userid 56304
Elite
I am intereseted in finding that out but i could not find anything online in that regard.......You can help me by pointing me in the right direction and that is why i started this thread.
Sikh Marriage Act -
- Thread starter userid 56304
- Start date
- Replies 54
- Views 9K
- Status
I am intereseted in finding that out but i could not find anything online in that regard.......You can help me by pointing me in the right direction and that is why i started this thread.
pps309
Prime VIP
I quickly tried to search online. I could not find much. I would love to sit on net during weekend and dig more but I will be busy.
What I found till now is that following marriage acts are currently there in India
Hindu Marriage Act
Muslim Marriage Act
Christian Marriage act
Parsi Marriage Act
Special Marriage Act
BTW, what is the difference between Act and Law?
An Act is about legal rights, I fail to understand the logic of multiple marriage acts. Why would my wife's, kid's and parent's rights be any different to that of a hindu or a muslim ?
Ceremonies and rituals do not matter and shouldn't be included in the act.
Also the word Sindu, Hindu, and Indian means exactly the same.
( Sind became Hind in mid-east and Hind became India in west )
So technically Sindu Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act and India Marriage Act would be the same thing but as India Marriage Act will be more readily accepted by most communities so it should be changed
Ceremonies and rituals do not matter and shouldn't be included in the act.
Also the word Sindu, Hindu, and Indian means exactly the same.
( Sind became Hind in mid-east and Hind became India in west )
So technically Sindu Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act and India Marriage Act would be the same thing but as India Marriage Act will be more readily accepted by most communities so it should be changed
userid 56304
Elite
An Act is about legal rights, I fail to understand the logic of multiple marriage acts. Why would my wife's, kid's and parent's rights be any different to that of a hindu or a muslim ?
Ceremonies and rituals do not matter and shouldn't be included in the act.
Also the word Sindu, Hindu, and Indian means exactly the same.
( Sind became Hind in mid-east and Hind became India in west )
So technically Sindu Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act and India Marriage Act would be the same thing but as India Marriage Act will be more readily accepted by most communities so it should be changed
No one is talking about seperate marriage acts. The point is that there should be different subsections detailing marriage laws for different religions like the one that details "hindu marriages" and classifies everyone as hindus. Either take that out or put in other sections which makes it legally unbiased.
Ak47_Riskykz
Rambo
Agree wid u!!!
Angel_Eyes
Done Deal !
Well i read the thread. And as always i cant resist jumping in....lol....j/k
Incidently i was just discussing it with someone at home a few days ago because the Topic of Sikh Marriage Act was of discussion on a local Punjabi channel. Thread-starter kudos to you for having the quest to know. I mean how many of us really try to find things out. And Props to PPS paaji, dhillon and deep paaji for having such knowledge and a mature discussion.
I agree that it should solely be called Indian Marriage Act for all those living in India. Religion, communities, beliefs, and faiths should be respected but constitution should be kept separate from them. A constitution should be a dictation of an individual's rights regardless of a person's religion or faith. Had we all been under the Indian Marriage Act, there would not have existed a problem for this argument. But now that the argument does exist and if Sikhs do want a separate marriage act (as it will satisfy some of us that we got some recognition as a separate religion by achieving this), problem is no one ever raises the issue in the central government in India. Simranjit Singh Mann did for once and it was totally ignored by the center. I am not saying that we should create a fight over this in center, but if sikhs do want so, they have to officially appeal in the people's court, the highest being Supreme Court for the Marriage Act to be inacted and that has never been done.
But again on common ground and personal feelings i believe there should only be Indian Marriage Act for it will prevent all confusion and argument.
Incidently i was just discussing it with someone at home a few days ago because the Topic of Sikh Marriage Act was of discussion on a local Punjabi channel. Thread-starter kudos to you for having the quest to know. I mean how many of us really try to find things out. And Props to PPS paaji, dhillon and deep paaji for having such knowledge and a mature discussion.
I agree that it should solely be called Indian Marriage Act for all those living in India. Religion, communities, beliefs, and faiths should be respected but constitution should be kept separate from them. A constitution should be a dictation of an individual's rights regardless of a person's religion or faith. Had we all been under the Indian Marriage Act, there would not have existed a problem for this argument. But now that the argument does exist and if Sikhs do want a separate marriage act (as it will satisfy some of us that we got some recognition as a separate religion by achieving this), problem is no one ever raises the issue in the central government in India. Simranjit Singh Mann did for once and it was totally ignored by the center. I am not saying that we should create a fight over this in center, but if sikhs do want so, they have to officially appeal in the people's court, the highest being Supreme Court for the Marriage Act to be inacted and that has never been done.
But again on common ground and personal feelings i believe there should only be Indian Marriage Act for it will prevent all confusion and argument.
pps309
Prime VIP
Having a separate Sikh Marriage Act is not becuase the marriage ceremonies are different from hindus (BTW they are different), but it is for the separate identity of Sikhs in Indian constitution.
As according to Indian constitution Sikhs, Jains and Buddhishts are part of Hindus, which is not correct.
Having a separate Sikh Marriage Act will be the first step to establish a separate identity of Sikhs in Indian constiution.
It is high time to have equalitarian system, but it seems major poiltical groups of India are pushing India to totalitarian regime. It is not possible to have total Hindus in India, let constitution be equal for all. If there is marriage act for particular religions, let it be for all or for none.
As according to Indian constitution Sikhs, Jains and Buddhishts are part of Hindus, which is not correct.
Having a separate Sikh Marriage Act will be the first step to establish a separate identity of Sikhs in Indian constiution.
It is high time to have equalitarian system, but it seems major poiltical groups of India are pushing India to totalitarian regime. It is not possible to have total Hindus in India, let constitution be equal for all. If there is marriage act for particular religions, let it be for all or for none.
Anand Karaj is not just about 4 laava in presence of SGGS, some other very important criteria must also be adhered like no dowry & no caste, status consideration etc.
Strictly speaking how many sikh marriages actually fulfill all that ? And why would people who stricktly marry within their own caste would have their certificates say ' Sikh Marriage Act' ?
Strictly speaking how many sikh marriages actually fulfill all that ? And why would people who stricktly marry within their own caste would have their certificates say ' Sikh Marriage Act' ?
pps309
Prime VIP
Exactly......
What you wrote is all true.
BTW, How is this going to justify not having Sikh Marriage Act in Indian constitution while they have Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim Marriage Act, Christian Marriage Act and Parsi Marriage Act?
Angel_Eyes
Done Deal !
Well said Paaji. Either be it Indian Marriage Act, or if they wanna give recognition to other religions, why not ours?
And yes is it right, Sikhs are not considered a separate religion by the Indian Constitution , which does hurt. Getting that recognition will be a big achievement but as I said earlier No one has ever brought that issue to the forefront except Simranjit Singh Mann. Now that a whole lot of sikhs are more educated, aware, are at par with others, and we have built our own recognition on academic and professional levels, It is probably the right time to ask for it. But the question is who is going to ask for it?
Manmohan Singh - Nope not at all. He is a neutral man. He is a prime-minister of hindus, muslims, jains, budhists as well, not just the Sikhs. It would be great if rather than getting Sikh Marriage Act inacted, he abolishes all other acts too and makes Indian Marriage Act the sole thing for all Indians.
SGPC - they wont either because there is way too much political influence and drama there.
AKALIS - they wont raise the issues either, as they are mere puppets of BJP.
A COMMON MAN LIKE YOU AND ME - is too busy with his/her life to achieve some mere goals of education, profession and family life. And even if a common man does raise the issue I have doubts somebody will actually listen to them.
No matter what we like to be inacted (be it Indian Marriage Act or Anand Marriage Act) we have to have elected representatives of people ready to putforth the ideas of a common man in a bigger picture. Somebody has to bring it to center. And we can only pray that Future brings some educated, mature and somewhat young leaders in India (or atleats Punjab) who care about equality and progress of people before their own bank accounts and properties.
pps309
Prime VIP
Don't ask for it penji. Learn from history.
The day someone started asking, he will be labelled as separatist.
Simranjit Singh Maan did raise this issue in parliament, he is designated separatist in the eyes of Indian officials and politicians.
Answer to your post, Who will do it then?
No one, don't expect anything from our political leaders, most of them stink.
It is the youth who always shapes the future of country. We the educated Indian youths (Hindu, Sikhs, Muslims) have to do it. We have to exercise the democracy to shape our future. We should vote for the honest and intelligents, we should be ready to get into politics and clean the dirt.
Till the time we don't realise that election manifesto's have to be development based rather then Ram Mandir based we cannot build our future.
Sooner we realize that we all cannot be of same thought, sooner we start accepting each other's differences and respect them we will be better.
pps309
Prime VIP
Not drifting from the main thread.
I am trying to put a more practical view then theoretical.
Enacting a new Indian marriage act is not tough, but abolishing the existing Hindu Marriage act is impossible today. None of the political party will take that step. Blame it on politican greed for vote bank or immaturity of Indian voters.
The second alternative to put up a separate act for each religion seems to be OK and feasible.
I am trying to put a more practical view then theoretical.
Enacting a new Indian marriage act is not tough, but abolishing the existing Hindu Marriage act is impossible today. None of the political party will take that step. Blame it on politican greed for vote bank or immaturity of Indian voters.
The second alternative to put up a separate act for each religion seems to be OK and feasible.
If 99.9% sikhs don't adhere to the basics of 'Anand Karaj' who do you want the act for ?
Also dowry takers,caste believers registering their marriages as 'Anand Act' will be a insulting. nahi ?
userid 56304
Elite
for the .1 that do adhere i guess......
Just because they are a minority that does not mean we ignore them. It's about having the option. If i legally want to register my marriage under the sikh marriage act i should have that right because i am not infringing on anybody else's liberties.
The Government should not stop me from having a legal certificate that tells people that i am a sikh not hindu. If you look at it from the presepective of people who are being classified as something they think they are not. It should be clear that the majority is making the rules for the minorities thus misrepresenting them to other people. i.e represnting jains, budhists & sikhs as hindus when in reality they disagree with that perception.
And do most of the hindus or christians adhere to whatever is written in their religions or acts?
Like psp aready said that does not justify why do the hindus,christian and muslims have seperate subsections or acts and sikhs, jains and budhists dont.
Everyone has a right to legally represent themselves as whoever they feel they are as long as they are not harming anyone. In this case i think a little revision to the law wont hurt any1..........
P.S - I do thank everyone who has thus far participated in the discussion in a respectful manner. Hope to see more cordial discussions on the UNP board so that it sets a trend for other punjabi boards to follow.
religion is not mentioned on legal marriage certificates as far as i know.
mere certificate te tan nahin hai for sure
userid 56304
Elite
religion is not mentioned on legal marriage certificates as far as i know.
mere certificate te tan nahin hai for sure
It is mentioned in the act?
Hindu Act detailing hindu marriages which explicitly states that sikhs, jains and budhists are hindus which some people dont agree with? That interpretation of the law is what some people dont like because they feel it misrepresents them.
Were you married in India? If yes then you can shed light on how the process works because i dont know if its mentioned or not.
Does it say under which act the marriage was registered?
If you can blur out the names and scan it..that will be very helpful.
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/helpline/marriage_reg.htm
yes i got married in india.
process is very simple , even you have numerous proofs and witnesses you will have to bribe from peon to clerk of SDM .only 10000 Rs and any couple can be legally married irrespective of their religion .waise es mamle ch india ch koi partiality nahin hai on basis of religion or caste , jehri marzi religion caste da banda hove rishwat tan deni hi pendi hai
sorry i took it on other side but marriage certificate doesnot mention under which act marriage is registered.
sorry i cannt load a copy as certificate is in india and i am in US
userid 56304
Elite
The thinking that we dont need a certificate to prove our religion is a high level thought and i respect that. However, strictly speaking in a fairly legal way i think this act is unfair because it misrepresents people and classifies them as something they are not. And can you please indicate the reasons as to why you think that the tax paying and hard working sikhs who have made a big contribution to the indian economy and the armed forces dont deserve a slight change in the act ?
I mean the sikhs do draw inspiration from their religion......They fought in world wars with their Paggs and religion intact. I fail to see how this little change in the act that would make the sikhs happy is harming the union of INDIA in anyway. If i am not wrong the hindu marriage act was inacted in 1955 which is after independence. Then why are the sikhs who were promised before independence that there is " ....nothing wrong in an area and a set up in the North wherein the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom" are being denied a little change in the act?
that is the exact quote of a leader who after independence inacted laws without the consultation of the minorities. Sorry if i went off topic had to state the wider implications of the topic.
- Status
