Honour Killings: Are we prepared to tackle the problem?

Kaushiki - July 13, 2010

The issue of honour killing grabbed headlines with the death of Nirupama Pathak, a Delhi-based journalist, who was alleged to have been killed by her family because she was pregnant and was planning to marry a person outside her caste. This was followed by two more cases of suspected honour killing (see here and here) in the capital. While incidences of honour killing are a rarity in the capital, such incidences are common in the northern states of India such as Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The basic reason behind honour killings is the idea that a family’s honour is tied to a woman’s chastity. Thus, a wide range of causes can trigger honour killing such as marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, having unapproved relationships, refusing an arranged marriage or even rape. In India, honour killings take place if a couple marries outside their caste or religion. Khap panchayats also oppose and mete out punishments to couples who marry within the same gotra (lineage) or transgress other societal norms. A recent judgement by a sessions court in Karnal for the first time awarded the death penalty to five men for murdering a young couple who had married against the diktats of a khap panchayat. It gave life sentence to a member of the khap panchayat who declared the marriage invalid and was present when the killing took place. On June 22, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the centre and eight states to explain the steps taken to prevent honour killing. Taking a cautious approach the government rejected Law Minister, M. Veerappa Moily’s proposal to amend the Indian Penal Code and rein in the khap panchayats (caste based extra constitutional bodies). It however decided to constitute a Group of Ministers to consult the states and look into the scope for enacting a special law that would treat honour killing as a social evil. Experts are divided over the proposed honour killing law. Some experts argue that the existing laws are sufficient to deter honour killing, if implemented properly while others feel that more stringent and specific provisions are required to tackle the menace of honour killings.

Existing Penalties under Indian Penal Code:

Sections 299-304: Penalises any person guilty of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The punishment for murder is life sentence or death and fine. The punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is life imprisonment or imprisonment for upto 10 years and fine.
Section 307: Penalises attempt to murder with imprisonment for upto 10 years and a fine. If a person is hurt, the penalty can extend to life imprisonment.
Section 308: Penalises attempt to commit culpable homicide by imprisonment for upto 3 years or with fine or with both. If it causes hurt, the person shall be imprisoned for upto 7 years or fined or both.
Section 120A and B: Penalises any person who is a party to a criminal conspiracy.
Sections 107-116: Penalises persons for abetment of offences including murder and culpable homicide.
Section 34 and 35: Penalises criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments favouring new law	Arguments against new law
Making the crime of honour killing a separate offence would help bring more clarity for law enforcement agencies. One of the proposals is to amend the Indian Evidence Act to put the burden of proof on the accused. Thus, the khap panchayat or the family members would be responsible for proving their innocence. There would be joint liability under the proposed new law. The khap panchayat (or any group ordering honour killings) and the person who carries out the killing would be jointly liable for punishment.	The existing penalty for the offence of murder is sufficient if they are implemented strictly and effectively. A new set of laws would not deter honour killings because the basic issue is social sanction for acts committed to curtail same gotra marriage, inter-caste marriage, inter-religion marriage. Need for creating awareness among traditional communities through education. Holding khap panchayats collectively accountable can be detrimental to members who do not support such killing. Also, it could be misused for vindictive agendas.
Sources: “Define honour killing as ‘heinous crime’: Experts”, Hindustan Times, May 12, 2010; “Legal experts divided over proposed honour killing law,” Indian Express, Feb 16, 2010; “Legal Tangle,” Indian Express, July 10, 2010; and “Honour Killing: Govt defers decision on Khap Bill,” Indian Express, July 8, 2010; “Honour Killing: Govt considers special law,” Indian Express, July 9, 2010.

Meanwhile, khap panchayats are up in arms defending their stance against same gotra marriage. They have demanded an amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 disallowing same gotra marriage. While condemning honour killings, some politicians such as Naveen Jindal and Bhupinder Singh Hooda have extended support to the demands of the khap panchayats. It remains to be seen if India is effectively able to address this tug of war between tradition and modernity.

Policy

Arguments regarding FDI in retail

Vishnu - December 4, 2012

After months of discussion, the issue of FDI in retail is being deliberated in the Lok Sabha today. In September 2012, the Cabinet had approved 51% of FDI in multi-brand retail (stores selling more than one brand). Under these regulations, foreign retail giants like Walmart and Tesco can set up shop in India. Discussions on permitting FDI in retail have focused on the effect of FDI on unorganised retailers, farmers and consumers. Earlier, the central government commissioned the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) to examine the impact of organised retail on unorganised retail. The Standing Committee on Commerce also tabled a report on Foreign and Domestic Investment in the Retail Sector in May, 2009 while the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) released a discussion paper examining FDI in multi-brand retail in July, 2010. Other experts have also made arguments – both in support of, and in opposition to, the move to permit FDI in retail sales. The table below summarises some of these arguments from the perspective of various stakeholders as collated from the above reports examining the issue.

Stakeholder	Supporting arguments (source)	Opposing arguments (source)
Unorganised retail	No evidence of impact on job losses (ICRIER). The rate of closure of unorganised retail shops (4.2%) is lower than international standards (ICRIER). Evidence from Indonesia and China show that traditional and modern retail can coexist and grow (Reardon and Gulati). Majority of small retailers keen to remain in operation even after emergence of organised retail (ICRIER).	Unorganised retailers in the vicinity of organised retailers saw their volume of business and profit decline but this effect weakens over time (ICRIER). Other studies have estimated that traditional fruit and vegetable retailers experienced a 20-30% decline in incomes with the presence of supermarkets (Singh). There is potential for employment loss in the value chain. A supermarket may create fewer jobs for the volume of produce handled (Singh). Unemployment to increase as a result of retailers practicing product bundling (selling goods in combinations and bargains) and predatory pricing (Standing Committee).
Farmers	Significant positive impact on farmers as a result of direct sales to organised retailers. For instance, cauliflower farmers receive a 25% higher price selling directly to organised retailers instead of government regulated markets (mandis). Profits for farmers selling to organised retailers are about 60% higher than when selling to mandis (ICRIER). Organised retail could remove supply chain inefficiencies through direct purchase from farmers and investment in better storage, distribution and transport systems. FDI, in particular, could bring in new technology and ideas (DIPP).	Current organised retail procures 60-70% from wholesale markets rather than farmers. There has been no significant impact on backend infrastructure investment (Singh). There are other issues like irrigation, technology and credit in agriculture which FDI may not address (Singh). Increased monopolistic strength could force farmers to sell at lower prices (Standing Committee).
Consumers	Organised retail lowers prices. Consumer spending increases with the entry of organised retail and lower income groups tend to save more (ICRIER). It will lead to better quality and safety standards of products (DIPP).	Evidence from some Latin American countries (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), Africa (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asia (Thailand, Vietnam, India) reveal that supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables were higher than traditional retail prices (Singh). Even with lower prices at supermarkets, low income households may prefer traditional retailers because they live far from supermarkets, they can bargain with traditional retailers and buy loose items (Singh). Monopolistic power for retailers could result in high prices for consumers.

Source: ICRIER [1. "Impact of Organized Retailing on the Unorganized Sector", ICRIER, September 2008]; Standing Committee [2. "Foreign and domestic investment in retail sector", Standing Committee on Commerce, May 13, 2009]; Singh (2011) [3. "FDI in Retail: Misplaced Expectations and Half-truths", Sukhpal Singh, Economic and Political Weekly, December 17, 2011]; Reardon and Gulati (2008) [4. "Rise of supermarkets and their development implications," IFPRI Discussion Paper, Thomas Reardon and Ashok Gulati, February 2008.]; DIPP [5. "Discussion Paper on FDI in Multi-brand Retail Trading", Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, July 6, 2010]

Home

MPs & MLAs

Legislatures

Parliament

State

Bills & Acts

Budgets

Policy

LAMP

Careers

Honour Killings: Are we prepared to tackle the problem?

Arguments regarding FDI in retail

Recent Posts