
Polyandry part of ancient tribal tradition, says Himachal Ministers after woman marries two men
This anachronistic tradition came to limelight after two brothers of the Hatti tribe in Shillai village of the Transgiri area of Sirmaur district tied the knot to the same woman earlier this month.
'It is not a new tradition. Polyandry is a part of ancient tribal tradition and culture to keep the land undivided and is prevalent in parts of Kinnaur and Sirmaur districts,' said Revenue, Horticulture and Tribal Minister Jagat Singh Negi, who is the MLA from the Kinnaur constituency.
Sunita Chauhan married Pradeep and Kapil Negi, saying they are proud of this tradition and have taken the decision jointly.
'The tradition is old and there would be a rare house in Shallai where such a marriage has not taken place,' said Industry Minister Harshwardhan, who represents the Shallai constituency.
Revenue laws of Himachal Pradesh recognise this tradition, which is named 'Jodidara'. The tradition is also recognised under sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Himachal Pradesh's first Chief Minister, Y.S. Parmar, did research on this tradition and his Ph.D. from Lucknow University was on 'Polyandry in Himalayas 'Socio-economic background of Himalayan Polyandry'.
'According to the research of Y.S. Parmar, polyandry was prevalent in all five khand (sections) of the Himalayas from Kashmir to Nepal and there were psychological, biological and economic reasons behind the practice,' former chairman of Dr. Y.S. Parmar Chair at Himachal Pradesh University O.P. Sharma told PTI.
Some segments of warrior communities, especially Khasu and Tod, believe that teh Pandavas of Mahabharata are their ancestors and willingly continue the tradition, he said, adding Parmar had also quoted statistics of screwed sex ratio which showed that the number of girls were less than boys.
'Keeping small landholdings intact and less expense on weddings were the economics behind the tradition,' he said.
He asserted that Parmar 'did not encourage the practice of polyandry in view of women exploitation and I share the same views'.
'If live-in relations are accepted, then why is there an issue with age-old traditions? There are 15-20 families in my village Koti (Sirmaur district) where a woman is married to more than one man and we want the tradition to continue,' says law student Krishan Pratap Singh.
Relations stay healthy in the family and land stays intact in joint marriage, says Balma Devi.
Polyandry is an old tradition in which brotherhood remains and expenses are handled adequately, says Sant Ram.
'We four brothers are married to two women,' he adds.
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 much as it used to be a simple ceremony.
'We have got tribal status due to such old traditional practices which also find mention in revenue records. Polyandry is prevalent in about 150 villages in the Trans Giri area of Sirmaur district and is still a practising tradition in some villages. It was also prevalent in Jaunsar Babar, tribal area of Uttarakhand,' said spokesperson of Hatti Vikas Manch, Ramesh Singta.
Such marriages are being solemnised in a clandestine manner and accepted by the society but instances are fewer, elders in the village said.
Kundan Singh Shastri, general secretary of the prime body of the Hatti community Kendriya Hatti Samiti, 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 a big family with 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 in practice for thousands of years; though these traditions are slowly dying, Mr. Shastri added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Deccan Herald
13 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
BJP MP files FIR plea against Mamata over ‘fabricated' migrant assault post
Soumendu Adhikari, a BJP MP from West Bengal, urged the Delhi Police to register an FIR against the Trinamool Congress supremo under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the IT Act.


Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC relief for UPCC chief in violation of 144 CrPC order case
The Allahabad high court has stayed further proceedings of a case against former MLA Ajai Rai involving violation of a 2017 restraint order under section 144 of the CrPC. Justice Sameer Jain passed the order in a petition filed by Ajay Rai challenging summons issued against him as well as the charge sheet filed by the police. The Allahabad HC in its order dated July 28 fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing in the case. (For Representation) The court in its order dated July 28, after hearing parties concerned, fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing and observed, 'In the meantime, further proceedings pending against the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, shall remain stayed.' Rai, who is currently UP Congress chief, in his petition had sought quashing of summoning order dated September 9, 2019 and the charge sheet dated November 7, 2017, as well as the entire proceedings of case no. 2436 of 2019, (State Vs Surendra Patel and others) arising out of case crime no. 193 of 2017, under section 188 (disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) of Indian Penal Code lodged at Kotwali police station of Varanasi. As per the petitioner's counsel, charge sheet was filed against Rai under section 188 IPC but cognizance was taken by the court concerned on the charge sheet submitted for offence under section 188 CrPC. Therefore, the cognizance order passed by the court concerned was bad in the eyes of law and was liable to be quashed.


The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court grants bail to three PFI accused, cites lack of prima facie evidence of terrorism
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has granted bail to three accused persons associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI), observing that mere participation in meetings, speeches or karate training sessions cannot, prima facie, be construed as committing a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More passed the order while hearing criminal appeals filed by Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi, and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim alias Irfan Milli, who had been denied bail by the trial court in a case registered under the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Maharashtra Police Act. Also read: Devendra Fadnavis calls PFI a 'silent killer', says will work towards shutting down outfit in Maharashtra 'When the FIR was registered and appellants were arrested, PFI was not declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Merely because appellants participated in the meetings, seminars or physical training of karate etc., prima facie, it cannot be said that they have indulged in any terrorist act,' the Bench observed. In its detailed order, the court noted that mere participation in seminars or camps would not, prima facie, amount to a terrorist act. 'Though, weapons are recovered from appellant, it is not the case of prosecution that those were used for any terrorist activity and/or for toppling the Government,' the order stated. Background of the Case On September 21, 2022, Assistant Police Inspector Rahul Rode of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Aurangabad, lodged an FIR based on secret information alleging that a karate training camp for Muslim youth was held on November 23, 2021, near Jama Masjid in Chikalthana, under the banner 'Healthy People Healthy Nation'. It was alleged that PFI Secretary Mohsin Nadvi delivered a speech stating that Muslims in India were facing mob lynching and attacks by Hindu organisations, and urged physical preparedness in view of such challenges. A similar gathering was reportedly held on November 27, 2021, at Samosa Ground, Katkat Gate, where PFI's Aurangabad district president Irfan Milli and General Secretary Saber addressed the attendees. They allegedly accused the Central Government of conspiring against Muslims and called for armed resistance, urging the youth to join the PFI in large numbers. According to intelligence inputs received on July 3 and 4, 2022, a secret arms and physical training camp was held by the PFI at a hall near Masjid-a-Mansab Mir in Naregaon. The camp, allegedly attended by district president Imran Shaha and select trainees, was said to involve preparations to fight the Indian Government in defence of their religion. It was further alleged that PFI committee members Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel (Aurangabad), Abdul Hadi (Jalna), and Parvez Khan (Aurangabad) delivered inflammatory speeches criticising the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Hijab ban, and the ban on Triple Talaq, characterising them as anti-Muslim. The speeches allegedly incited unrest and called for armed jihad. On August 14, 2022, a gathering of Ulema was reportedly held under the 'Save The Republic' campaign, attended by Maulana Irfan Milli and Maulana Nasir Nadvi. At the event, the speakers allegedly criticised the Central Government, claiming that Muslims were being harassed through the NRC and that 20 lakh Muslims were being targeted for elimination. It was further alleged that they spoke about establishing a Sharia-based government and called on Muslim youth to stockpile weapons, even suggesting foreign assistance if necessary. Following these developments, an FIR was registered at the ATS Kalachowki Police Station in Mumbai, invoking Sections 13(1)(b) of the UAPA; Sections 121A, 153A, 120B, 109, 116, and 201 of the IPC; Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The petitioners were arrested on September 22, 2022. During the investigation, authorities allegedly recovered material linking them to ISIS, including a document titled 'India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India (Internal Document - Not for Circulation)' from Sayyad Faisal, along with an Urdu book titled 'Babri Masjid Kahi Hum Bhul Na Jaye' (Lest we forget the Babri mosque). In February 2023, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 121A, 122, 153A, 120B, 109, 116, and 201 of the IPC; Section 13(1)(b) of the UAPA; Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Arguments Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate N.R. Shaikh submitted that the FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, and arrests made on the following day - prior to PFI being declared an unlawful organisation on September 27, 2022. Therefore, he argued, no offence under the UAPA could be invoked at the time. He contended that no incriminating material or overt act of terrorism was attributed to the appellants, and that only literature had been recovered from their electronic devices. Teaching karate, he argued, does not constitute terrorism under the UAPA. While ₹8 lakh was found in one account, it was not linked to any terror-related activity, he added. He also pointed out that the appellants had spent more than two years in custody and that only five out of 145 witnesses had been examined, indicating slim chances of an early conclusion of trial. Advocate Javed R. Shaikh, appearing for Shaikh Irfan, added that although a seven-inch knife, a Rampuri knife, a 'fighter', and a 1.5-foot sword were recovered from his client, there was no evidence to suggest these were used in any attempt to overthrow the government. At most, he argued, the matter would fall under the Arms Act, which prescribes a maximum sentence of two years - less than the duration already spent by the accused in custody. Opposing the appeals, Additional Public Prosecutor Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar submitted that the accused were involved in unlawful activities that threatened national security. Describing PFI as a radical organisation engaged in seditious acts and secret meetings, the Additional Public Prosecutor also cited the 'Mission 2047' document recovered from Sayyad Faisal as indicative of a larger conspiracy. Court Observations The Bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations, given that the trial was still ongoing. However, it observed, 'On the ground of parity also the appellants are entitled for bail. Prima facie, we do not find reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the accused are true. Therefore, mandate contained in proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would not be applicable to the case of the accused. The prosecution could not point out criminal antecedents of appellants. Section 13(1)(b) prescribes maximum punishment of seven years, out of which appellants have already undergone two years and eight months imprisonment.' Noting that all three accused had spent over two years and eight months in custody while only five of 145 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the court emphasised the importance of a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench directed the Special Court to release the appellants on bail under appropriate and stringent conditions, including surrendering their passports and full cooperation with the ongoing trial.