Simultaneous multiple systems of justice

Jaat, Paat, Dharma, Bhed

The parallel system of justice rears it's ugly head yet again

Kathleri, a sleepy little village in the heart of the Jatland of Haryana is in the news for the all the wrong reasons. At the centre of controversy is a little baby boy called Ankush. Ankush was born a few weeks ago to Kavita and Pawan who are legally married and above the age of consent. The hows and the whys of baby Ankush being born are not really rocket science. Everyone has babies, and more importantly, everyone knows how to make them (even if your parents think you are not old enough to know how). Well, if only life was that simple !!

Just because you can, are you allowed to make babies?

Kavita and Pawan have the same Gotra. This, in the eyes of religion makes them brother and sister. On the basis of the hindu religion (my assumption is Manusmriti), this marriage is not permissible. Moreover, Ankush, the poor little baby boy, is a child born out of incest and is illegitimate. Before we get into all that, let's see what the Hindu marriage act, enacted by the Government of India says : According to the act of 1955, 2 hindus of the proper age (21 for men and 18 for women) can get married irrespective of caste/gotra except if they are within the 'degrees of prohibited relationships' :

This Para below has been pasted from the Delhi Govt website. If ANYONE can figure out the origin of one of the words (don't worry - you'll know which one) please drop me a line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source : http://delhigovt.nic.in/dept/pubserv/MarriageCert.asp#3

Degree of Prohibited relationship as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 3 (f):
1."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; 2. Two persons are said to "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;

Section 3 (g):
"degrees of prohibited relationship" – two persons are said to be within the "degrees of prohibited relationship" – 1. if one is a lineal ascendant of the other; or 2. if one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or 3. if one was the wife of the brother or the father’s or mother’s brother or of the grandfather’s or grandmother’s brother of the other; or 4. if the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters;

Explanation – For the purposes of clauses 3(f) and 3(g), relationship includes – 1. Relationship by half or uterine blood as well as by full blood; 2. Illegitimate blood relationship as well as legitimate; 3. Relationship by adoption as well as by blood;

and all terms of relationship in those clauses shall be construed accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


However, the Jaat Panchayat (Caste Panchayat) wants nothing to do with the laws passed by the Govt of India. They believe in their own laws and traditions. “The society doesn’t allow this. Let the law say whatever. This is a centuries old tradition and we object to people trying to break it,” said Member, Jaat Panchayat, Ranveer Singh. Ankush was forcibly taken away by the caste panchayat and the parents were fined Rs 65,000 and warned not to interfere. Despite the pleadings of the parents and a few others, the panchayat was unrelenting. The child was hidden when the media became involved. Haryana police, usually impotent against caste panchayats, somehow managed to get their act together before something untowards happened and rescued Ankush yesterday (Sunday 02 Sept). The police have also registered a case of abduction against panchayat members who had snatched the baby from his parents, objecting to their marriage.

In Kathleri village, there was fear of ostracism everywhere when residents were questioned during investigation. Most have the same thing to say - that they have to stay in the village and cannot speak up against the decisions of the Panchayat. However, villagers are unanimous about the fact that the couple are extremely lucky. A few weeks back, a couple was drowned and killed in a nearby village because they dared to marry within the same gotra.

But that's not what I want to highlight.

The bleeding hearts in the media, and some among you would have justifiably formed opinions by now where the Jaat Panchayat are the villians (think Prem Chopra, Ajit, Gulshan Grover), the police are bumbling idi*ts who actually managed to get things right (think Asrani in Sholay - hum angrez ke zamane ke jailor hain) and the couple - well, Amitabh and Rekha from Silsila - who do a naughty naughty thing, but get away in the end.

So, I'll say yet again - if only life was this simple !!

I'm a Hindu - have been since birth. I'm not really a practising Hindu. I don't go to the temple very often. But that does not change the fact that I am a Hindu. More importantly, I'm an Indian and I believe in a fair system of Justice. I think it is important to stress this before I am blamed about being biased.

Which is why, I believe and support the Caste Panchayat. Hey, take that kid away. Drown the couple, why not drown the kid while they are at it anyway. Who cares. We have a population of more than a billion - 3 less won't make much of a difference. Especially sinners and people in incestuous relationships. So how many of you think I'm nuts now :)

If we believe in a fair system of justice, we must allow the caste panchayats to function. After all, we have a Muslim Personal Law Board which allows a man to say talaq thrice and just get rid of his wife. The media is mostly silent then. Or what about the rape case a few years ago, when the father raped his own son's wife. The elders ruled that the wife had to divorce her husband and marry the father. Or what about Gudiya, who ultimately died due to the stress of having to leave her new husband because the old one literally came back from the dead. The media reports some of these cases, but in most cases, the ruling passed down by the Ulema or whatever is allowed to be carried out. The media does not bother reporting most of those cases anyway. The reason - because then the Muslim community and the pseudo-secularists start screaming - oppression against minorities. The case I like best - the Muslim Board ruling that singing Vande Mataram was not permissible under Islam and the Government backed down !!

However, if anything similar was carried out by the Hindu community, all hell would've broken loose. Let's not even get started about the Roop Kanwar case either.That is not fair. Yes, I know, life isn't fair, but this isn't about life. This is about a joke being played out by our Parliament on unsuspecting Indians. Why should some people be allowed to get away with it, and why should our Jat brothers and sisters be singled out for the judgement they've passed? Are the caste panchayat really the bad guys or are they the victims in this case? Are the police a bunch of bumbling fools who got it right for once, or are they real bad guys? As far as the parents and the baby are concerned - well, I'm glad it's been a happy ending for them - though there's a long way to go. People in that part of the country have been known for harbouring grudges for a long time and the Panchayat will probably strike sooner or later !!

India is a big country. In 1947, India was formed out of a merger of 513 princely states (give or take a few). More than 75% of Indians were living in villages - far away from the British justice system adopted by the Indian Govt. This meant that the system of law, as it had been practised for thousands of years simply continued. Sure, the system had flaws, but that was because the laws were not based on a standardised text, but rather, on interpretations of the panchayats and the people who had power.

Vote bank politics and divisive methods of our honourable members of Parliament and the various Assemblies ensured that these systems continued. Indian law actually encourages the formation of Panchayats by a democratic election process of rigging, rioting and booth capturing, but does not permit them to pass rulings on cases like these. Marriages fall under the jurisdiction of the Indian legal system. However, to keep the vote bank happy, the politicians and police normally do not interfere in these cases. Only when the media gets involved, does the law of the land apply ... and even then, only in a few cases!!

The neo-secularist-urban Indians and our politicians are quick to point out the justice done in the Roop Kanwar case or in this case - simply because the end result appeals to their taste. But get them to talk about the triple talaq, or the Muslim member of the UP assembly who announced a reward for the head of the Scandinavian cartoonist - and they are silent. What about the members of the Andhra Assembly who tried to murder Taslima Nasreen during a routine function? Oh yes, privately, they all grumble, but when the issue of a uniform civil law is raised - someone in the corner starts screaming bias, oppression of minorities, the rise of right wing hindu fundamentalists and pretty much anything you can think of. Which reminds me - the Muslim Minister in UP has not been arrested for the charge of inciting murder - or in bambaiyya hindi - for attempting to give a 'supari'.

When I stayed at my in-laws' house in Mumbai last year, I came across another phenomenon called a Maha Aarti. The Maha Aarti is a prayer said in a temple on a loudspeaker at a time which co-incides with the Azaan from the Mosque also on a loudspeaker. Sure, that is fair and just, but simply ridiculous. On a vacation, I love to sleep in till late - and being woken up by a harsh screeching from the places of worship - well, my first thoughts in the morning are not about God, but they revolve around strangulation, torture and the pleasure I would derive seeing the people on the other end of the loudspeaker roast slowly over a coal fire. However, asking the temples to stop it leads to an outcry about the Azaan, and asking the mosques to stop the Azaan, well... in India, that's simply impossible. So the helpless people who live in areas with a mosque and temple have no choice but to live with it !!

The case for a Uniform Civil Code

Article 44 of the Constitution of India states:

"Uniform civil code for the citizens.- The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."

By 'uniform civil code,' the authors of the Indian constitution meant a commonly enforceable set of laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and other personal and familial matters.

India's long history of cultural and political pluralism did not allow for the immediate imposition of such a code. The compromise solution adopted was that the Indian state codified Hindu customs, created special legislations governing domestic and social situations that citizens could opt for but permitted members of religious minorities to choose to follow the rules and customs of their community as interpreted by their community leaders.

Justice is blind - or so they say. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law - or so they also say. What they don't say is the definition of the word 'everyone' changes from time to time and good ol' lady Justice has a peek through the blindfold every now and then to ensure that the likes of the Gandhi family are not questioned for their role in the Bofors scam.

It is understandable that the law boards preferred different laws for different people immediately after independence, but it's time that we adopt a uniform code for everyone in India. If we are to obtain social equality, it has to start with legal equality. Why is it legal for people of a certain religion to offer money for the murder of a cartoonist because the cartoon offended their religious sensibilities and illegal for a panchayat to kidnap a baby because it offended their religious sensibility ? Or why is it legal for places of worship to have loudspeakers blearing away when it so obviously causes noise pollution and annoyance? Or why is it legal for muslim women to have no say in matters of divorce? Are they not Indians? Are they not the very people our constitution has pledged to help? Doesn't Ankush deserve a life without the fear of threat to his life or that of his parents? Since when did Vande Mataram - that had once galvanised the entire nation - become an evil song which offended a religion?

In this day and age, when we need to look above religion and think peace and prosperity for all irrespective of religion, all we seem to be doing is taking steps backwards. When everyone starts being treated equally by law, this change will occur. Many won't like it but at the end of the day, it's important for all Indians to be judged by the same legal yardstick.

The Uniform Civil Law act was first proposed by the BJP - which meant that it was automatically shot down by our patriotic friends the CPI because it was too right wing. The Congress opposed it, because they normally oppose everything the BJP says (except for the pay hike for ministers bill). The Samajwadi Party opposed it because Maulana Mulayam depends on the Muslim vote bank in UP. The BSP, well, will say anything that Mayawati says, and she's available to the highest bidder. The DMK and AIADMK - their positions normally flip-flop depending on who they've decided to get in bed with for that season. The bill was never discussed or passed.

The joke of simultaneous multiple legal systems in the same country has gone on long enough. It is high time that we understand that the word 'Secular' will remain just another word till the time we carry on with this hypocrisy. When Gandhiji said 'Ishwar Allah tero naam' he meant for us to be secular in word and in spirit. The usual vote bank politics and the cries of 'Humare Dalit bhai' or 'Humare muslim bhai' have only done harm to the country. Unless we speak out, change isn't going to happen.

Could the makers of the Constitution have tackled the challenge presented by India’s religious plurality any differently? It is difficult to see how. Indian secularism represented the outcome of contradictions: between the secular form of the modern state and a religious society; between contending visions of what India should be, embodied by some of the principal figures involved in drawing up the Constitution – Nehru, Patel, Prasad, Ambedkar; between the anxieties of minority religious groups and the majoritarian inclinations of many Hindu Congressmen; between the enthusiasts for Hindi and the fears of the non-Hindi speaking majority; and between the demands of a putative nation and the pressures of a diverse federal polity. These contradictions have not disappeared.... but the time has come.....

And in the meanwhile, drown them both I say.