Survey: Forced marriages and honour killings - does the problem exist amongst Hindus in Britain?
Please note, that this survey is solely intended for Hindus living in Britain.
The issue of forced marriages and honour killings has once again become a matter of national debate after the brother and cousin of Samaira Nazir, 25, were sentenced to life imprisonment on 14th July, for her barbaric murder.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:45 am
The use of the word ASIAN sometimes brings injustice to the HINDU community. The problem may be considerable in some ’societies’ of ASIA, but it is very very rare among the Hindu and Jain traditions, or broadly speaking, in people of INDIAN ORIGIN.
If one were to research the statistics of cases where forced marriage have come to violent endings, one would certainly be able to confirm that it is wrong to generalise the matter by using the word ASIAN.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Forcing someone to marry against their wishes is unexcusable.
I’ve never heard of a single case of any Hindu in this country being forced to marry someone against their wishes, personally or through the media. But if there are any i hope they find help soon and the police take action against those responsible.
It is true that there has been no research about this topic in the Hindu community, the common view of Hindus is that its non-existant in our community. But yes it is rather annoying that Hindus get lumped into ‘Asians’ like this time and time again.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
My views of this issue are informed by four sources: work a few years back amongst ‘Asian’ (for want of a better term) students; a working relationship I once had with an ‘Asian’ women’s refuge; consultation with government and police on a policy framework dealing with issues around forced marriages; and informal conversations with a close friend who works for a different ‘Asian’ women’s refuge.
My experience from this is that by far the majority of cases of both forced marriage and domestic abuse against women occur in the Muslim community, with a significant minority occuring in the Sikh community (are Sikhs not also Hindus?) Cases of domestic abuse in the Hindu community (stand fast Sikhs) are rare but do happen, whilst cases of forced marriage here are exceedingly rare but not unknown.
What is encouraging is that Hindus other than Sikhs tend not to have this problem, a fact to be rightly celebrated. However, the fact remains that it does occur in the Hindu community, albeit rarely - to the individual concerned, its rarity does not afford a great deal of comfort. In addition, if one is to consider Sikhs as Hindus also, it is still happening far too often in that subsection of our community. It is not good enough to say this is not our problem; it is our problem and needs to be addressed.
Having said all this, I agree that to label this an ‘Asian’ issue is a gross misrepresentation of the situation and an injustice to Hindus (including Sikhs).
Note I refer here only to the situation in Britain.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Dear all, I do not believe that force marriages, let alone killing someone if they not marry to the parent’s will happens in Hindu community. To find the reason for the so called “honour killing”, we need to find out why force marriages occur.
I believe that the problem lies with incest marriages, that is marrying mother’s sisters son or daughter. Due to the close relationships, there is a agreement made between these two families to have their children married. For two reasons - 1) to build a closer tie and 2) the aunt’s son can come to England. When the daughter spoils this plan, the “honour” is tarnished according to their view and they will go as far as killing their off spring to show their close ties. What was a gruesome about the recent incident was that the mother was watching the killing and young children were watching this to teach them a lesson!
Luckily this does not happen in Hindu community here or in India.
What I am concerned about though is how many young people are marrying outside our religion. What do you think the reason for this is?
Namaste
Ghanashyam
July 26th, 2006 at 6:29 am
I don’t think forced marriages or honour killings exist amongst Hindus in Britain.
But anybody who says that honour killings don’t exist amongst certain Hindu communities in India has blinkers on. I’ve read several newspaper reports about such incidents in rural India, such as in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
July 26th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Honour killings are certainly not applicable to the Hindu community.
Gladly I can say I haven’t heard of forced marriages within our community. I don’t think they’d last long as there is usually support against such a thing from the wider community.
Again it’s the “ASIAN” tag that is not doing any justice to the Hindu community. It is about time all of us insist we are either British Hindus/Indians.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Ghanashyam your comment
“What I am concerned about though is how many young people are marrying outside our religion”
is a very archaic view. I do not beleive if a Hindu marries a non-Hindu they are going against basic Hindu teachings and values.
In regards to the forced marriage situation in the Sikh Community (who I see as a branch of Hinduism – not sure most Sikhs will agree though), forced marriages do happen but are still rare compared to those in other communities.
Recently the mother in law of Sikh girl was fined for the torturing her daughter in law – I think in some communities including Hindu community domestic violence happens but is not talked about.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
I’m in Utah. We had a recent survey of women in emrgency room visits in a major hospital in Salt Lake City. They found that 60% of all women had experienced abuse and 30% were at the ER because of the abuse. In American culture women and babies are killed mot often by people who know them closely spouses or parents.These are not called “honor” killings but in cause and effect they are the same. The media covers it as a social process of minorities and random process for majorities - another form of social hegemony by defining our social inferiority.
It is of course dishonorable to take a life to prove one greatness but when we are egocentric all we can do is prove others are less great, thence less powerfull, thence subject to our will, thence their life is ours to take. The darknes of egocentrism is universal.
As to G’s question - the problem is not that children marry out of the religion. Love is universal and with an open heart, as our traditions teach, you can give love anywhere. But the continuation of a tradition can be diffused if the marriage is assymetric in power - forced conversions, surrendering of one tradtion for another, etc. Thus the problem is really of having the youth identify postively with our traditions that, regardless of their circumstance, they can fall back on it to raise their own children with those traditions. As I’m still raising mine, I know how hard that is.
hariaum
July 27th, 2006 at 1:06 am
“is a very archaic view. I do not beleive if a Hindu marries a non-Hindu they are going against basic Hindu teachings and values.”
Sure, let us all marry outside our religion to show off how liberal we are and get goody goody certificates of being liberal from other PC losers. It is utter nonsense to claim that its an archaic view to expect people to marry other Hindus (if that is so then 90% of Hindus hold the very same archaic view).
July 27th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Harish - you use the word “expect” - this shows the anivety of your comment.
Also I was not presenting a case for Hindus to marry non-Hindus - just explaining that I do not beleive you are going against Hindu values if you do marry a non-Hindu
July 27th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
In the context of marrying only other Hindus, I’d be interested in knowing how ‘Hindu’ is being defined.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
First of all referring to oneself as a ‘Hindu’?
July 28th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Well all i can say as a pragmatic and realist Hindu we are better off without the naive and ignorant views that H portry. With Hindus like him who needs enemies.
July 30th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Park X - i do not see why my views are naive and ignorant. Also in what way are you a realist - could you justify your arguement please.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Naive: if we are good others will be good.
Ignorant: people marry for love.
Foolish: to characterize anothers arguement as either of these - what do you know of anothers thoughts?
The purpose of marriage in our tradition is to support the world and the universe. It is the most important ceremony and life experience we have. Liberation is for the few, attainment of wealth, knowledge, pleasure is for the few. But marriage is for all. The home is the support of all stages of life and thus Krishna tells us that the householder stage is the most important.
We enter into it naive, ignorant, foolish children playing grown up. We survive it by being mature, attentive, caring adults. We transcned it by a love that overcomes the suffering of life.
How does someone who marries for selfish attraction understand this without the culture guiding them. Thus we need the culture to provide the education and bindings. This is why we want our children to marry within our tradition. This is what is lost when they marry out of it unless we can bring their partner into the fold.
Thus it is love that wants the best for our children. and it is love that we want our children to give each other. But it is no easy task regardless of the social structure in which we try this and love is far greater than what any ONE of us knows.
Not an easy answer but the most important in life.
hariaum
August 1st, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Apologies for my lack of understanding here, but in the context of marrying only other Hindus, I remain unclear as to how ‘Hindu’ is being defined..? Many thanks for your help.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
“I remain unclear as to how ‘Hindu’ is being defined..?”
The person has to be a self proclaimed Hindu, he/she should take an active interest in the plight of other Hindus and our community needs and should follow dharma.
I say so because this clears up a lot of things:
1) Sikhs are Hindus (majority of Sikhs don’t agree so no need to include them but if certain individuals among Sikhs may see themselves as Hindus, so since these individuals proclaim themselves as Hindu they are Hindu).
2) Self proclaimed Commies are Hindus (often you see Commies suddenly claiming that they are Hindus to put Hindus on the defensive but then more often than not they never do anything to help other Hindus and actually aid Islamic terrorists to persecute them more as in Bangladesh, so the second requirement that I have roots out a lot of these “Hindus when convenient” and “Progressives the rest of the time” types).
I want to clarify that this is by no means the final definition, different people have different ideas of who is a Hindu, for example I think the Shankaracharya of Puri steadfastly rejects that Sikhs, Jains or others are Hindus.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Although unrelated to the original article above I’d like to continue the topic of Sikhs as Hindus(?).
We have to remember that within Sikhism there are more then a few sampradhas, with sometimes quite differing beliefs,views and attitudes. I personally view Sikhs as part of the wider Sanatan community, just as I do Jains. Even though many “Jats”/others would beg to disagree. Each to their own.
Encompassing Udhasis (reunciates), Nirmals, Nihangs and so on…understanding Sanatan “Sikhism” should be of interest for all Sanatan “Hindus” to undertsand the grass roots ties we share.
For those interested in reading more and gaining a broader perspective:
http://www.sarbloh.info/htmls/article_samparda_intro.html
August 13th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
I think that forced marriages amongst the Hindu community is very rare and I personally have never heard of such a thing, but at the same time we all are too aware of it happening in the Muslim communities, some of us that have muslim friends will have heard them talking all too frequently about so and so being ‘taken’ to Pakistan and getting married, I have also read about in Asian newspapers about forced marriages within the Sikh community also. Oersonally I think this is a attribute to the fact that Hindus are a forward moving people not locked into a mind frame of having our kids married so that they can then go on to have kids of their own, we Hindus are more likey to get a good job, buy a house, buy a car and all those sorts of things that can make a marriage actually work and stabalise it…rather that just getting married, driving a taxi and making minatures of ourselfs.
August 13th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
very very rare in the Hindu community
August 14th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Dharmesh Agravat, you said…
“we Hindus are more likey to get a good job, buy a house, buy a car and all those sorts of things that can make a marriage actually work and stabalise it…rather that just getting married, driving a taxi and making minatures of ourselfs. ”
You sound like an uptight snob with remarks like that. whats wrong with driving a taxi?? Im sure you’ve taken a taxi or two in your lifetime. A jobs a job and someone needs to do it. We cant have a society just full of doctors and lawyers.
And explain how a marriage can only work if you have a ‘good’ job, car and a house? Agreed those things are a neccesity to some degree, but you should realise that many marriages have all these things and they still dont work out likewise there are marriages out there that are succesfull without much of any of these things. Things that make marriages work like love, trust and honesty dont go hand in hand with a good job car and a house.
Yes its true, forced marriages are more common in the sikh and muslim communities than our Hindu ones, but lets not start having this mentality of superiority over it. It will hinder us in the Hindu community as there are other flaws too that need to be addressed in our own backyard.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Reference the issue of Sikhs as Hindus, Koenraad Elst’s chapter “Are Sikhs Hindus?” from his book “Who Is A Hindu?” is available at:
http://voi.org/books/wiah/ch8.htm
April 18th, 2007 at 1:49 am
N Prasher you talk like a muslim ass kisser! sort your self out, your a flaming embarrasment
April 19th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Dharmesh Agravat
Are you going to actually discuss what i had to say previously or are you just going to call names?
April 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I have to side with N Prashar on this one, some Hindus have this elitist mindset, what’s wrong in driving a taxi, it don’t matter how much money u have or how many phd’s u have if u can’t get physical to protect the rep of ur community and many Hindus are totally useless in this matter, i rather have Hindus who drive a taxi and make minimum wage but show pride in their religion and have a sense of community than have morons with a ton of phd’s who live in the poshest areas but who don’t know anything about dharma, i don’t know when some of these Hindus will ever get rid of this elitist and moronic mindset.
typical hindus i see r like “oh look at us, we r so law abiding, we r the richest, we integrate the best (euphenism for forgetting their religion), we r the most educated ….” and i am like that’s all fine, but what have people done for dharma.
atleast other communities got forced marriages but i see trash in our community justifying and condoning marriage with non Hindus, no wonder we r in a screwed up situation.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Harish, I agree to some extent with what you’re saying. Is driving a taxi so bad? Well, not really - it’s an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. However, surely being law abiding, gaining an education, etc. is all part and parcel of Dharma, which you mention a few times.
Is Dharma necessarily about who makes the most noise and shouts out from the rooftops about being Hindu? Is it about who goes to the mandir most and knows the most Vedic quotes? Is it about who knows the statistics of every alleged violation of Hindu human rights and campaigns about it the most? Or is it about working hard, treating people well, being honest, kind, compassionate and caring, and contributing to society in whatever way suits your own personality and ability?
Surely Dharma is all of these, or any of them. Not everyone can be a campaigner, not everyone can be a priest, not everyone can be a soldier. There’s a reason Hindu tradition allowed for a division (note, not necessarily hierarchy) of society by trade, ability, etc. - people all have their own individual Dharma (in the sense of duty) and to criticise people because they happen to follow their Dharma rather than any other smacks of as much elitism as that you rightly condemn.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Where did I say anything about shouting from the roof tops or any such thing, dharma does involve fighting for our rights though, I never said anything about everyone being a campaigner or soldier, but compared to other communities, such people are quite low in the Hindu community, something to think about.
Dharma does not involve turning a blind eye when other Hindus suffer and just chanting bhajans and making money lawfully, what individual dharma are you talking about, is earning phd’s and money the only dharma available to Hindus?
No one here is asking every Hindu to become a soldier, but on the other hand I am not asking every Hindu to be a spelling bee winner either, it does matter whether you do something for the community or not, I am sure there were plenty of jews who were kind, compassionate and so on, but that did not stop Hitler from massacring them, they would have been much better off if at least a substantial number of them were trained militarily.
It’s not my fault that you misrepresented what I said, it’s all fine to be kind, caring and contributing to society, but why don’t you contribute something toward the Hindu community, the 2 are not some polar opposites, you can be kind and caring and at the same time very involved when it comes to our religion.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I apologise; I certainly did not purposely mean to misrepresent you.
I have no problems with people shouting from rooftops and all those other things - at some times, for some people, that is the right thing to do. As for anything, including “earning PhDs and money” being “the only dharma available to Hindus”, I thought I made it quite clear that my whole point was that there is no “only dharma” for all - each individual has their own Dharma. For some, their duty and purpose in life is to campaign, for others it is to teach and spread religious knowledge, for others it is to fight, but for others it is to educate themselves and provide for their families and community.
All I was trying to say is that those who noticeably, vocally and demonstrably fight for Hindu causes are not the only good Hindus, and those who live quiet lives, getting on with their own business and doing no harm to anyone are not necessarily bad Hindus, ‘trash’, ‘morons’ or anything else.
Anyway, I guess that whilst we clearly agree on some aspects of this, there are other parts that we will not agree on, but then if we all agreed with everyone else about everything, where would be the fun in life? As always, I wish you well in your own personal journey, as I too continue mine - hopefully, with the continued inspiration and guidance of yourself and others, both here and elsewhere.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
In the light of this discussion that I just re-read with interest, I have just looked up the ICM poll commissioned by the BBC Asian Network into attitudes towards ‘honour killings’ amongst young ‘British Asians’. ICM surveyed 500 ‘British Asians’ aged 16-34 from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Christian backgrounds. The BBC report on this poll stated simply that, “One in 10 young British Asians believes so-called honour killings can be justified” [1]. To find out the details, I went to the ICM website, where the full results are published [2]; they make for even more shocking reading. When broken down by religion, the percentages of respondents saying that honour killings may be justifiable were:
Muslims: 7%
Hindus: 14%
Sikhs: 5%
Christian: 14%
Others: 9%
As it happens, the statistical analysis of this breakdown shows no significant difference [3]; nevertheless, the fact that it is not statistically significant does not detract from the fact that, in absolute terms, amongst the respondents to this survey, Hindus were twice as likely as Muslims and almost thrice as likely as Sikhs, to be prepared to justify honour killings.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5311244.stm
[2] http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/bbc%20-%2016-34%20asians/16-34%20Asians-v1.pdf
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/documentaries/lovehonourandobey.shtml
June 21st, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I am of the opinion that Hinduism incorporates, embodies and therefore embraces the preachings & philosophies of Sikhism, and indeed Buddhism, and therefore the term * “Hindu” broadly includes peoples these two other great faiths as well. I acknowledge that Sikhism and Buddhism are nonetheless great faiths in their own rights.
We, as Sikhs & Hindus have exchanged our sons & daughters, consentually, in holy matrimony since time in memorial, and there are no real obstacles (save for the odd family) once the original ” social shock” to the two families is over. This is my personal experience.
The word “asian” is an unpallatable one to me personally, and think all British Indians would feel the same. ** Indians to me are: Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Christian Indians & Jewish Indians.
The issue of forced marriages amongst Birtish *Hindus is now largely a thing of the past, other then in the odd few cases. Our now highly educated and very sophisticated youngsters will actually choose their own respective partners, and who are conscious that he/she sould be *Hindu. The divisive cast system, thankfully, is now being put behind us by our discerning youngsters who will ensure that he/she is marrying a *Hindu.
The honour killings - yes, it has happened in the Sikh community, but I think that is now receding and, notwithstanding Satyas figures above, is almost unheard of in the British Hindu community when it comes down to the actual and physical act of killing someone for this reason, whereas the Muslims will actually kill.
It is indeed a pity that politicians, especially the police, continue to refer to British Indians under the general banner of “Asians” whereas it is more prefereble for me to be refered to as ** “British Indians”
June 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
British and Indian are nationalities. Hindu is a “religion.” Indic may refer to an ethnicity. If you want to be British, be British. No modifier. Then understand that the word is complex as to the culture of GB and includes a pluralist state with Hindus, Jedi, Christians, Muslims, atheists, scientists, rationalists, radicals, skin heads….
As to the stats Satya brings out: What kind of honor is there in killing? Even for a soldier? The Gita points out that sometimes we need to kill, but it is not for the things we gain but because it is what me must do to maintain the process of humanity. It is a complex process we each struggle with every day but we must be cautious in accepting within ourselves an arrogance that allows thoughts as “honor killing.”
hariaum
June 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
For the record, whilst I hold my Indian origins dear and in many ways love India, I personally do not identify myself as Indian. To me, India is a geopolitical entity to which I belong neither geographically nor politically. I would rather describe myself as British Hindu. I feel that identity in this context is an undeniably personal sense of self-perception and as such, this is very much my own view of myself - nothing more is implied.