Hindu laws cover Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists

[Mehtab Singh]

Some selected portions...

Sikh Scholar Birendra Kaur has dragged the judiciary and Government of India into a Constitutional and legal dispute over the scope of the word ‘Hindu’. She objects to the use of the word in the Constitution of India and jurisprudence as covering Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. She feels it is a denial of identity to the last three minor religious groups.

The religious practices of the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists may vary from those of the Hindus. But what is the position as far as jurisprudence is concerned? Traditionally, they had no codified jurisprudence except what was derived from Brahmanical sources like Dharmasutras, Smritis and Nibandhs. And they shared customary laws as applicable to their Hindu neighbours. This put them on an entirely different footing than Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsis who came to India with their own laws. The founders of Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism were spiritual leaders who guided people on how to live an ethical life and attain salvation. They never tried to amend the laws of marriage, adoption, inheritance and succession and left them to the usages of the period and region.

Guru Nanak prohibited asceticism and enjoined the householder’s life upon his followers. But he did not devise a different set of laws. He appeared at a time when Punjab had passed under Muslim rule and Sharia was the official law, at least in principle. Public space for Hinduism had actually shrunk.

It is no coincidence that Guru Nanak did not fashion a ‘Sikh identity’. His whole discourse was anti-identity. It was against breaking up humanity into religions, castes, nationalities etc. The Khalsa was created by the 10th guru Guru Govind Singh. But his innovations also had no bearing on matrimonial, adoption, and succession laws of the Hindus prevalent in those days.

Sikhism discarded ritualism and priestcraft. No wonder Sikh gurus simplified marriage procedure. The Anand Karaj as Sikh wedding is called, might appear revolutionary. But it did not challenge the law of Hindu marriage. Marriage continued to be a sacrament (not a contract unlike in Islam), polygamy was tolerated and there was no provision for divorce. A Sikh cannot marry a Muslim (Sikh gurus did not know about other non-Hindus like Christians and Jews). An Anand Karaj Act, 1909 was passed during British time. An amendment to the Act was carried out earlier in 2012 to facilitate registration of such marriages (like under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955). But there is still no provision for divorce (a handicap removed for the Hindus through Hindu Marriage Act, 1955).

Traditionally in Punjab marriages were on caste lines, where Hindu or Sikh identities were redundant. It entailed no religious ‘conversion’ for the married woman. It has been a tradition amongst Punjabi Hindu families to groom their eldest son as Kesardhari Sikh. It never affected the succession/inheritance question in the family. The eldest son could solemnize the last rites of his parents, claim share in the property and succeed the father as the family head. But it was entirely different story if a Hindu had converted to Christianity or Islam. He would be forsaken by the family and wife; and his legal relationship would come to an end.

Full news piece: http://www.niticentr...-buddhists.html

[JasSinghKhalsa]

Well, the next logical question should be -

What are the origins of the word "Hindu"? NATIVE / FOREIGN?

What is the native identity of the people of Bharat-Varsha?

What does "Hindu" mean?

Was Sri Raam Chandra Jee / Bhagat Prahlad / Bhagad Dhruva / Lord Krishna / Narsimha Avatar / All Rishis-Munis Hindus?

[N30S1NGH]

Hindu term itself is arya samaji invention...also sant jarnail singh khalsa bhindranwale said- you won't find hindu in any of puratan text. This "hinduism" is NOT organized dharam but rather umbrella of san/sanatan/vaishav/advaita/yog vaishavta etc orders.

[Singh559]

Hindu term itself is arya samaji invention...also sant jarnail singh khalsa bhindranwale said- you won't find hindu in any of puratan text. This "hinduism" is NOT organized dharam but rather umbrella of san/sanatan/vaishav/advaita/yog vaishavta etc orders.

...and thus why Sir Max Arthur Macauliffe has said what he did about hinduism being the boa constrictor of the indian forest.

Hindu wasn't an arya samaji invention, they just very shamefully and proudly adopted it after being called thieves/hindoos by invaders.

[N30S1NGH]

Well not according to three hindus i worked with, they are all proud of their sanatan heritage..!!!

Arya Samajis sees their sanatan orders as inferior, demonize, demoralize them.

Singh sabha sees sikhs puratan samparda/orders as inferior, demonize and demoralize them..

See any irony? Looks like arya samaji and singh sabha are bad marriage in day time, perfect match at night..!! :blink2:

[Singh559]

Well not according to three hindus i worked with, they are all proud of their sanatan heritage..!!!

Arya Samajis sees their sanatan orders as inferior, demonize, demoralize them.

Singh sabha sees sikhs puratan samparda/orders as inferior, demonize and demoralize them..

See any irony? Looks like arya samaji and singh sabha are bad marriage in day time, perfect match at night..!! :blink2:

No I don't see any irony here. I don't see any Singh Sabha discrediting puratan traditions.

You're comparing arya samaj to Singh Sabha hehe

[Mehtab Singh]

Singh Sabha are bhasauriye <Edited> shariapanthi tribal-minded pot bellied

warning - intense sarcasm intended :D

[Bijla Singh]

Arya Samajis sees their sanatan orders as inferior, demonize, demoralize them.

Singh sabha sees sikhs puratan samparda/orders as inferior, demonize and demoralize them

I really don’t care about Arya Samaj but what evidence do you have to support your claim against Singh Sabha? Any literature from Singh Sabhias (not Singh Sabha period) would be appreciated.

[13Mirch]

It has become commen practice to blame Singh Sabha for discrediting Purataan rehat etc. I saw an interview with Shaheed Bhai Amrik Singh Ji's daughter who said that the British were instrumental in preserving and recording Sikh history. Maybe we should start with their works? This Singh-Sabha thing is probably going to turn so big someday it will be similar to the Dasam Granth issue.

[13Mirch]

"It has been a tradition amongst Punjabi Hindu families to groom their eldest son as Kesardhari Sikh."

What proof do we have of this?

"But it did not challenge the law of Hindu marriage. Marriage continued to be a sacrament (not a contract unlike in Islam), polygamy was tolerated and there was no provision for divorce. A Sikh cannot marry a Muslim (Sikh gurus did not know about other non-Hindus like Christians and Jews)."

Typical Hindu mindset.