Law vs tradition: It will take time to break down khap panchayats

“Strange diktats being enforced by village panchayats barely make for unusual news these days, but a village in Uttar Pradesh has still managed to raise eyebrows with new rules for its residents that include barring love marriages and not allowing women to use mobile phones. The village panchayat, located in Baghpat, met on Wednesday when it issued a slew of new rules that the media are calling ‘Taliban style diktats’,” Firstpost had reported. Media, including Firstpost, are calling the rules ‘Taliban style diktats’. I watched the developments with interest, following many of the discussions and debates on news television. Not surprisingly, women were most vociferous in condemning the act. Politicians (male) and residents of the village (male) were harangued and badgered, being repeatedly reminded that the Supreme Court has explicitly outlawed such diktats. [caption id=“attachment_377976” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Reuters[/caption] It was black and white. The law said the villages couldn’t make such rules; therefore, the villagers were breaking a law. Politicians and the police, as a consequence, were being weak-willed by not taking action against the men of the village who had decided on these new village rules. How dare they act like this in the 21st century, was the refrain. The entire developments are disturbing. How, in an age where women have all the freedoms that men have, guaranteed by law, can people even have a mind-set that treats women so poorly and shabbily? We’ve gone down this path before. “Karnataka’s Women and Child Welfare Minister CC Patil caused a furore when he said, “I don’t favour women wearing provocative clothes and always feel they need to be dignified in whatever they wear,” reported The Times of India. This statement was not made by a villager in UP; it was made by a minister in Bengaluru, one of the most modern cities in India. Predictably, there were howls of protest; women had the ‘right’ to wear whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. When I wrote, in reaction, that it was not just about the right to wear what you wanted but also about the right thing to do, the article was inundated with comments that criticised the thinking behind the piece. “A mini-skirt in South Mumbai would be perfectly acceptable – and not at all ‘provocative’. However, the same mini-skirt worn by the same girl would be mildly ‘provocative’ in Bandra East, even more ‘provocative’ in Jogeshwari East and scandalous in Virar East. Does the girl in question have the ‘right’ to wear the mini-skirt in all these locations? Yes, she does. Is it the right attire in all these locations from the point of view of local tastes and sensitivities and social mores? No; the ‘rightness’ decreases as she moves from Bandra to Jogeshwari to Virar,” I had written. Many readers found my thoughts distasteful. The consensus was that the minister was wrong . As in the UP case, it was black and white. This was the 21st century and such statements and diktats have no place. There’s a presumption that all of India is on the same page as far as our ‘progress’ is concerned. That all of India is in the 21st Century. The laws are common to all Indians – there’s no argument there. What about traditions? Tradition. That reminded me of the only film I’ve seen in a theatre more than twice – Fiddler on the roof. This is how the film starts – with a sing about traditions. “A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof, trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy. You may ask, why do we stay up there if it’s so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home… And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word… Tradition. Because of our traditions, we’ve kept our balance for many, many years. Here in Anatevka we have traditions for everything… how to eat, how to sleep, even, how to wear clothes. For instance, we always keep our heads covered and always wear a little prayer shawl… This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition start? I’ll tell you - I don’t know. But it’s a tradition… Because of our traditions, everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do.” This is how the song ends: “Tradition. Without our traditions, our lives would be as shaky as… as a fiddler on the roof!” You can watch the whole song here. That’s what the UP diktat is all about. It’s about tradition; decades of doing something in some manner – and often not even knowing why a tradition is one. In the metros and the larger towns, traditions have been destroyed one by one, and the laws are, therefore, easier to respect and obey. Laws are black and white and well thought-through. Traditions are not. Laws are, updated to keep up with changing times; traditions are frozen in time. That’s why the village resists the law and refuses to acknowledge it. The law is in conflict with their traditions – and the traditions supersede the law. It’s not that traditions cannot change – they do. But they will change or be destroyed over a period of time, not by the mere act of passing a new law. Breaking down a tradition will take both time and hard work – and that’s where the focus should be on, not in the news TV studios and the courts and the police stations. Simplistically, this is about a village in UP. It’s much more than that. The conflict between law and traditions is an everyday conflict across the country – and media is bringing these conflicts to the centrestage. Traditions will break down and sensible laws, such as the equality of man and woman in modern India, will win the day – but it will take time. Right now, the villagers in Baghpat are feeling as shaky as the fiddler on the roof…