and more responsibility on the part of local self goverment bodies (panchayats, khaps) to take initiatives and measures to eradicate the problem at the roots itself. """

Do you realy believe its tough to make that sort of point across? Standards should be higher for everything , lets raise bars on every level. Hacks, Fixes , Exceptions only work in short term , for longevity , you need to do quality work (which to me at least is missing from the whole discussion).

Thanks and Regards,
Anil
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anil, you do have a point but donot you think, critics should have name the loopholes which they have in their mind with suggestions or for suggestions. Dear, what you expect from mr Ravi, same thing is applicable to all of us. I donot think mr Ravi is biased, at the most he may be little harsh against adment & repeated only criticism without any suggestions & contribution. Any way I request to both sides to be cool. regards
 
To add to what Anil said, I think the lack of strategic thinking here is glaring. Basically some people have manufactured a consensus that amending HMA would be good. I know that majority of Jats want HMA amended in line with their customs (You don't need this poll to tell you that). It is unfortunate that the masses were led in that direction instead of introspecting on what's going on at grass roots level. There is a mass scale cultural upheaval (TV, nuclear families, media, westernization, etc.) and the moral authority of these customs is caving in. Probably even mentioning that is taboo, so the convenient option of HMA is chosen. Anyways, I'd be pragmatic and I think the need of the hour is to give masses what they want to calm them down- through an amendment of HMA. It is a political solution to avoid a problem from getting worse. If I was talking to the govt., that's what I'd say.

But how do we go about it? Funnily, we want all like minded people to get together and then talk about what they already agree- amend the HMA, support the Khaps, show them these poll results, a crude draft, moral support, etc. To put it bluntly, all of us agreeing between ourselves is not going to make an iota of difference to the decision-makers. There is a large scale media onslaught on the Khaps and anything associated with Jats is being shown in a negative light. The govt. is giving in to that pressure as we speak. I see absolutely no move for amendment of HMA, while there is talk of new laws to deal with honour killings, Khaps, etc.

To amend the HMA, first and foremost, the public image of the community needs to be taken care of. An extremist who shouts about the great customs and his eagerness to kill for them is the last guy you want. Such people give the world a stick to beat us with. They also try to hijack the community by provoking them with outrageous theories. As in any battle, a foolish supporter is more dangerous to you than an intelligent opponent. This is a battle for mindspace and can be won by sane arguments only. The community needs to first unambigously state that it is against any kind of honour killing. It is important to defang the opposition (and important as a principle as well). It then needs to put forward a logical case for amendment of HMA. That there is precedence for allowing other communities to be governed by their personal laws. That the community considers a kinship equivalent to a family within a gotra. And like we don't define the kinship for anyone else (who marry in their cousins), no one should define kinship for us. To point out that media rants against "medieval, barbaric believes" is precisely doing that and it has no space in a secular India that gives every community the right to practise their culture and customs. Also point out the incoherence with Gandhian philosophy of being guided by India's moral norms, especially its villages. And the ridiculousness of forcing western individualist culture on a traditional rural India that puts emphasis on a community-oriented way of life and has its own indigenous social norms. We can similarly, logically demolish arguments like "Talibani fatwas" and much other misinformation in media.

We should never give wrong arguments that only weaken our case. "Scientific basis" is the most popular one and won't find favor when grilled on principles of science. Anything about our superiority or any form of caste jingoism is going to be very counterproductive.

Then you have to think of what the opposition is going to be like- people would talk about individual's rights being contravened. And the answer to that is that there are provisions in the constitution for other communities and same would apply here as well. No one is forced to remain in the community, those who want to marry against the customs can do so, but not as a Jat. Any questions on medieval or barbaric customs have to be tackled in a cultural context, on how many other communities (even Parsis who are everyone's favorite) have their own practises.

We need to co-opt non-Jat organizations who work at grassroots level and have a voice in the media. Madhu Kishwar of Manushi is one of them. She even held a conference of Khap leaders to discuss this issue. Genuine social activists like her need to be impressed with sane arguments.

And a lot can be said about political strategy as well. But unfortunately, people are busy showing their support and talking about a draft (not working), lest someone doubts their Jat credentials. There are 2 drafts here, one by me; and I have no shame in saying both are pretty much useless as far as "trying to get HMA amended" is concerned. (It was useful to me personally to work my brain a bit)
 
Anil, you do have a point but donot you think, critics should have name the loopholes which they have in their mind with suggestions or for suggestions. Dear, what you expect from mr Ravi, same thing is applicable to all of us. I donot think mr Ravi is biased, at the most he may be little harsh against adment & repeated only criticism without any suggestions & contribution. Any way I request to both sides to be cool. regards

Sir, with due respect, are you even following the thread? I hate to blow my trumpet, but in post 701, I gave my suggestions on Sanjay's draft. Post 708, I presented an alternative draft with definitions. Vijay presented his arguments on the loopholes he thought were there and there were arguments by Sunil and me on that. Maybe there can be no other contribution like showing blind support and going "bang, bang, bang" against the perceived opposition. I am sorry, but it is very hard to emulate albaadi bhai Ravinderjeet, who jumped in to tell everyone how frustrated I am (post deleted by mods now); after I had presented the alternative draft...:)
 
My Take !

If people are serious about the amendment in HMA they are supposed to observe and analyze the situation and issue from all the corners instead of shouting at critics (or whatever they call them ). Unfortunately, people have classified the members here as supporters and opposers of HMA (or Khaps in some cases). But this is not true if they read the post with a neutral mind.

For the people who like Amendment in HMA :

First of all, we need to show that we (Jat community) all are in favor of amendment. For that, obviously, we need to adjust few point where some fellow community members have objections. 99% of Jat community people do not support same gotra marriage and we should make this as a base argument upon which all other points should be evaluated. If someone says that he/she don't mind marrying in the same gotra then it hardly makes any difference to the majority. Then why people pick up that statement and make a hue and cry over it. Let them say whatever they wish. We make such statement as talk of the town while people and media are picking it up beautifully to bash at us. So, lets not give them any chance to misinterpret our point of views.

If members think that the poll result of this thread is so overwhelming to make any difference in the government's policy or social reform then they should better come out of their sweet dreams. There are hardly 130 people voted (including fake Ids) and how much is that number if we compare it with jat population. Then, if we talk about the discussions, only 20-25 people participated and among them more than 10 people (or more) are just one line posters without any subjective evaluation of the issue. Is that number impressive enough to change any policy ?

So, what we can do here is that we can discuss it across and diagonally with all the minute details or loopholes which may be helpful in future if someday Govt feel like giving a thumbs up to the proposed Amendment. At that time we can mention it to the concerned people about the pros and cons of the terms, conditions, circumstances of different instances and most unpredictable situations so that those loopholes can be covered, if possible.

The more important factor of this issue is the political favor. We need strongest political connections and support to raise this issue in the parliament or other concerend circles. We need to behave as a unit so that all the political parties start alluring us to gain the political advanatge for the sake of supporting our Amendment campaign. If someone is not supporting the amendment then we should try to convince him with better arguments and logics instead of abusing him in open. The idea is simple if we abuse him he will do the same and media would find spicy matter to degrade our status in the society. On the other hand if we give better arguments and logics, he would have nothing to say and will keep quiet and the silence can be always taken as a YES.

The most important aspect of all this exercise is the media. You believe them or not, you trust them or not, you admire them or not but the reality is that we need them in our favor if we want to do it. We, ourselves, already hurt our image at dangerous levels but its never late. Instead of abusing and bashing at media, lets represent ourselves as well cultured and educated folks who love their customs and traditions and can provide damn good arguments and logics to support its significance in present day scenario. Believe me once we convince media about the good intentions behind practicing our customs then consider that half of our job is done. Media is the strongest pillar of a democracy and we need them in our favor if we are serious about the Amendment.

There are many more things to discuss if we are serious about it.
 
Last edited:
Sir, with due respect, are you even following the thread? I hate to blow my trumpet, but in post 701, I gave my suggestions on Sanjay's draft. Post 708, I presented an alternative draft with definitions. Vijay presented his arguments on the loopholes he thought were there and there were arguments by Sunil and me on that. Maybe there can be no other contribution like showing blind support and going "bang, bang, bang" against the perceived opposition. I am sorry, but it is very hard to emulate albaadi bhai Ravinderjeet, who jumped in to tell everyone how frustrated I am (post deleted by mods now); after I had presented the alternative draft...:)

Kapil, You were not at all in my mind while writing the post in question & yOUR & MY VIEWS ON THIS THREAD ARE QUITE SIMILAR, please excuse me for that. brother Baic amendment put up by mr malik is ok & if some definitions or some other clauses required to be amended, which can also be done and I was the first person to that no requirement of draft at this stage & when rquired, we have many experts & there is machanism in the Govt itself. Also mr malik agrred on you suggestion, I donot remember the post, your poits had been practical & useful. What you have given in your above post is good suggestion handling the issue. As I expressed earlier also, kapil, I feel at present we should go little slow because things are not in our favour also we need support from similarly placed other communities and from political parties.. Please donot mind, your contribution is unquestionable. regards
 
Last edited:
This was much desired officially.

नई दिल्ली, हरियाणा के मुख्यमंत्री भूपेंद्र सिंह हुड्डा ने झूठी शान की खातिर होने वाली हत्याओं को सामाजिक बुराई करार देते हुए कहा कि खाप पंचायतों की इन घटनाओं में कोई भूमिका नहीं है। हुड्डा ने ऑनर किलिंग के मुद्दे पर गठित मंत्री-समूह की बुधवार शाम यहां हुई बैठक में अपने विचार जाहिर किए। मंत्री-समूह में हुए विचार-विमर्श का ब्योरा देते हुए महिला और बाल विकास मंत्री कृष्णा तीरथ ने कहा, हुड्डा ने झूठी शान की खातिर होने वाली हत्याओं को सामाजिक बुराई करार दिया लेकिन कहा कि इसमें खापों की कोई भूमिका नहीं होती। मुख्यमंत्री ने वित्त मंत्री प्रणब मुखर्जी की अध्यक्षता में हुई इस बैठक में कहा कि वर्तमान कानून उसके मौजूदा स्वरूप में ठीक है, लेकिन ऑनर किलिंग को देखते हुए उसमें कोई भी संशोधन करने से पहले विभिन्न वर्ग के लोगों की राय पर गौर किया जाना चाहिए। तीरथ के मुताबिक, हुड्डा ने कहा कि लोग समान गांव में शादी नहीं करते। समान जाति में विवाह करने के लिए मां, पिता और दादी या नानी का गोत्र वर्जित है। अगर समान गोत्र में ही विवाह हो तो इससे समस्याएं पैदा होती हैं। लेकिन इस मामले में खापों की कोई दखलंदाजी नहीं है। यह एक सामाजिक बुराई है।
 
Last edited:
बकरी दूध तो देगी.... पर मींग्न कर की देगी .....

यो महेंदरगढ़ में लागे उस "खूस्ड़े" का असर स ...हूडा साब ने खुल के statement तो दी .......... लाइन पे ने आ ज्यांगे ये नेता अगर न्यू "जूत" लागते रहे तो.....



This was much desired officially.

नई दिल्ली, हरियाणा के मुख्यमंत्री भूपेंद्र सिंह हुड्डा ने झूठी शान की खातिर होने वाली हत्याओं को सामाजिक बुराई करार देते हुए कहा कि खाप पंचायतों की इन घटनाओं में कोई भूमिका नहीं है। हुड्डा ने ऑनर किलिंग के मुद्दे पर गठित मंत्री-समूह की बुधवार शाम यहां हुई बैठक में अपने विचार जाहिर किए। मंत्री-समूह में हुए विचार-विमर्श का ब्योरा देते हुए महिला और बाल विकास मंत्री कृष्णा तीरथ ने कहा, हुड्डा ने झूठी शान की खातिर होने वाली हत्याओं को सामाजिक बुराई करार दिया लेकिन कहा कि इसमें खापों की कोई भूमिका नहीं होती। मुख्यमंत्री ने वित्त मंत्री प्रणब मुखर्जी की अध्यक्षता में हुई इस बैठक में कहा कि वर्तमान कानून उसके मौजूदा स्वरूप में ठीक है, लेकिन ऑनर किलिंग को देखते हुए उसमें कोई भी संशोधन करने से पहले विभिन्न वर्ग के लोगों की राय पर गौर किया जाना चाहिए। तीरथ के मुताबिक, हुड्डा ने कहा कि लोग समान गांव में शादी नहीं करते। समान जाति में विवाह करने के लिए मां, पिता और दादी या नानी का गोत्र वर्जित है। अगर समान गोत्र में ही विवाह हो तो इससे समस्याएं पैदा होती हैं। लेकिन इस मामले में खापों की कोई दखलंदाजी नहीं है। यह एक सामाजिक बुराई है।
 
Back
Top