Honour, Violence, and the Death of Conscience: Khap Panchayats in Haryana
Abstract
Khap panchayats in Haryana have emerged as powerful extra-constitutional institutions that police marriage, sexuality, and women’s autonomy through coercion and violence. This essay argues that khaps neither represent authentic community consensus nor exercise legitimate cultural authority; rather, they function as retrogressive patriarchal conglomerates that inhibit social mobility, gender justice, and democratic discourse. Drawing on sociological studies, media investigations, court observations, and demographic trends available, the paper situates khap violence—particularly honour killings—within a broader crisis of political cowardice, media sensationalism, and social silence. The essay contends that the persistence of khaps reflects not cultural continuity but a failure of constitutional enforcement and social courage, resulting in the systematic erosion of individual liberty, especially for women.
The Indian Constitution envisions a social order founded on liberty, equality, and dignity. Yet in large parts of Haryana, this constitutional promise stands hollow in the face of khap panchayats—informal caste- and clan-based bodies that arrogate to themselves the power to regulate marriage, kinship, and morality. These institutions operate outside the law, often in direct violation of it, while enjoying de facto impunity.
The repeated episodes of honour killings, forced separations, social boycotts, and threats against couples reveal not isolated aberrations but a patterned social pathology. Haryana increasingly resembles what may be described as a “murda logon ki basti”—a habitation of dead consciences—where violence is routinised and outrage is episodic.
Khap Panchayats: From Dispute Resolution to Social Control
Historical and anthropological evidence suggests that khaps were never sovereign moral authorities. Their earlier role was limited, episodic, and pragmatic—mediating disputes related to land, irrigation, or clan conflict (Chowdhry 2007). The contemporary khap, however, is a fundamentally transformed institution.
What distinguishes the modern khap is:
its obsession with regulating women’s sexuality,
its hostility to inter-caste and inter-gotra marriages,
and its claim to override constitutional law in the name of “tradition”.
This transformation must be understood in the context of declining agrarian dominance, erosion of patriarchal authority, rising female education, and increased mobility among youth. Khap diktats function as compensatory mechanisms—attempts to restore lost social control through terror rather than consent.
Honour Killings and the Logic of Patriarchy
Honour killings in Haryana are neither spontaneous nor culturally inevitable. As Prem Chowdhry’s extensive work demonstrates, these killings are rooted in a rigid kinship ideology that treats women as bearers of lineage honour rather than autonomous citizens.
Girls are subjected to a continuum of violence:
1. Before birth – sex-selective abortion.
2. During childhood – neglect in nutrition, education, and healthcare.
3. During adolescence – surveillance, restriction, and moral policing.
4. In adulthood – coercion, violence, and sometimes death for exercising choice.
If a woman dares to look “eye to eye” with a man of her choosing, she is branded immoral. If she elopes or marries outside caste or gotra norms, the punishment escalates to social boycott or murder. The cruelty is collective, not merely familial.
Demography as Evidence of Social Violence
The alarmingly low sex ratio in Haryana—widely discussed even before the 2011 Census—cannot be separated from khap ideology. Public debates often treat demographic imbalance as a technical or economic problem. In reality, it is the cumulative outcome of everyday patriarchal violence.
Girls are unwanted not because of poverty alone, but because a social order fears autonomous women. Khap diktats institutionalise this fear.
Political Cowardice and the Myth of Vote Bank Power
One of the most persistent myths surrounding khaps is their supposed electoral influence. Political actors routinely justify inaction by invoking fear of alienating “community sentiments”. However, electoral analyses and voting pattern studies indicate that Haryana’s electorate does not vote as a monolithic khap-directed bloc.
This narrative primarily serves as an alibi for political timidity. Rather than confronting feudal authority, politicians seek shelter under it. The result is a dangerous convergence between informal coercive power and formal democratic institutions.
Media Spectacle and the Absence of Public Discourse
The media’s role has been deeply contradictory. On the one hand, honour killings receive sensational coverage; on the other, they are quickly forgotten. Couples seeking protection are transformed into transient spectacles—news for a few days, then discarded.
What is conspicuously absent is sustained social dialogue:
no village-level forums,
no structured public debates,
no engagement with caste patriarchy as a systemic issue.
Silence follows spectacle, enabling repetition.
Constitutional Failure and Social Complicity
The Supreme Court of India had repeatedly affirmed the right of consenting adults to marry freely. Khap diktats directly violate Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. Yet enforcement remains weak, not merely due to administrative failure but because of social complicity.
Khap power persists because society tolerates it. Fear replaces moral courage; conformity replaces dissent.
Conclusion: Beyond Tradition, Towards Constitutional Life
This is not a conflict between tradition and modernity. It is a conflict between constitutional citizenship and feudal control. A society that murders its daughters for loving freely cannot claim cultural legitimacy.
Khap panchayats must be confronted not only through law enforcement but through social isolation and ideological challenge. Their authority must be delegitimised in public discourse. Only then can Haryana reclaim its social vitality and constitutional promise.
References:
1. Chowdhry, Prem. 2007. Contentious Marriages, Eloping Couples. Oxford University Press.
2. Chowdhry, Prem. 2004. “Caste Panchayats and Gender Justice.” Economic and Political Weekly.
3. Supreme Court of India. Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006).
4. NHRC. 2009. Report on Honour Killings in India.
5. The Hindu. Various reports on honour killings (2007–2010).
6. Frontline. “Honour and Violence in Haryana.” (2008).
7. Indian Express. Investigative series on khap panchayats (2009).
8. EPW Editorials on honour killings and caste patriarchy (2008–2010).
