Two Himachal brothers marry same woman adopting tribal tradition of polyandry
Nahan/Shimla (HP), Jul 20 (PTI): Two brothers of the Hatti tribe tied the knot to a woman in Shillai village of Himachal Pradesh, with hundreds of people witnessing the marriage solemnised under the anachronistic tradition of polyandry.
Bride Sunita Chauhan and grooms Pradeep and Kapil Negi said they took the decision without any pressure.
Local folk songs and dances added colour to the ceremony that began on July 12 and lasted for three days in the Trans-Giri area of Sirmaur district.
Videos of the wedding ceremony have gone viral on the internet.
Revenue laws of Himachal Pradesh recognise this tradition and named it "Jodidara". In Badhana village in Trans-Giri, five such marriages have taken place in the past six years.
Sunita, who hails from Kunhat village, said that she was aware of the tradition and made her decision without any pressure, adding she respects the bond they have formed.
Pradeep, from Shillai village, works in a government department while his younger brother Kapil has a job abroad.
"We followed the tradition publicly as we are proud of it and it was a joint decision," said Pradeep.
Kapil said he may live abroad, but through this marriage, "we're ensuring support, stability and love for our wife as a united family".
"We've always believed in transparency," he added.
Hatti is a closed-knit community in the Himachal Pradesh-Uttarakhand border and was declared as Scheduled Tribe three years ago. In this tribe, polyandry was in vogue for centuries, but due to rising literacy among women and economic uplift of communities in the region, cases of polyandry were not reported.
Such marriages are being solemnised in a clandestine manner and accepted by the society but instances are fewer, elders in the village said.
According to experts, one of the main considerations behind the tradition was to ensure that the ancestral land was not divided while the share of tribal women in the ancestral property is still a main issue.
There are nearly three lakh people of the Hatti community who live in about 450 villages in the Trans Giri area of Sirmaur district and polyandry is still a practising tradition in some villages. It was also prevalent in Jaunsar Babar, tribal area of Uttarakhand and Kinnaur, a tribal district of Himachal Pradesh.
Kundan Singh Shastri, general secretary of Kendriya Hatti Samiti, the prime body of the Hatti community, said this tradition was invented thousands of years ago to save a family's agricultural land from further division.
Another reason is to promote brotherhood and mutual understanding in a joint family by marrying even two or more brothers born from different mothers with a single bride, he told PTI.
The third reason is a feeling of security "if you have bigger family, more men, you are more secure in a tribal society", he said, adding it also helps in managing scattered agriculture lands in far-flung hard hilly areas which requires a family for a long time for care and cultivation.
These requirements of tribal families have kept the polyandry system for thousands of years, in practice, though these traditions are slowly dying, Shastri added.
In this unique tribal tradition of marriage known as "Jajda", the bride comes to the village of the groom in a procession and the ritual known as "Seenj" is performed at the residence of the groom.
The pandit chant mantras in local language with sprinkling holy water on the bride and groom and offer them jaggery in the end, with blessings that their Kul Devta may bring sweetness in their married life.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
