Reining in khaps
Making DCs, SSPs accountable is apt
WEDNESDAY’s directive by the Punjab and Haryana High Court asking the Haryana government to entrust the responsibility of bringing the recalcitrant khap panchayats to book on Deputy Commissioners and Senior Superintendents of Police is well thought out. A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal and Justice Jasbir Singh has rightly observed that the state government cannot absolve itself of blame for the continued menace of these extra-constitutional bodies in the state.
There is neither political will nor bureaucratic support to root it out. As the DC and the SSP are the eyes and ears of the state government in every district, there is due justification for the High Court to make the two top functionaries accountable for lapses. Going a step further, Justice Mudgal observed that if a DC or SSP failed to control the situation, their failure should be reflected in their annual confidential reports. Such a fiat is timely because the state government has failed to rein in these bodies. Not a day passes in Haryana without these members passing orders annulling marriages, asking couples to live like brothers and sisters and socially ostracising them if they flouted their diktat.
Significantly, Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal’s directive to the state government to initiate exemplary action against one or two khap panchayats expeditiously is worthwhile because it is bound to act as a deterrent. If these pseudo bodies are able to flout the rule of law and continue to act against the due process of law with impunity, it is only because of the lack of fear the law and the system evoke. Unfortunately, since these panchayats claim to represent the region’s dominant caste, the political leadership is reluctant to lay its hands on them for fear of losing vital vote banks.
The Division Bench’s proposal to the government to invoke the Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, against the khap panchayats also merits attention. Clearly, the legislation, under which a maximum imprisonment of seven years can be awarded to each person found guilty, will come in handy for the district officials while reining in the khap panchayats. The state government, instead of opposing this move on the pretext of the “law and order situation”, would do well to implement it in letter and spirit.
Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
23 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:23 pm
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:59 pm
Vicissitudes of gotra row
Sustain the crusade against khap panchayats
The gotra row, as stirred up by the bizarre decisions of the khap panchyats, refuses to die down. It all began with the controversy on sagotra marriage – a marriage between a boy and a girl belonging to the same gotra. Recently, such a controversy came into focus when following the diktat of Kadyan Barha Khap Panchayat, the members of the Dharana village community resorted to social boycott with the Gelhout family residing in the same village.
The reason for this social sanction was that the Gelhouts married their son Ravinder to the daughter Shilpa of the Kadyans of the same gotra. Such a social sanction could be lifted only if the former agreed to annul the marriage of their son. If this was not done, they must leave the village within a stipulated period of time. Since the couple did not resile, they were ordered not to enter the village.
This controversy appeared in a precipitated form when Ved Pal Mor (23), was lynched by an irate mob in Singhawala village of Narwana in Haryana on July 22, 2009. Worse, this appalling act was done in the very presence of the police that accompanied the warrant officer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court along with Mor (the petitioner), who was deputed to ‘recover’ his wife from the house of in-laws in a writ of habeas corpus.
What was the provocation for this ghastly act? Mor’s only fault was that he dared to marry the girl of adjoining village Matour of the same gotra by violating the so-called well-entrenched social norms of the community to which he belonged. On this gory incident, the government maintained studied silence. So was the response of almost all political bigwigs who aspire to gain power by garnishing votes at the election.
Is it legal and constitutional for the khap panchayats either to pronounce nullity of marriage or to enforce expulsion against the members of the community who are not willing to abide by their dictum? A peep into the social and legal history of India reveals that sagotra marriage invariably falls within the ambit of prohibited relationship. We find resonance of this rule in the Hindu Dharmashatras. The Mitakshara Hindu law (a commentary on Hindu Dharmashatras, which still constitutes the basis of the modern codified Hindu law to a large extent), for instance, expressly states that a girl who is a sapinda, sagotra or samanaparavara does not acquire the status of a wife on marriage.
However, the redeeming feature of this shastric rule was that it was not rigid or inexorable. It kept on changing with the flux of time, but only through the adoption of silent, non-violent, customary practices. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council summed up this social phenomenon perceptively long-long ago in Ramnad case (1868) by observing that under the Hindu system of law, clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of law.
The deviation from the prohibition of sagotra marriage is not only fairly old but also widespread. This is evident from the judicial decisions emanating from the wide spread jurisdictions of Bombay, Madras and Lahore. See, for instance, Minakshi vs. Ramanadha (1888) from Madras; Santappayya vs. Rangappayya (1895) from Madras; Ramachanra vs. Gopal (1908) from Bombay; and Sri Krishen vs. Sham Sunder (1933) from Lahore – in all these cases sagotra marriages amongst the members of different communities were legally recognised because in each case a custom permitting such marriage had been clearly made out.
The rational of deviation is that the rules of prohibition are directory in nature and not mandatory. Such an approach instantly opens wide vistas for the play of human rights jurisprudence.
Keeping in view the changing disposition of society, the legislature intervened way back in 1946. Through the enactment of Hindu Marriage Disabilities Removal Act (XXVIII of 1946), a reform was sought to be introduced by sanctioning sagotra marriages. It proclaimed that notwithstanding any text, rule or interpretation of the Hindu law or any custom or usage to the contrary, a marriage between Hindus, which is otherwise valid, shall not be invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties thereto belong to the same gotra or pravara. After Independence, this reformative measure was made more comprehensive with retrospective effect under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.
Despite these legislative reforms, proclaimed and adopted as a matter of public policy, Haryana’s khap panchayats do not seem to recognise and accept the reformative direction. Instead they impose their bigoted will with force on others, which is brazenly unsocial, undemocratic, illegal and un-constitutional.
In a civil society, use of force is the exclusive preserve of the state and none else. Jurisprudentially, it is its most distinguishing feature. Thus, the state is duty bound to act and intervene, more so when it comes to the protection and preservation of human rights so eloquently guaranteed under the Constitution. Even otherwise, all the institutional arrangements in a civil society operate within and not outside the basic framework of the Constitution.
Under the pressure of public opinion, however, the state machinery has been prompted to take note of violation of human rights. An encouraging role of the state has come to light when a determined couple, whose marriage had come under a cloud when the panchayat of Boora gotra had opposed their marriage on the ground that Saharans and Booras shared brotherly relations, got married under the cover of police protection, albeit outside village (The Tribune, Feb 7, 2010).
For keeping up this crusade, the pressure of public opinion so systematically built up by the national press requires sustenance through continual debate and discussion by involving the representatives of various social organisations, voluntary bodies and social activists. It should be done preferably at the village level through the medium of language and culture of the villagers themselves. Indeed, it is the bounden duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
The writer is Director (Academics), Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh
Sustain the crusade against khap panchayats
The gotra row, as stirred up by the bizarre decisions of the khap panchyats, refuses to die down. It all began with the controversy on sagotra marriage – a marriage between a boy and a girl belonging to the same gotra. Recently, such a controversy came into focus when following the diktat of Kadyan Barha Khap Panchayat, the members of the Dharana village community resorted to social boycott with the Gelhout family residing in the same village.
The reason for this social sanction was that the Gelhouts married their son Ravinder to the daughter Shilpa of the Kadyans of the same gotra. Such a social sanction could be lifted only if the former agreed to annul the marriage of their son. If this was not done, they must leave the village within a stipulated period of time. Since the couple did not resile, they were ordered not to enter the village.
This controversy appeared in a precipitated form when Ved Pal Mor (23), was lynched by an irate mob in Singhawala village of Narwana in Haryana on July 22, 2009. Worse, this appalling act was done in the very presence of the police that accompanied the warrant officer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court along with Mor (the petitioner), who was deputed to ‘recover’ his wife from the house of in-laws in a writ of habeas corpus.
What was the provocation for this ghastly act? Mor’s only fault was that he dared to marry the girl of adjoining village Matour of the same gotra by violating the so-called well-entrenched social norms of the community to which he belonged. On this gory incident, the government maintained studied silence. So was the response of almost all political bigwigs who aspire to gain power by garnishing votes at the election.
Is it legal and constitutional for the khap panchayats either to pronounce nullity of marriage or to enforce expulsion against the members of the community who are not willing to abide by their dictum? A peep into the social and legal history of India reveals that sagotra marriage invariably falls within the ambit of prohibited relationship. We find resonance of this rule in the Hindu Dharmashatras. The Mitakshara Hindu law (a commentary on Hindu Dharmashatras, which still constitutes the basis of the modern codified Hindu law to a large extent), for instance, expressly states that a girl who is a sapinda, sagotra or samanaparavara does not acquire the status of a wife on marriage.
However, the redeeming feature of this shastric rule was that it was not rigid or inexorable. It kept on changing with the flux of time, but only through the adoption of silent, non-violent, customary practices. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council summed up this social phenomenon perceptively long-long ago in Ramnad case (1868) by observing that under the Hindu system of law, clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of law.
The deviation from the prohibition of sagotra marriage is not only fairly old but also widespread. This is evident from the judicial decisions emanating from the wide spread jurisdictions of Bombay, Madras and Lahore. See, for instance, Minakshi vs. Ramanadha (1888) from Madras; Santappayya vs. Rangappayya (1895) from Madras; Ramachanra vs. Gopal (1908) from Bombay; and Sri Krishen vs. Sham Sunder (1933) from Lahore – in all these cases sagotra marriages amongst the members of different communities were legally recognised because in each case a custom permitting such marriage had been clearly made out.
The rational of deviation is that the rules of prohibition are directory in nature and not mandatory. Such an approach instantly opens wide vistas for the play of human rights jurisprudence.
Keeping in view the changing disposition of society, the legislature intervened way back in 1946. Through the enactment of Hindu Marriage Disabilities Removal Act (XXVIII of 1946), a reform was sought to be introduced by sanctioning sagotra marriages. It proclaimed that notwithstanding any text, rule or interpretation of the Hindu law or any custom or usage to the contrary, a marriage between Hindus, which is otherwise valid, shall not be invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties thereto belong to the same gotra or pravara. After Independence, this reformative measure was made more comprehensive with retrospective effect under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955.
Despite these legislative reforms, proclaimed and adopted as a matter of public policy, Haryana’s khap panchayats do not seem to recognise and accept the reformative direction. Instead they impose their bigoted will with force on others, which is brazenly unsocial, undemocratic, illegal and un-constitutional.
In a civil society, use of force is the exclusive preserve of the state and none else. Jurisprudentially, it is its most distinguishing feature. Thus, the state is duty bound to act and intervene, more so when it comes to the protection and preservation of human rights so eloquently guaranteed under the Constitution. Even otherwise, all the institutional arrangements in a civil society operate within and not outside the basic framework of the Constitution.
Under the pressure of public opinion, however, the state machinery has been prompted to take note of violation of human rights. An encouraging role of the state has come to light when a determined couple, whose marriage had come under a cloud when the panchayat of Boora gotra had opposed their marriage on the ground that Saharans and Booras shared brotherly relations, got married under the cover of police protection, albeit outside village (The Tribune, Feb 7, 2010).
For keeping up this crusade, the pressure of public opinion so systematically built up by the national press requires sustenance through continual debate and discussion by involving the representatives of various social organisations, voluntary bodies and social activists. It should be done preferably at the village level through the medium of language and culture of the villagers themselves. Indeed, it is the bounden duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
The writer is Director (Academics), Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:18 pm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100426/haryana.htm
Khaps not in step with times: Social activists
Karnal, April 25
Jat Maha Sabha leaders and social activists stuck a divergent note on the role of khap panchayats at the first- ever debate on “Khap Panchayats and Constitutional Conventions” organised by Sanjha Sahitya Manch here today.
Jat Maha Sabha leaders strongly supported the institution of khap, claiming that it was not only an institution of the Jat community but comprised 36 “biradaris”. But social activists dubbed the khaps as these worked “against the spirit of law and the Constitution”.
The buying of brides from states like Bihar and Assam also came into focus during the deliberations. Defending the social role of the khap panchayats, president of the Jat Maha Panchayat, OP Mann, sought to absolve the khaps of the charge of inciting “honour killings”.
He said thec social laws had been enacted to bring harmony and strengthen tradition.
He said the decision of the judiciary to allow “live in relationships,” could not be acceptable as it was not in consonance with the moral code of society.
Mann refuted the charge that the khap panchayats were pronouncing capital punishment. “I can say it on oath that none of the khaps has ever pronounced any verdict to “kill” a person for marriage within the gotra. In fact, it was the fear of humiliation and embarrassment that drove families to kill their sons and daughter if they chose to marry in the same gotra or village,” he claimed. Admitting that the functioning of khaps was not without faults, Mann said that Jats had taken a pledge to stop female foeticide and be more flexible. A the same time he warned that another Manoj-Babli episode could be repeated if gotra marriages were not stopped.
Dr Ranbir singh from the PGI, Rohtak said forbidding marriage in the same gotra, same village and adjoining villages was an outdated practice.
The khaps chose to keep mum on cases of rape, murder, atrocities on Dalits and women and only concentrated on the issue of inter-caste marriages. Noted journalist Dhiresh Saini held that the claim of khaps being multi-caste bodies was wrong and questioned why the khaps did not speak up for the Dalits in Mirchpur whose houses were set ablaze.
On courts recognising live-in relationships, he said this would protect women from being exploited as keeps.
Advocate Sarita Singh questioned the structure of khaps and suggested 50 per cent reservation for women to ensure their participation in decision-making.
Debunking the suggestion for amending the Hindu Married Act to stop marriages within the same gotra, she said the khaps should instead press for a separate “Jat Marriage Act.”
In her concluding remarks, Suman Manjari, SP, Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban, put asked whether the diktats of Khap also applied to Jat families who had moved to the cities.
60 khaps threaten to gherao MLAs
Jind, April 25
The khaps’ demand for an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act and a ban on marriages within the same gotra got a boost today when leaders and representatives of 60 khaps, at a meeting of the sarva jatiya khap mahapanchayat, resolved to fight for their cause.
It was decided to hold a meeting of all khaps in the state and those in the neighboring states on May 2 at Pai village in Kaithal district.
This was the third meeting of khaps in the past about three weeks and since the court verdict in the Manoj-Babli murder case.
Chairing the meeting, the head of the Mor khap, Mewa Singh, said there was a need for changing the provisions of the marriage Act which, he said, had been creating problems.
He said the government should enact a law to ban inter-gotra and inter-village marriages as these were against social practices. Hence, these could not be allowed.
He said the matter would be discussed at the next meeting to be held at Pai and the khaps would exert pressure on the government and MPs and MLAs so that the problem could be resolved.
The mahapanchayat resolved to gherao elected representatives if they did not back their demand.
Khaps not in step with times: Social activists
Karnal, April 25
Jat Maha Sabha leaders and social activists stuck a divergent note on the role of khap panchayats at the first- ever debate on “Khap Panchayats and Constitutional Conventions” organised by Sanjha Sahitya Manch here today.
Jat Maha Sabha leaders strongly supported the institution of khap, claiming that it was not only an institution of the Jat community but comprised 36 “biradaris”. But social activists dubbed the khaps as these worked “against the spirit of law and the Constitution”.
The buying of brides from states like Bihar and Assam also came into focus during the deliberations. Defending the social role of the khap panchayats, president of the Jat Maha Panchayat, OP Mann, sought to absolve the khaps of the charge of inciting “honour killings”.
He said thec social laws had been enacted to bring harmony and strengthen tradition.
He said the decision of the judiciary to allow “live in relationships,” could not be acceptable as it was not in consonance with the moral code of society.
Mann refuted the charge that the khap panchayats were pronouncing capital punishment. “I can say it on oath that none of the khaps has ever pronounced any verdict to “kill” a person for marriage within the gotra. In fact, it was the fear of humiliation and embarrassment that drove families to kill their sons and daughter if they chose to marry in the same gotra or village,” he claimed. Admitting that the functioning of khaps was not without faults, Mann said that Jats had taken a pledge to stop female foeticide and be more flexible. A the same time he warned that another Manoj-Babli episode could be repeated if gotra marriages were not stopped.
Dr Ranbir singh from the PGI, Rohtak said forbidding marriage in the same gotra, same village and adjoining villages was an outdated practice.
The khaps chose to keep mum on cases of rape, murder, atrocities on Dalits and women and only concentrated on the issue of inter-caste marriages. Noted journalist Dhiresh Saini held that the claim of khaps being multi-caste bodies was wrong and questioned why the khaps did not speak up for the Dalits in Mirchpur whose houses were set ablaze.
On courts recognising live-in relationships, he said this would protect women from being exploited as keeps.
Advocate Sarita Singh questioned the structure of khaps and suggested 50 per cent reservation for women to ensure their participation in decision-making.
Debunking the suggestion for amending the Hindu Married Act to stop marriages within the same gotra, she said the khaps should instead press for a separate “Jat Marriage Act.”
In her concluding remarks, Suman Manjari, SP, Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban, put asked whether the diktats of Khap also applied to Jat families who had moved to the cities.
60 khaps threaten to gherao MLAs
Jind, April 25
The khaps’ demand for an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act and a ban on marriages within the same gotra got a boost today when leaders and representatives of 60 khaps, at a meeting of the sarva jatiya khap mahapanchayat, resolved to fight for their cause.
It was decided to hold a meeting of all khaps in the state and those in the neighboring states on May 2 at Pai village in Kaithal district.
This was the third meeting of khaps in the past about three weeks and since the court verdict in the Manoj-Babli murder case.
Chairing the meeting, the head of the Mor khap, Mewa Singh, said there was a need for changing the provisions of the marriage Act which, he said, had been creating problems.
He said the government should enact a law to ban inter-gotra and inter-village marriages as these were against social practices. Hence, these could not be allowed.
He said the matter would be discussed at the next meeting to be held at Pai and the khaps would exert pressure on the government and MPs and MLAs so that the problem could be resolved.
The mahapanchayat resolved to gherao elected representatives if they did not back their demand.
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Sat May 01, 2010 3:46 pm
GIVE THEM MORE EDUCATION-NO GOOD BLAMING KHAP OF EVERY THING
Hounded by khap, couple wants to embrace death
Rajasthan Police registers case, provides security to couple
Jaipur, April 30
A week after a panchayat diktat forced five persons to commit suicide in Karauli district, a newly-wed couple in the state’s Barmer district has sought permission from the authorities to end their lives after a Khap panchayat ordered their separation and payment of Rs 5 lakh.
According to reports from Barmer, the Khap panchayat of Bhimda village came out with the verdict against Chatra Ram and his wife Khama on March 5. The panchayat asked Khama to sever her ties with her legally-wedded husband Chatra Ram and instead live with Rekha Ram, a resident of Mokhab village. However, unlike Haryana, this isn’t a case of an inter-caste marriage. At the heart of the panchayat diktat is a monetary transaction between Khama’s family and Rekha Ram.
Sources said Khama got engaged to Chatra Ram with the consent of her mother and grandfather in 2001. However, sometime back Khama's brothers and maternal uncle reportedly took Rs 5 lakh from Rekha Ram with a promise that she would be married to him. They had been pressurising her to marry Rekha Ram since February this year. She was even "forcibly" sent to Rekha Ram who allegedly kept her tied with ropes. But, she somehow managed to escape and got married to Chatra Ram as per Arya Samaj traditions in Jodhpur last month.
Her brothers then lodged a complaint against the couple with the police, which arrested Chatra Ram from Jalore. However when Khama expressed her desire to live with Chatra Ram, the court allowed them to live together. After the court decision, her brothers sought help of the khap over the issue. The khap panchayat eventually asked the couple to pay the amount to Rekha Ram, besides ruling that they would be killed if they failed to comply with the order.
The matter came to light when the couple approached District Collector Gaurav Goyal during a public hearing early this week. They requested the Collector to allow them to commit suicide as they would not be able to follow the orders of the panchayat. “We will prefer death to separation. We did not marry to get separated on a panchayat’s diktat,” the couple told the authorities.
According to the Collector, a case has been registered after the couple lodged a complaint about the threats and the extortion. He said the couple had been provided a guard for security and the khap had been warned of strict action. “The police is investigating the matter and action would be taken against the culprits,” he added.
Hounded by khap, couple wants to embrace death
Rajasthan Police registers case, provides security to couple
Jaipur, April 30
A week after a panchayat diktat forced five persons to commit suicide in Karauli district, a newly-wed couple in the state’s Barmer district has sought permission from the authorities to end their lives after a Khap panchayat ordered their separation and payment of Rs 5 lakh.
According to reports from Barmer, the Khap panchayat of Bhimda village came out with the verdict against Chatra Ram and his wife Khama on March 5. The panchayat asked Khama to sever her ties with her legally-wedded husband Chatra Ram and instead live with Rekha Ram, a resident of Mokhab village. However, unlike Haryana, this isn’t a case of an inter-caste marriage. At the heart of the panchayat diktat is a monetary transaction between Khama’s family and Rekha Ram.
Sources said Khama got engaged to Chatra Ram with the consent of her mother and grandfather in 2001. However, sometime back Khama's brothers and maternal uncle reportedly took Rs 5 lakh from Rekha Ram with a promise that she would be married to him. They had been pressurising her to marry Rekha Ram since February this year. She was even "forcibly" sent to Rekha Ram who allegedly kept her tied with ropes. But, she somehow managed to escape and got married to Chatra Ram as per Arya Samaj traditions in Jodhpur last month.
Her brothers then lodged a complaint against the couple with the police, which arrested Chatra Ram from Jalore. However when Khama expressed her desire to live with Chatra Ram, the court allowed them to live together. After the court decision, her brothers sought help of the khap over the issue. The khap panchayat eventually asked the couple to pay the amount to Rekha Ram, besides ruling that they would be killed if they failed to comply with the order.
The matter came to light when the couple approached District Collector Gaurav Goyal during a public hearing early this week. They requested the Collector to allow them to commit suicide as they would not be able to follow the orders of the panchayat. “We will prefer death to separation. We did not marry to get separated on a panchayat’s diktat,” the couple told the authorities.
According to the Collector, a case has been registered after the couple lodged a complaint about the threats and the extortion. He said the couple had been provided a guard for security and the khap had been warned of strict action. “The police is investigating the matter and action would be taken against the culprits,” he added.
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Sat May 01, 2010 9:39 pm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100502/haryana.htm
Man kills daughter’s lover, held
Sirsa, May 1
A man, who is alleged to have killed a local youth who was in love with his daughter, has been arrested for murder and causing disappearance of evidence of the crime, in Sirsa town today.
A team of the local police today recovered the body of the victim, Sonu, from Sahaya Minor, an offshoot of the Rajasthan Canal, near Rawatsar town of Rajasthan. Earlier, the police had recovered his motorcycle from the canal yesterday.
Raj Rani, mother of the victim and a resident of the local Khairpur area, had lodged an FIR with the police on April 26 that his son was called by the accused Jaspal Singh, a resident of local Friends Colony, to his residence on April 23 and suspected that he and his wife had murdered her son.
She alleged that her son had an affair with Jaspal Singh’s daughter and the two had even eloped some time back.
However, Jaspal Singh and his wife, she said, were against their relationship. She expressed the fear that her son had been done to death by the two.
The police had registered a case of kidnapping under Section 364 of the IPC against Jaspal Singh on April 26.
“The police arrested Jaspal Singh on Friday and sought his five-day police remand from a local court. During his interrogation, Jaspal confessed to the crime and revealed that he, aided by another friend, had killed the youth and thrown away his body,” said a police spokesperson.
The spokesperson said Jaspal Singh and his friend took Sonu to Talwara Jheel on the Rajasthan Canal and threw him along with his motorcycle in it after killing him.
After the recovery of the body, the police has booked Jaspal Singh under Section 302 and 201of the IPC and said the other accused would also be arrested soon after the accused revealed his identity.
Couple seeks security
KAITHAL: A newly married couple on Saturday approached the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge AK Shori and demanded security as they feared danger to their lives.
The couple had married against the wishes of their parents on March 18 at Arya Samaj Mandir in Chandigarh. The court directed the local police to provide security to the couple. Satish and Suman of the local Jalandhrian mohalla got married in Chandigarh. — OC
Khap mahapanchayat today
Kaithal, May 1
A khap mahapanchayat will be held at Pai village in Kaithal district tomorrow to demand an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act.
This was stated in a joint statement issued by Bharat Singh Behniwal, Jagpal Majra, Ramphal Jakholi, Om Parkash Dhull, Inder Singh and Jagat Singh, national vice-president of the Jat Arakshan Samiti, during a press conference here today.
The leaders said their organisation had been forced to demand amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act as misguided youth from various parts of the state, who had been debarred from solemnising marriage being natives of the same village or neighbouring villages, were tying nuptial knots in violation of conventions and social norms prevailing since ages without taking into confidence their parents or village elders.
If such practice was not stopped immediately, it would not only damage and weaken the goodwill prevailing among various castes and sections of society, but would also create serious social problems in the coming times, they added. People could not remain mute spectators when age-old conventions were violated by the youth.
Man kills daughter’s lover, held
Sirsa, May 1
A man, who is alleged to have killed a local youth who was in love with his daughter, has been arrested for murder and causing disappearance of evidence of the crime, in Sirsa town today.
A team of the local police today recovered the body of the victim, Sonu, from Sahaya Minor, an offshoot of the Rajasthan Canal, near Rawatsar town of Rajasthan. Earlier, the police had recovered his motorcycle from the canal yesterday.
Raj Rani, mother of the victim and a resident of the local Khairpur area, had lodged an FIR with the police on April 26 that his son was called by the accused Jaspal Singh, a resident of local Friends Colony, to his residence on April 23 and suspected that he and his wife had murdered her son.
She alleged that her son had an affair with Jaspal Singh’s daughter and the two had even eloped some time back.
However, Jaspal Singh and his wife, she said, were against their relationship. She expressed the fear that her son had been done to death by the two.
The police had registered a case of kidnapping under Section 364 of the IPC against Jaspal Singh on April 26.
“The police arrested Jaspal Singh on Friday and sought his five-day police remand from a local court. During his interrogation, Jaspal confessed to the crime and revealed that he, aided by another friend, had killed the youth and thrown away his body,” said a police spokesperson.
The spokesperson said Jaspal Singh and his friend took Sonu to Talwara Jheel on the Rajasthan Canal and threw him along with his motorcycle in it after killing him.
After the recovery of the body, the police has booked Jaspal Singh under Section 302 and 201of the IPC and said the other accused would also be arrested soon after the accused revealed his identity.
Couple seeks security
KAITHAL: A newly married couple on Saturday approached the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge AK Shori and demanded security as they feared danger to their lives.
The couple had married against the wishes of their parents on March 18 at Arya Samaj Mandir in Chandigarh. The court directed the local police to provide security to the couple. Satish and Suman of the local Jalandhrian mohalla got married in Chandigarh. — OC
Khap mahapanchayat today
Kaithal, May 1
A khap mahapanchayat will be held at Pai village in Kaithal district tomorrow to demand an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act.
This was stated in a joint statement issued by Bharat Singh Behniwal, Jagpal Majra, Ramphal Jakholi, Om Parkash Dhull, Inder Singh and Jagat Singh, national vice-president of the Jat Arakshan Samiti, during a press conference here today.
The leaders said their organisation had been forced to demand amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act as misguided youth from various parts of the state, who had been debarred from solemnising marriage being natives of the same village or neighbouring villages, were tying nuptial knots in violation of conventions and social norms prevailing since ages without taking into confidence their parents or village elders.
If such practice was not stopped immediately, it would not only damage and weaken the goodwill prevailing among various castes and sections of society, but would also create serious social problems in the coming times, they added. People could not remain mute spectators when age-old conventions were violated by the youth.
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Sun May 02, 2010 12:24 pm
JATS GOTRA SYSTEM
Let me share some thoughts on the
Having exogamous divisions (termed gotras, baink, kula, khap etc. in India) is a social structure, which has evolved to discourage inbreeding, which has both genetic and social consequences.
Prohibition of marriage within the same gotra to all practically all Hindu communities all over India. Marriage within the same gotra is regarded to be a from of incest. It is actually found in many regions the world, for example the Chinese clans have been traditionally exogamous (see Marriage and inequality in Chinese society By Rubie Sharon Watson, Patricia Buckley Ebrey). It is found in Africa (Totemism and Exogamy: Totemism,Sir James George Frazer). Even in the western societies, marriage among closely related individuals is considered incest. It is actually a natural instinct, studies have shown that individuals who have lived very closely to each other during childhood, tend to not have sexual attraction to each other.
There is an academic counterpart. Most well established American universities do not hire their own graduates, doing so is termed "academic incest".
Some communities in India have a more complex system. In some those belonging to both father's and mother's gotra are excluded. In a few eight branches are excluded. Among the Brahmins of Mithila (and Bengal), it has been a tradition to consult genealogical records (panji http://cc.1asphost. com/mithila/ genealogies. asp) to ensure that marriage within close relatives does not occur.
Exceptions:
The restriction against the same-gotra marriage is self enforced, and thus a non-issue in practically all (perhaps 99.9%) cases.
I have heard of a few situations when exceptions to gotra exogamy occurs. In some communities, the "gotra" is only nominal, the real exogamous divisions are known by a different name.
I have heard that in some cases, groom is symbolically adapted by some other family. By tradition, the gotra transmitted is that of the adaptive father. However in my view, this is improper if done only to avoid the exogamy.
There was a scandal in a major royal family a few years when a princess married someone belonging to the same branch of the same Rajput clan. It was reported in the press that opposition was because the boy was a driver of the family. However I watched video of an interview in which the princess, apparently unaware of the significance of the exogamy, argued that the boy was actually from a respectable family, in fact the same clan. She apparently thought clan is same as the community (caste, an endogamous unit).
Apparently when the girl could not be persuaded, he parents consented to the wedding. The son-less Maharaja eventually adapted one of their daughter's son.
In some cases, the gotra is forgotten when a few family have migrated and have lived in a distant place for a few generations. In such cases, new gotras emerge.
Let me share some thoughts on the
Having exogamous divisions (termed gotras, baink, kula, khap etc. in India) is a social structure, which has evolved to discourage inbreeding, which has both genetic and social consequences.
Prohibition of marriage within the same gotra to all practically all Hindu communities all over India. Marriage within the same gotra is regarded to be a from of incest. It is actually found in many regions the world, for example the Chinese clans have been traditionally exogamous (see Marriage and inequality in Chinese society By Rubie Sharon Watson, Patricia Buckley Ebrey). It is found in Africa (Totemism and Exogamy: Totemism,Sir James George Frazer). Even in the western societies, marriage among closely related individuals is considered incest. It is actually a natural instinct, studies have shown that individuals who have lived very closely to each other during childhood, tend to not have sexual attraction to each other.
There is an academic counterpart. Most well established American universities do not hire their own graduates, doing so is termed "academic incest".
Some communities in India have a more complex system. In some those belonging to both father's and mother's gotra are excluded. In a few eight branches are excluded. Among the Brahmins of Mithila (and Bengal), it has been a tradition to consult genealogical records (panji http://cc.1asphost. com/mithila/ genealogies. asp) to ensure that marriage within close relatives does not occur.
Exceptions:
The restriction against the same-gotra marriage is self enforced, and thus a non-issue in practically all (perhaps 99.9%) cases.
I have heard of a few situations when exceptions to gotra exogamy occurs. In some communities, the "gotra" is only nominal, the real exogamous divisions are known by a different name.
I have heard that in some cases, groom is symbolically adapted by some other family. By tradition, the gotra transmitted is that of the adaptive father. However in my view, this is improper if done only to avoid the exogamy.
There was a scandal in a major royal family a few years when a princess married someone belonging to the same branch of the same Rajput clan. It was reported in the press that opposition was because the boy was a driver of the family. However I watched video of an interview in which the princess, apparently unaware of the significance of the exogamy, argued that the boy was actually from a respectable family, in fact the same clan. She apparently thought clan is same as the community (caste, an endogamous unit).
Apparently when the girl could not be persuaded, he parents consented to the wedding. The son-less Maharaja eventually adapted one of their daughter's son.
In some cases, the gotra is forgotten when a few family have migrated and have lived in a distant place for a few generations. In such cases, new gotras emerge.
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Sun May 02, 2010 12:27 pm
Flag this message
[JatHistory] Hindu Marriage act 1955 (amended in 76, 78): prohibited degrees
Chapter II
Hindu Marriages
5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage
A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following condition are fulfilled, namely:-
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage
1[(ii) at the time of marriage, neither party-
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(c ) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity2 [***]
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of 3[twenty one years] and the bride, the age of 4[eighteen years] at the time of marriage
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; 5[***].
======
3 Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) the expressions “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family;
PROVIDED that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy;
PROVIDED FURTHER that in the case of rule applicable only to a family it has not been discontinued by the family;
(b) “district court” means, in any area which there is a city civil court, that court, and in any other area the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes any other civil court which may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in resect of the matters dealt with in this Act.
(c) “full blood “and “half blood”- two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they were descended from a common ancestor by the same wife and by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different wives ;
(d) “uterine blood” - two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different husbands.
Explanation: In clauses (c) and (d) "ancestor” includes the father and “ancestress” the mother ;
(e) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(f) (i) “sapinda relationship” with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation.
(ii) two persons are said to be “sapindas” of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them;
(g) “degrees of prohibited relationship” - two persons are said to be within the “degrees of prohibited relationship” -
(i) if one is lineal ascendant of the other; or
(ii) if one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or
(iii) if one was the wife of the brother or of the father’s or mother's brother or of the grandfather’s or grandmother’s brother of the other; or
(iv) if the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew or children of brother and sister or of two brother or of two sister;
Explanation- For the purposes of clauses (f) and (g), relationship includes:-
(i) relationship by half or uterine blood as well as by full blood;
(ii) illegitimate blood relationship as well as legitimate ;
(iii) relationship by adoption as well as by blood ;
and all terms of relationship in those clauses shall be constructed accordingly
http://punjabrevenu e.nic.in/ hmrgact(1).htm
[JatHistory] Hindu Marriage act 1955 (amended in 76, 78): prohibited degrees
Chapter II
Hindu Marriages
5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage
A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following condition are fulfilled, namely:-
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage
1[(ii) at the time of marriage, neither party-
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(c ) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity2 [***]
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of 3[twenty one years] and the bride, the age of 4[eighteen years] at the time of marriage
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two; 5[***].
======
3 Definitions
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) the expressions “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which, having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family;
PROVIDED that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy;
PROVIDED FURTHER that in the case of rule applicable only to a family it has not been discontinued by the family;
(b) “district court” means, in any area which there is a city civil court, that court, and in any other area the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes any other civil court which may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in resect of the matters dealt with in this Act.
(c) “full blood “and “half blood”- two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they were descended from a common ancestor by the same wife and by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different wives ;
(d) “uterine blood” - two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different husbands.
Explanation: In clauses (c) and (d) "ancestor” includes the father and “ancestress” the mother ;
(e) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(f) (i) “sapinda relationship” with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation.
(ii) two persons are said to be “sapindas” of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them;
(g) “degrees of prohibited relationship” - two persons are said to be within the “degrees of prohibited relationship” -
(i) if one is lineal ascendant of the other; or
(ii) if one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or
(iii) if one was the wife of the brother or of the father’s or mother's brother or of the grandfather’s or grandmother’s brother of the other; or
(iv) if the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew or children of brother and sister or of two brother or of two sister;
Explanation- For the purposes of clauses (f) and (g), relationship includes:-
(i) relationship by half or uterine blood as well as by full blood;
(ii) illegitimate blood relationship as well as legitimate ;
(iii) relationship by adoption as well as by blood ;
and all terms of relationship in those clauses shall be constructed accordingly
http://punjabrevenu e.nic.in/ hmrgact(1).htm
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
Re: Khap panchayat annuls yet another marriage
by Dudee » Sun May 02, 2010 10:53 pm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100503/haryana.htm
Khaps’ demand gets INLD backing
Kaithal, May 2
A khap mahapanchayat held at Pai village in Kaithal district today unanimously resolved to press the Centre and the state government to make an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act in conformity with the age-old conventions being followed by various khaps prohibiting marriages among girls and boys of the same gotra or those living the same village.
The mahapanchayat decided to gherao the local MP on May 10 in Kaithal on the issue.
In a significant development, the INLD has extended support to the demand of the khaps. Ram Pal Majra, a former Chief Parliamentary Secretary and sitting MLA from Kalayat attended the mahapanchayat and announced from the stage that INLD supremo Om Prakash Chautala had given an assurance to support the demand of the mahapanchayat for an amendement to the marriage Act.
He said khap panchayats had a great importance in society as they were in existence long before the present judicial system came up. Mani Ram Kadiyan of Jakholi village presided over today’s meeting. Mewa Singh Chhatar, president of the mahapanchayat, announced some other decisions taken at today’s meeting. These included a demand for the review of the judgment in the Manoj-Babli murder case and its reinvestigation.
Mewa Singh clarified that no money was being collected or given to the families of those who had been convicted in the Manoj-Babli case. The mahapanchayat also demanded a reinvestigation into the Singhwal murder case. It also demanded that the Mirchpur case relating to the attack on Dalits be handed over to the CBI.
Rohtak: Khap panchayats, facing criticism over their stand on marriages within the same village or gotra, seem to have found support from at least one quarter. A section of doctors feels that couples of the same gotra should avoid getting married.
This view was expressed at a programme under continuing medical education (CME) on “Genetic counselling and bioethics” organised by the Department of Psychiatry in collaboration with RML Hospital, Delhi, and the Indian Psychiatric Society, North Zone (Haryana chapter), at the Psychiatric Department of the PGIMS here today.
Speaking on genetic counselling, Dr Rajiv Gupta cited the burning issue of same-gotra marriages in Haryana. He claimed that such marriages should be avoided because medical science had proved time and again that marriages among close relatives might lead to genetic disorders in the offspring.
The programme was chaired by Dr Smita Deshpande of RML Hospital and Dr Rajiv Gupta, HoD, PGIMS.
The Vice-Chancellor of the Pt BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Dr SS Sangwan, inaugurated the programme. Some other speakers also shared the view of Dr Gupta on the issue of same-gotra marriages.
The Director of the PGIMS said CME programmes were of vital help in sharing knowledge. He said in earlier times persons suffering for psychological disorders and other genetic disorders were treated as a “stigma” by society but now genetic counselling was a helpful tool to absorb such people in the mainstream.
Speaking on bio ethics, Dr NN Mishra of RML Hospital said it was the moral obligation of doctors to be honest towards the profession and all principles of medical science should be followed in toto. — TNS
Khaps’ demand gets INLD backing
Kaithal, May 2
A khap mahapanchayat held at Pai village in Kaithal district today unanimously resolved to press the Centre and the state government to make an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act in conformity with the age-old conventions being followed by various khaps prohibiting marriages among girls and boys of the same gotra or those living the same village.
The mahapanchayat decided to gherao the local MP on May 10 in Kaithal on the issue.
In a significant development, the INLD has extended support to the demand of the khaps. Ram Pal Majra, a former Chief Parliamentary Secretary and sitting MLA from Kalayat attended the mahapanchayat and announced from the stage that INLD supremo Om Prakash Chautala had given an assurance to support the demand of the mahapanchayat for an amendement to the marriage Act.
He said khap panchayats had a great importance in society as they were in existence long before the present judicial system came up. Mani Ram Kadiyan of Jakholi village presided over today’s meeting. Mewa Singh Chhatar, president of the mahapanchayat, announced some other decisions taken at today’s meeting. These included a demand for the review of the judgment in the Manoj-Babli murder case and its reinvestigation.
Mewa Singh clarified that no money was being collected or given to the families of those who had been convicted in the Manoj-Babli case. The mahapanchayat also demanded a reinvestigation into the Singhwal murder case. It also demanded that the Mirchpur case relating to the attack on Dalits be handed over to the CBI.
Rohtak: Khap panchayats, facing criticism over their stand on marriages within the same village or gotra, seem to have found support from at least one quarter. A section of doctors feels that couples of the same gotra should avoid getting married.
This view was expressed at a programme under continuing medical education (CME) on “Genetic counselling and bioethics” organised by the Department of Psychiatry in collaboration with RML Hospital, Delhi, and the Indian Psychiatric Society, North Zone (Haryana chapter), at the Psychiatric Department of the PGIMS here today.
Speaking on genetic counselling, Dr Rajiv Gupta cited the burning issue of same-gotra marriages in Haryana. He claimed that such marriages should be avoided because medical science had proved time and again that marriages among close relatives might lead to genetic disorders in the offspring.
The programme was chaired by Dr Smita Deshpande of RML Hospital and Dr Rajiv Gupta, HoD, PGIMS.
The Vice-Chancellor of the Pt BD Sharma University of Health Sciences, Dr SS Sangwan, inaugurated the programme. Some other speakers also shared the view of Dr Gupta on the issue of same-gotra marriages.
The Director of the PGIMS said CME programmes were of vital help in sharing knowledge. He said in earlier times persons suffering for psychological disorders and other genetic disorders were treated as a “stigma” by society but now genetic counselling was a helpful tool to absorb such people in the mainstream.
Speaking on bio ethics, Dr NN Mishra of RML Hospital said it was the moral obligation of doctors to be honest towards the profession and all principles of medical science should be followed in toto. — TNS
JAY JAWAN- JAY KISAN
- Dudee
- Active member
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: GHASOLA- DADRI/BHIWANI/LONDON UK/KY USA
23 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest