From Controlling Women's Choices to Controlling the Women Who Choose
By Ramphal Kataria
Introduction: The Emergence of a New Khap
The recent women's Khap Mahapanchayat at Ramrai village in Jind district marks a significant and disturbing development in the evolution of Khap Panchayats in Haryana.
The traditional Khap Panchayat was predominantly a male institution. Its authority rested upon elders, caste, clan, village and customary notions of social order. It prescribed rules concerning marriage, kinship and community conduct and, in several instances, attempted to enforce those prescriptions through social boycott and other forms of collective pressure.
What has now emerged is something different.
The Khap is acquiring a women's face.
The Naugama Khap's decision to convene its first women's mahapanchayat came after considerable backlash, particularly from young people on social media, over its restrictions concerning love marriages and women's conduct. The women's gathering was presented as an effort to give women a voice in social decision-making.
At first sight, this might appear to be a welcome development.
After all, women have historically been excluded from many traditional decision-making structures.
But representation alone does not constitute emancipation.
The more important question is:
What are women being invited to decide?
If women are being brought into public life to demand better education, employment, equal wages, economic independence, ownership of ancestral property, protection from violence, political representation and freedom of choice, their participation represents genuine social progress.
But if women are brought into the same traditional structure to legitimise restrictions upon women's clothing, relationships and choice of marriage partners, then the institution has not necessarily become emancipatory.
It may simply have acquired a new instrument for preserving the old order.
This is the central significance of the women's Khap.
It represents a new mould of an old institution.
And its emergence deserves much greater scrutiny than the immediate controversy surrounding love marriages and live-in relationships.
From Male Authority to Female Enforcement
The traditional Khap operated largely through male elders.
That model has increasingly become difficult to defend in a society where women are educated, employed, politically conscious and increasingly aware of their constitutional rights.
The criticism was therefore predictable.
Why should men decide what women should wear?
Why should male elders decide whom young people may marry?
Why should a village council regulate the intimate relationships of legally competent adults?
The response has now been remarkably sophisticated.
Bring women into the institution.
The creation of a women's Khap gives the traditional institution an appearance of broader representation. The presence of women can make its resolutions appear less patriarchal and more socially legitimate.
But there is a fundamental distinction between women's participation in power and women's emancipation from power.
A woman sitting on the platform of a Khap is participating in power.
A woman being free to decide whether she wishes to belong to that institution, whether she agrees with its prescriptions and whether she can choose her own life without fear is exercising autonomy.
The two things are not identical.
The danger is that the women's Khap may become a mechanism through which women themselves are recruited into enforcing restrictions upon other women.
Patriarchy does not always require men to speak.
Sometimes it survives by persuading women to become its guardians.
The Timing Is Not Accidental
The emergence of the women's Khap is taking place at a moment when Haryana's young women are undergoing a profound transformation.
Girls are entering schools and colleges in increasing numbers.
They are pursuing professional education.
They are competing in examinations.
They are entering government services and private employment.
They are becoming athletes of national and international standing.
They are travelling outside their villages.
They are using smartphones.
They are interacting with young men from different villages, castes and social backgrounds.
They are acquiring their own incomes.
They are increasingly aware that the law recognises them as equal citizens.
The transformation is particularly visible in Haryana's daughters who have achieved extraordinary recognition in sport and education. The contemporary debate is therefore taking place against a social reality in which Haryana's women are increasingly visible outside the traditional boundaries of village and household.
The young woman of today is not necessarily willing to accept that her life must be organised around the same restrictions that governed her grandmother.
That is the real social change.
And that is precisely why the struggle over marriage has become so intense.
What Should a Women's Panchayat Actually Be Discussing?
This is perhaps the most important question of the entire debate.
If a women's organisation is assembled in rural Haryana, what should be at the top of its agenda?
It should be asking why a girl drops out of school.
It should be asking why girls still face obstacles in pursuing higher education.
It should be asking whether villages have safe and affordable transport for female students.
It should be asking why young women with degrees are unable to find suitable employment.
It should be asking how rural women can acquire vocational skills and establish businesses.
It should be asking why women continue to face economic dependence despite being educated.
It should be asking whether daughters actually receive the ancestral property to which they are legally entitled.
It should be asking why women surrender property rights under family pressure.
It should be asking how women can obtain independent bank accounts, financial literacy and control over their own earnings.
It should be asking how widows, divorced women and abandoned women can live independently.
It should be asking how domestic violence can be prevented.
It should be asking how sexual harassment can be addressed.
It should be asking why dowry continues despite decades of legislation.
It should be asking why women remain disproportionately responsible for unpaid domestic labour.
It should be asking how young mothers can continue their education and employment.
It should be asking how women can participate equally in village governance.
And, above all, it should be asking whether a woman has the practical freedom to choose the person with whom she wants to spend her life.
These are women's questions.
The regulation of whether a woman may marry a man from another village or another gotra is a much smaller and fundamentally different question.
The Strange Priorities of the New Women's Khap
The priorities revealed by the Ramrai meeting are therefore revealing.
The women's Khap has backed restrictions concerning marriages within the same village, neighbouring villages, bhaichara or gohaand villages and the same gotra. It has supported opposition to live-in relationships and sought their criminalisation. The Naugama Khap had already declared that couples violating its matrimonial norms would face exclusion from the 21 villages under its influence.
The women's gathering also discussed issues such as dowry, obscenity and what was described as "gun and gund culture". A committee structure was proposed to take these concerns into villages, schools, colleges and universities.
Some of these concerns are entirely legitimate.
Dowry is a genuine social evil.
Violence is a genuine problem.
Drug abuse is a genuine problem.
Sexual exploitation is a genuine problem.
The safety of women is a genuine concern.
But the remedy for these problems cannot be the regulation of women's freedom.
The most disturbing feature is therefore not that the Khap discusses social problems.
It is which solutions it chooses.
Instead of asking why women lack sufficient economic power, it asks whom they should marry.
Instead of demanding better employment, it seeks to regulate relationships.
Instead of strengthening women's independence, it strengthens matrimonial boundaries.
Instead of expanding women's choices, it seeks to narrow them.
That is the contradiction.
The Marriage Question Is a Question of Power
Marriage is often presented as a private family matter.
In caste society it is much more.
Marriage determines the transmission of property, caste identity, social status and kinship.
Caste survives largely because marriage remains overwhelmingly endogamous.
Research using the India Human Development Survey has estimated inter-caste marriages at only about 5.82 per cent in 2011, while 73 per cent of marriages in that dataset were arranged by families.
Other demographic research suggests that inter-caste marriage remains a minority phenomenon even while some newer cohorts show gradual change.
This fact should be kept in perspective.
Inter-caste marriage is not some overwhelming social phenomenon threatening to destroy caste society.
It remains relatively uncommon.
That makes the intensity of the opposition even more revealing.
The issue is not the numerical scale of the phenomenon.
The issue is the principle behind it.
A single woman exercising her choice does not destroy caste.
But thousands of women exercising such choices over generations can weaken caste endogamy.
The institution of caste therefore has a structural interest in controlling marriage.
This is why the struggle over mate selection is ultimately a struggle over the reproduction of social hierarchy.
The Gotra Argument Must Be Distinguished from the Village Argument
The Khap's argument is often presented as though all its restrictions have one common biological basis.
They do not.
The prohibition of marriage between close biological relatives can have understandable genetic and social reasons.
Indian marriage law itself recognises defined categories of prohibited relationship and sapinda relationship.
But a marriage between two unrelated adults simply because they live in the same village is an entirely different matter.
Likewise, the assertion that persons from villages belonging to the same bhaichara or gohaand are socially "brother and sister" is a cultural construction.
It may have deep historical meaning.
But cultural kinship is not automatically biological kinship.
The difference is critical.
Society may define relationships symbolically; biology does not necessarily follow those symbols.
The law therefore cannot simply allow every community to transform its customary metaphors into enforceable prohibitions.
The Absurdity of Treating a Tiny Phenomenon as a Civilisational Threat
There is another important point that deserves emphasis.
Actual marriages between unrelated adults from the same village or same gotra are likely to be a very small fraction of all marriages.
Even the broader category of inter-caste marriage remains relatively uncommon.
Why then should such a small phenomenon receive such enormous institutional attention?
Because the issue is symbolic.
The Khap is not merely preventing a few marriages.
It is asserting a principle:
The community has the right to determine the permissible boundaries of individual intimacy.
That principle is much larger than the number of marriages involved.
And that is why it must be challenged.
The New Women's Khap and the Politics of Female Independence
The most important social transformation underway in Haryana is not the number of same-gotra marriages.
It is the emergence of women who can potentially live without complete economic dependence upon their families.
This is a much more profound change.
An educated woman can obtain employment.
An employed woman can earn.
An earning woman can save.
A woman with savings can negotiate.
A woman with property can resist dispossession.
A woman with legal knowledge can challenge injustice.
A woman with social mobility can leave a restrictive environment.
A woman with economic independence can choose whether and when to marry.
And a woman with constitutional awareness can insist that the final decision about her life belongs to her.
This is the trajectory of emancipation.
It is also the trajectory that makes traditional patriarchal authority increasingly fragile.
The reaction, therefore, is not surprising.
Whenever a hierarchy begins losing control, it frequently attempts to redefine its control as protection.
The Property Question Is More Revolutionary Than the Marriage Question
The debate over women's property rights deserves far greater attention.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 made daughters coparceners by birth in Hindu joint-family property.
The Supreme Court's decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma subsequently clarified that a daughter acquires coparcenary status by birth and that the right is not dependent upon the father being alive when the 2005 amendment came into force.
This is a profound change.
For centuries, rural property has been one of the principal foundations of family power.
Land determines economic security.
Land determines status.
Land influences marriage.
Land determines bargaining power.
Land provides political influence.
A daughter with an enforceable property right therefore possesses a material foundation for independence.
This is potentially much more transformative than merely telling women that they are equal.
Property converts equality from an abstract promise into economic power.
That is why women's organisations should be asking whether daughters actually receive the property the law gives them.
They should be helping women understand mutation, inheritance, partition and coparcenary rights.
They should be helping women resist social pressure to surrender their legal share.
They should be demanding legal literacy.
Instead, when the principal institutional energy is directed towards preventing a young woman from marrying someone from another village, the priorities appear inverted.
Education Should Expand Choice, Not Produce Better Obedience
The women's Khap reportedly proposes approaching young women in schools and colleges to discuss social norms and customs concerning marriage.
There is nothing inherently wrong with discussing social norms with students.
The concern lies in the purpose of the dialogue.
Education should teach young people to examine customs critically.
It should expose them to constitutional rights.
It should teach them the meaning of consent.
It should teach them about healthy relationships.
It should explain the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
It should teach them about property rights.
It should teach them about domestic violence laws.
It should teach them financial literacy.
It should teach them to recognise exploitation.
It should teach them how to distinguish tradition from coercion.
But education should never become a mechanism for teaching young women that their freedom is conditional upon community approval.
The purpose of education is to enlarge the mind.
It cannot be to make the mind more obedient to inherited authority.
From the Ghunghat to the Smartphone
There is a revealing historical irony in the criticism emerging from young women.
One of the reactions quoted in the recent controversy points out that older people criticise women for not wearing the ghunghat while simultaneously claiming that mobile phones are corrupting girls.
The contradiction is worth examining.
The ghunghat represented one form of social visibility control.
The smartphone represents unprecedented individual connectivity.
The first restricts what the woman may display.
The second expands whom she can communicate with.
The old social order therefore encounters technology not merely as a device but as a threat to its monopoly over information.
A girl who has a smartphone can access legal information.
She can study.
She can apply for jobs.
She can communicate outside her village.
She can discover alternative ways of living.
She can compare her circumstances with those of women elsewhere.
She can learn that the practice her family describes as "the only way" is not the only way.
This is why the smartphone has become such a powerful symbol in the debate.
The real issue is not the device.
It is access to an alternative social imagination.
The Economic Argument Hidden Inside the Marriage Debate
One of the young woman's criticisms is particularly important: that restrictions may make it easier for less-educated or unemployed local men to obtain brides because educated women are increasingly unwilling to accept marriages that do not offer equality and compatible aspirations.
This claim should not be accepted as an established empirical fact without independent evidence.
But it raises a serious sociological question.
What happens when the aspirations of educated women rise faster than the economic and educational opportunities available to men in their immediate marriage market?
The answer cannot be to reduce women's aspirations.
The answer is to improve men's education, employment and skills.
If young men are unemployed, create jobs.
If they lack education, improve schools and vocational institutions.
If they lack social confidence, provide opportunities for mobility and skill development.
Do not lower the expectations of women in order to compensate for the failures of the male economy.
That would be the most regressive possible response.
The New Khap Should Be Asked: Whose Side of Equality?
The women's Khap speaks in the language of women's safety.
That concern deserves respect.
But safety has two meanings.
One meaning is:
Protect women from violence, exploitation and coercion.
The other is:
Restrict women so that they cannot make choices that society considers risky.
The first is emancipation.
The second is paternalism.
A genuinely progressive women's organisation must therefore answer a simple question:
Does it trust women to make responsible decisions?
If the answer is yes, then women should receive information, education, legal protection and economic support.
If the answer is no, then the institution is not empowering women.
It is supervising them.
The Constitutional Boundary
There is an important distinction between social persuasion and coercion.
A family may advise.
An elder may counsel.
A community may express disapproval.
A religious or cultural organisation may advocate its preferred values.
But none of these institutions can acquire the legal authority to punish adults for exercising constitutional freedoms.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised decisional autonomy in matters of intimate association and partner choice and has rejected the coercive authority of Khap Panchayats.
The constitutional principle is therefore clear:
Community morality cannot become a substitute for law.
A Khap may dislike an inter-village marriage.
It may dislike an inter-caste marriage.
It may dislike a live-in relationship.
But dislike is not jurisdiction.
The Most Important Change: Women Are Becoming Individuals
The deepest transformation occurring in Haryana is the transition of women from being primarily defined through relationships to being recognised as individuals.
Traditionally, a woman was frequently described as someone's daughter, someone's sister, someone's wife or someone's mother.
Modern citizenship adds another identity:
She is herself.
She possesses rights independently of her relationship to a man.
She has property rights.
She has educational rights.
She has occupational rights.
She has political rights.
She has bodily autonomy.
She has decisional autonomy.
She has the right to dignity.
She has the right to choose.
This is the fundamental shift that no traditional institution can permanently reverse.
A Women's Organisation Should Be Leading the Emancipation
The irony is that the emergence of a women's Khap could have been an extraordinary opportunity.
Imagine if the first women's Khap Mahapanchayat had declared that every girl in the 21 villages must complete secondary education.
Imagine if it had demanded a college bus for rural girls.
Imagine if it had established scholarships.
Imagine if it had created a rural women's employment network.
Imagine if it had demanded implementation of daughters' property rights.
Imagine if it had created legal-aid cells for women.
Imagine if it had campaigned against dowry.
Imagine if it had demanded action against domestic violence.
Imagine if it had created support systems for abandoned and divorced women.
Imagine if it had demanded safe workplaces.
Imagine if it had established vocational centres.
Imagine if it had told every young woman:
"You have the right to build a life of your own."
That would have been revolutionary.
That would have been a genuine women's Khap.
Instead, the institution has largely emerged around regulating relationships and reinforcing matrimonial boundaries.
That is why its emergence is so disappointing.
The opportunity for emancipation has been converted into another mechanism of social regulation.
The Khap Has Changed Its Face, But Has It Changed Its Purpose?
This is ultimately the most important question.
The old Khap said:
Men will decide social norms.
The new women's Khap says:
Women will participate in deciding social norms.
That sounds like progress.
But if the actual norms remain:
Who may marry whom, where women may live, what relationships are permissible and what forms of behaviour are acceptable,
then the institution's personnel have changed more than its underlying philosophy.
The central authority remains collective.
The individual remains subordinate.
The social boundary remains more important than personal choice.
That is not a revolution.
It is an institutional adaptation.
The Khap has recognised that its old male-only structure is losing legitimacy and has begun incorporating women into its public face.
This may make it more resilient.
It may also make it more difficult to challenge.
A male-dominated institution telling women what to do is visibly patriarchal.
A women's organisation telling women what to do can be presented as empowerment.
That is why the development deserves particular attention.
The Future Conflict Will Be Over Choice
The coming conflict in Haryana will not simply be between Khap and government.
It will increasingly be between collective control and individual choice.
The young generation will ask why caste should determine marriage.
Why should the village determine marriage?
Why should gotra determine marriage where there is no demonstrable close biological relationship?
Why should a family decide the occupation of an adult daughter?
Why should a daughter surrender her property?
Why should economic dependence determine whether a woman can leave an abusive marriage?
Why should social honour depend upon a woman's personal choices?
And why should a legally competent adult be treated as though she were incapable of deciding whom to love?
These questions will become more frequent as education and economic mobility expand.
The response cannot be to silence the questions.
It must be to answer them honestly.
Conclusion: The Women's Khap Must Choose Its History
The emergence of the women's Khap Panchayat is a watershed in the history of Haryana's traditional social institutions.
It can become one of two things.
It can become a new mechanism for preserving an old patriarchy, where women are recruited to regulate the choices of other women and where traditional restrictions receive a new legitimacy because they are voiced by women.
Or it can become something genuinely transformative: a rural women's institution that turns its enormous social reach toward education, employment, property rights, economic independence, safety, legal literacy and equality.
The choice is not merely institutional.
It is historical.
At a time when Haryana's daughters are becoming educated, entering professions, winning medals, travelling across the country and claiming economic and legal independence, an institution that tells them whom they may marry is fighting the wrong battle.
The real battle is elsewhere.
It is against the girl being forced to leave school.
It is against the graduate who cannot find employment.
It is against the woman who earns but has no control over her income.
It is against the daughter who possesses a legal share in ancestral property but is pressured to surrender it.
It is against the wife who suffers violence because she has nowhere economically to go.
It is against the woman whose social value is still measured primarily by marriage.
It is against the caste system that treats marriage as the mechanism for preserving inherited hierarchy.
It is against the notion that family honour resides in controlling women's choices.
And it is against the idea that an adult woman needs collective permission to determine the course of her own life.
The Khap's fixation upon intra-village, bhaichara and same-gotra marriages is particularly disproportionate when such marriages constitute only a minute part of the larger marriage system, while caste endogamy itself remains overwhelmingly dominant. Research has estimated inter-caste marriage at only about 5.82 per cent in the 2011 IHDS data, while the overwhelming majority of marriages remained arranged within caste.
The supposed threat is therefore not the number of such marriages.
The threat perceived by the traditional order is the principle of choice.
Because once a woman learns that she can choose her education, her profession, her property rights, her residence and her partner, the old hierarchy loses its ability to determine the boundaries of her life.
That is the real transformation underway.
And no institution can permanently stop it.
The women's Khap has therefore arrived at a historic crossroads.
If it uses women's collective strength to restrict women, it will merely put a female face upon an old structure of control.
If it uses that strength to demand education, employment, property, safety, dignity and freedom, it can become something entirely different.
The difference lies in one fundamental question:
Will women be used to preserve the rules imposed upon them, or will women use their collective power to remove the barriers imposed upon them?
The first is the preservation of the past.
The second is emancipation.
Haryana's women deserve the second.
And Haryana's future depends upon it.
References
1. The Tribune, "Jind's khap women back marriage curbs, seek ban on live-in relationships", 24 August 2026.
2. The Tribune, "Facing youth backlash, Naugama khap calls first-ever women's mahapanchayat", August 2026.
3. The Tribune, "Haryana's Naugama khap passes resolution to boycott couples violating 'norms'", August 2026.
4. Times of India, "Women's khap mahapanchayat bans love marriages, live-ins", August 2026.
5. Ray, Tridip and Komal Sahai, research based on India Human Development Survey data concerning inter-caste marriage, caste endogamy and family decision-making. The study estimates inter-caste marriage at approximately 5.82 per cent in 2011.
6. Supreme Court of India, Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 — concerning daughters' coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
7. Supreme Court of India, Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) — concerning honour crimes and the illegitimate coercive authority of Khap Panchayats.
8. B.R. Ambedkar, Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development — particularly the relationship between endogamy and caste reproduction.
9. Suraj Bhan Bharadwaj, "Myth and Reality of the Khap Panchayats: A Historical Analysis of the Panchayat and Khap Panchayat", Studies in History.
10. Madhu Nagla, "Khap Panchayat, Honour Killings and Gender Relations in Western India", in Subalternity, Exclusion and Social Change in India, Cambridge University Press.
11. National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India — crime against women, Scheduled Castes and honour-related crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment