Vengeance is not the same as Justice

 [Ten police officers who had killed 4 young men arrested for the rape and murder of Hyderabad doctor in an "encounter" have been found "guilty of concocting their story, and were to be charged with murder." What are the ramifications, I wonder in this article first published in Women's Web.]

December 29, 2019 was a Friday no different from any other. I was running late so had no time to read the newspaper. On the way to work, I logged onto to Twitter to catch up with the news. The first thing I saw was the breaking story on the horrific gang rape and murder of the 26 year old doctor on the outskirts of Hyderabad.

The brutality of the crime left me cold, as did the fact that it could have happened to anyone. The victim (who’s name was then made public, but was subsequently called #Disha for anonymity) was returning home from work on her two-wheeler- she could have been someone I knew. The route she took was one that I had taken often, especially at night. #Disha’s charming face and attractive smile contrasted sharply with the photographs of her charred body. We mourned her senseless loss.

As more details emerged, we all realised just how vulnerable we were while going about our daily life. Any of us could have developed a puncture on a highway, any of us would have pulled up at a toll plaza and called relative or friend when we felt unsafe. We have all been in similar situations. But #Disha was unlucky enough to be gangraped and brutally murdered.

The weekend passed in a haze. We mourned the senseless death of a woman who had her entire life ahead of her. Her smiling face reminded us that better lighting, more frequent patrolling and greater monitoring of CCTV cameras may have saved her life. We were shaken.

That Sunday, I attended a candlelight vigil to protest against her killing and to demand action. I went because I thought I owed it to her to pay my respects. I hoped that the gathering would get a conversation started on how to create systems that women could access in an emergency. But more than anything else, I wanted to be a part of the collective grief.

What I saw there shook me to the core. While I felt grief and sorrow, the overwhelming emotion was anger. The poster I carried said - “The Dead cannot seek Justice. The Living have the Duty to seek it for them.” But it was not Justice that the public wanted- they wanted Vengeance. All the people who spoke demanded an “encounter”. The crowd set up a chant saying “We want Encounter”.

Clearly the Police was listening to the public. Within days, four youth were arrested in connection with the gang rape and murder, and on December 6, 2019, all four were killed while allegedly attempting to escape while recreating the crime. An Encounter. The bloodlust of the public was satiated. The police received bouquets for ensuring the case was closed in a speedy manner. Everyone moved on, satisfied that ‘Justice was served.’

But was it? Isn’t there a difference between Justice and Vengeance? 

Vengeance is emotional, and often desires bloodshed. Justise is about righting a wrong. Vengeance is about getting even, Justice is about ensuring that the rules that govern society are upheld. Vengeance is an act of vindictiveness, Justice of vindication.

Justice would have been served by ensuring the case was fast tracked. By enabling the police to gather enough evidence to get the courts convict the perpetrators. By empowering the courts to convict and sentence the guilty. The family of the victim and the society as a whole would have found closure if the guilty were brought to book and were given the punishment due to them. 

Instead, the accused were killed by the Police in what was euphemistically called an “Encounter”.

A Commission of Inquiry set up by the Supreme Court to probe into the incident tabled the report, where it clearly states that “the accused were deliberately fired upon with the intent to cause their death and with the knowledge that the firing will invariably result in the death of the deceased suspects.” The report further advices that murder charges be brought against the policemen involved in the incident.

Far from bringing closure, the ‘Encounter’ has created a new cycle of violence. Four unemployed youth from marginalised communities, of which three were minors, lost their lives on the suspicion of being the perpetrators of the crime. Four families were destroyed and the family members ostracised in order to satisfy the bloodlust of the public. We will never know whether these were actually the perpetrators or not. We will never be able to get rid of the suspicion that the actual perpetrator has escaped and may repeat the crime against some other young woman.

If murder charges are brought against the police officers, many more families will be affected. None of that was the public wanted when it screamed for instance justice.

There will still be people who say that in a nation where Justice is always delayed and often denied, the public cannot be blamed for demanding instant justice. This is particularly so after horrific crimes against women, where people believe that an equally gruesome punishment will deter others from committing similar crimes in future. That, however, is not the case. Before committing a pre-planned crime, a criminal takes two factors into account- the magnitude of punishment and the probability of being punished. Merely increasing the punishment is not enough; crime will be brought down only is the probability of being punished is made much greater. Today, most crimes are not even registered because victims fear accessing the police system, of the crimes that are reported very few actually make it to the courts; courts delay the hearings and it is often years before the sentence is passed. Given the low probability of being punished, very few are deterred from committing a crime by the legal system.

If the probability of being punished is made higher, crimes will automatically come down. This can be done with better systems- better patrolling and more responsive helplines to bring down the crime; sympathetic policemen, legal aid and counselling to encourage victims to come forward to report the crime; efficient courts and time bound closure of cases to ensure speedy and assured justice. Once these measures are implemented, crimes against women will start going down.

Instead of seeking vengeance after horrific crimes, the public should push for faster and better judicial resolutions. That is the best tribute we can pay to the victims.

Can Rapists Be Allowed To Go Free After Marrying The Survivor?

 [No law in the country recognises enabling the rapist to walk free after marrying the survivor. However, in reality, it is something that families and communities often push for. First published in Women's Web]

In the same week where the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 11 May, saw a split decision on the constitutionality of the marital rape exception, another equally reactionary decision was handed by a divisional bench of the Supreme Court when they set aside the conviction and sentence of a man who had repeatedly raped his 14 year old niece

The facts of the case are simple. The accused, K Dhandapani, enticed his 14 year old niece with the promise of marriage and raped her several times. The family came to know of the offence when the girl became pregnant, and a case was lodged against him under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. After trying his case, in 2018, the Sessions Court found him guilty on all three counts, and convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Madras High Court which upheld the conviction and the sentence in 2019.

The girl gave birth in 2017, before the case came up in court. Despite the pending case against him, he continued to have sexual relations with the girl, and she gave birth to her second child at the age of 17.

K Dhandapani filed an appeal with the Supreme Court stating that he had started a physical relationship with the 14 year old child on promise of marrying her and since he subsequently married her and was taking care of her and their two children, the case should be dismissed.

The counsel appearing for the State in the Supreme Court, argued that since the girl was only 14 years old at the time of the first offence, and since both the children were born before she turned 18, the marriage was not legal, and that it might well have been entered into only for the purpose of escaping punishment. After listening to the testament of the rape survivor where she insisted that she was indeed happily married, Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai ruled that the Court cannot “shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family”, and therefore set aside the conviction and sentence.

This case sets several dangerous precedents

POCSO Act was brought on to protect minors from a broad range of sexual crimes ranging from penetrative sexual assault to sexual harassment. The accused was convicted on three counts of penetrative sexual assault on a minor- (a) for making her pregnant, (b) for committing the act repeatedly, and (c) for committing it despite being a relative by blood- and given the nature of the crimes should be subject to the strongest punishment. Even in the appeal, the accused admitted his guilt, so there was no basis for dismissing the case.

The accused petitioned that he has subsequently married the girl, and so the case should be dismissed. At the time of pregnancy and delivery, the child was below the age of 18, which is the legal age of consent and marriage. Any marriage that may have taken place then is not legal, and therefore cannot be used to dismiss the order.

However, the most dangerous precedent is of the rapist using the offer of marriage to escape being punished for his crime. Once the court starts accepting this excuse, there is fear of it becoming a norm, and of rape survivors being coerced to marry the rapist in order to avoid the stigma of the rape and subsequent pregnancy.

Every rape survivor is subject to immense physical, mental and psychological trauma, but in a patriarchal society like India, rape is stigmatised to such an extent that the survivor is additionally made to feel that she has “lost her honour” by “allowing herself to be raped”. Playing on this fear of bringing dishonour upon herself and her family, the rapist often offers to marry the survivor, thereby reducing the stigma of pregnancy. The survivor is often coerced by the law enforcement agencies, the larger community and her own family into going through with the marriage, in order to reduce the stigma of pregnancy, even though it is in no way the fault of the survivor.

No law in the country recognises enabling the rapist to walk free after marrying the survivor. However, in reality, it is something that families and communities often push for. Once the match is formalised, the survivor drops the case, thereby enabling the accused and even convicted rapist to evade punishment.

While this takes place informally, by putting aside the conviction and punishment, the division bench of the Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent which can be used by rapists in future to evade punishment. This will offer greater impetus to the rapists to put pressure on the survivor and her family to “reclaim her lost honour”, by taking up the offer to marry the rapist. While the rape survivor may escape the stigma that clings to her through no fault of hers, she will be forced into a permanent conjugal relationship with the man who caused her immense trauma.

Many individuals and organisations who work with rape survivors have said that it is inhuman and unacceptable to coerce the rape survivor into marrying the perpetrator. They recognise that such marriages may continue to be physically and mentally abusive, and far from getting justice, the survivor may end up in a situation from which there is no escape for them. They have called for strong legislation that declares such marriages illegal- though the rape survivor is free to marry anyone she chooses, her marriage to the rapist cannot be used by him to seek a reduction in punishment.

What can be done to protect the rights of the rape survivor in such cases?

In the absence of adequate legislation, however, communities will continue to believe that by offering to marry the survivor, the rapist is atoning for his mistake, and the survivor will be coerced to accept the offer.

In the short term, it is imperative to define strict processes to track the marriage for a few years to ensure that the marriage was not entered into only to evade punishment. Women’s organizations should be tasked with speaking to the rape survivor to ascertain that she is entering into the marriage through her own will, and not because she is being forced to do so. More importantly, there need to be follow up meetings to monitor her mental and physical well being.

In the long term, what is needed is to provide sufficient financial and emotional support to the rape survivor to ensure her proper rehabilitation and to enable her to live an independent life. This will reduce her economic and emotional dependence on her family and her community, and will empower her to take decisions which are best for herself.

In parallel, law enforcement personnel should be adequately trained, so they recognise that the best interests of the rape survivor can be met, not by marriage to her rapist, but by ensuring timely justice.

Most importantly, there should be a concentrated awareness campaign to shift the blame from the rape survivor to the rapist. As long as the woman continues to be blamed for something that is not her fault, society will continue to consider marriage as a viable option to evade punishment.

Instead of banning abortions, let's stop unwanted pregnancies

 [First published in Women's Web]

The US Supreme Court, through the landmark Roe v/s Wade judgement, protected the liberty of a pregnant woman to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. With the Supreme Court now voting to strike down the 49 year old decision, the state is once again denying women the right to take decisions which impact their bodies and their lives.

The “Pro Life” faction argues that life is sacred and therefore abortions must be disallowed. Despite all the emotional and physical trauma that a pregnant woman might go through on account of an unwanted pregnancy, they argue that the life of the foetus is more important than any suffering that the woman might go through, and so abortions should not be allowed. However, what they conveniently ignore is the fact that easiest way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and if they were serious about ending abortions, what they should actually do is to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Let’s unpick that. Why do women get pregnant? Women get pregnant when men ejaculate inside them. Sometimes, the ejaculation is consensual, but when the man ejaculates despite the woman not being physically, financially or emotionally ready to become a mother, he causes an unwanted pregnancy. Simply put, the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening is for men to stopped ejaculating inside women without their consent. This can be done in either of two painless ways- the man can either use a condom, or pull out before ejaculation.

If preventing an unwanted pregnancy is as simple and painless as using a condom everytime you have sex, why then do all men not use it, except when they are trying to get pregnant? That is apparently because condoms marginally reduce the pleasure of sex and men do not want to compromise on that. So essentially, when a man has sex without a condom, what he is saying is that for a few extra moments of heightened pleasure he is willing to risk getting his partner pregnant. Clearly the man is either unaware of the physical and emotional discomfort of pregnancy, the expense of child bearing and child rearing and the opportunities his partner will miss out on because of motherhood- or, he just doesn’t care.

Essentially, therefore, by causing an unwanted pregnancy, the man is saying that he chooses a few moments of pleasure over something that will adversely impact the entire trajectory of his partner’s life. Yet, by not focussing on ending unwanted pregnancies, the “Pro Life” lobby enables such men to get away, and instead punishes the woman who is already a victim of the selfishness and irresponsibility of the man.

If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, why can’t she use birth control, the “pro lifers” may ask.

More women would certainly use oral contraceptives if they didn’t have a long list of harmful side effects, ranging from nausea and headaches to weight gain and unnatural pigmentation. For lack of a better alternative, women who lead a regular and active sex life may still consider using oral contraceptives. However, it requires daily use and does not allow any disruptions and therefore is not always fool proof.

More importantly, given the fact that it needs to be taken daily, and has a long list of side effects, oral contraceptives do not make much sense for a woman who does not have a regular sex life. You cannot simply pop a pill the morning before you are intending to have sex, and expect it to work- you should be taking it regularly so it syncs with the natural ovulation cycle. While there are emergency contraceptive pills which can be had after an unexpected ejaculation, the efficacy in preventing an unwanted pregnancy is low. These are best used only as a fall-back option in case of failure of other contraceptives.

Other birth control measures which act as physical barriers to the passage of semen also make sense only if the woman is leading an active sex life. More importantly, since most of them can be used only under the supervision of a medical practitioner, it is extremely hard for an unmarried woman to brave societal judgement and access them.

Condoms, thus, remain, the most foolproof and easiest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If we are serious about stopping abortions, the best way is to promote the use of condoms.

When we know that the use of condoms prevents unwanted pregnancies, why then is its usage not more widespread? The simple reason is that it requires men to take action, but the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are borne entirely by the woman, not by the man, so there is no incentive for him to take precautions.

Unless the couple are in a relationship, the man may not even be aware of the fact that his irresponsible ejaculation caused a pregnancy. While an unwanted pregnancy can wreck havoc in the life of the woman, the man does not face any consequences at all. It is the woman who suffers the physical trauma of pregnancy and an abortion. If she is forced to bear the child to term, she needs to put up with the physical discomfort for nine months, it is her lifestyle that is curtailed and she is the one who needs to , and has to bear with an abortion. , it is her lifestyle that gets curtailed and she who is judged. She bears the pain of childbirth, and once born, she faces either the emotional trauma of putting the child up for adoption or ends up having to build her life around a newborn child. During all this, the man who has contributed 50% of the DNA may not even be aware that the intercourse led to a pregnancy.

Since men seem unwilling to use condoms, is there any other way to prevent irresponsible ejaculations? The simplest way is through mandatory vasectomies as soon as a man attains puberty. Vasectomies are safe, reversible, and have virtually no side effects except soreness for a couple of days. It is certainly much safer than oral contraceptives with a wide range of side effects, and pregnancy with all the attendant physical and mental trauma.

When a man is ready to have a baby with his partner, the vasectomy can be reversed, and redone once the child birthing phase is over. By preventing 100% unwanted pregnancies, this can virtually eliminate abortions. While there will certainly be men who complain about the sheer number of “unnecessary” medical procedures this will entail, isn’t it is much better than unwanted pregnancies and all the attendant physical and medical issues associated with it?

Seeking a ban on abortions is extremely easy because it involves policing women’s bodies and their choices- something society has been doing for generations. What is much harder is finding a foolproof way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is necessary to drive the point home that while women bear the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, it is men who are responsible for the pregnancies and should take accountability to prevent them.

If people genuinely want to prevent abortions, the conversation must shift from restricting what a woman can do, to holding men accountable.

None of the birth control options available to women is fool proof and/ or safe, but both condoms and vasectomies are. Before telling women that they cannot have abortions, lawmakers should focus on men and on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

As the joke goes, if men got pregnant, abortions would be available in ATMs. Once men are held accountable for unwanted pregnancies, new and better birth control will certainly be developed, and the number of abortions will fall drastically. All it needs is for men to be held accountable.

Why Leisure is often an afterthought for women

 A group of parakeets was fluttering around the mango tree groaning with flowers. Our househelp was leaning on the balcony, watching them, enthralled. “Won’t you get late?”, I asked, conscious of the fact that the family where she goes after me had already called her three times.

“I get ‘sukoon’ here”, she replied. “Once I am out of here, the ‘had-bad’ starts again.”

‘Sukoon’. That ephemeral moment of tranquillity which she tried to seize whenever she could. The way she brews a cup of tea exactly the way she likes it, pours it into her cup with pink and maroon roses, and savours every sip. Those times when I would catch her watching the raindrops hit the windowpane while water from the open tap flowed over partially washed dishes.

In a life where she deals with an abusive husband, three rarely employed children, and crippling debt, she snatches ‘sukoon’ whenever she can.

I was reminded of her when I read an article on the “Women at Leisure” project on Instagram.

Leisure is any activity that provides happiness or pleasure in itself, and not because it leads to creating value. For women in India, leisure is almost always an afterthought, not something you consciously make time for.

One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the burden of housework, caregiving and child rearing is on the women, which leaves them very little time for relaxation. This ‘time-poverty’ of women has been quantified in many studies- in a week, men, on an average have eight hours more than women for sleep, leisure and recreation. More importantly, the nature of responsibilities shouldered by women is so unpredictable that, unlike men, they cannot count on routinised free time.

For example, men can and do watch cricket matches or movies on TV without interruption. However, even when a woman settles down to watch her favourite serial, she is also keeping an eye on the children, and multitasking by doing something useful like shelling peas or cutting vegetables.

Sociologically too, leisure for the sake of relaxation is almost frowned upon for women. Most of the activities that women categorise as leisure are almost always secondary activities combined with something useful. In traditional communities, women indulge in group activities where they gossip, exchange stories, sing songs and enjoy company while doing something useful. Many of our mothers and grandmothers have fond memories of sitting in the winter sun with their friends after lunch, knitting. While it certainly gave them pleasure, knitting at the end of the day is a productive activity, and cannot strictly be categorised as leisure.

Women have got used to snatching moments of leisure whenever they can. They, for instance, watch birds, hum to themselves or chat with a friend while washing clothes or hanging out the laundry. However they cannot depend on these moments of fragmented leisure- some other responsibility may call out to them and they will be forced to abandon the moments of relaxation. Since women are expected to be on call all the time, it leaves them little time to develop any interests that require a regular investment of time.

The movement of women is also more tightly controlled and their freedom is restricted, which leads to them snatching a few moments of relaxation on the rare occasions when they can go out. If you go any school (or school bus stop) around the time when school gets over, you will find groups of mothers engaged in animated conversation. Picking children up is less of a chore when you know it will give you a few minutes of mental relaxation. That is also the reason why women do not mind making multiple trips to the tailor to pick up clothes, or spend a long time on shopping- it is a chance to get out of the house, and not have to worry about their other responsibilities.

Women, in general, also lack the money to indulge in leisure. While men spend a not insignificant share of their income on sex, drink, food and other recreation, if women are able to save any money, they are more likely to spend it their children’s education or on treats for the entire family. Any recreation the woman indulges in is likely to be a family affair, where one part of her is consciously or subconsciously looking after the children or the elderly.

In a society where women are denied the time and space for leisure, even dressing up and going to work is sometimes deemed leisure. For those few hours, they escape their invisible prison, and indulge in some me-time. Even something as simple as going out with friends to have an ice-cream during the lunch break without feeling guilty about it is a huge freedom for many women.

Festivals are considered a major source of leisure in India- which of us has not written essays in schools extolling the virtues of festivals which provide a break from the monotony of daily life. However, festivals are certainly not a time of relaxation for the women. The build up to the festivals always involves a lot of cooking, cleaning and decorating, all of which is done by the women. While the men meet and greet, the women are stuck cooking the elaborate meals demanded by tradition. Behind the picture-perfect version of themselves that women present in their festive wear, are extremely tired individuals who want nothing more than to put their feet up and rest.

The Lockdown and subsequent WFH ate into most of the leisure time women had carved for themselves. After finishing their daily chores, women in nuclear families had a few minutes where they could put up their feet and do something absolutely unproductive till they started preparing for the children to come back home. Supervising online classes and having to make numerous cups of tea and coffee put an end to that. They also had to compete with the men for the TV remote. While men used the time productively to pick up hobbies or indulge in old passions, women lost out.

Maybe a day will come when women in India will claim the time for leisure as their right. But till them, they will continue to snatch fragmented moments of “sukoon”, because at the end of the day, it is those moments that make life bearable and meaningful.

‘Keeping Our Daughters Safe Has Become A Herculean Task; It Wasn’t This Bad When We Were Younger!’

 [The focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman — the perpetrators and the infrastructure that are the problem. First published in Women’s Web]

“Keeping our daughters safe has become a herculean task. It was not this bad when we were younger.”

This is a statement we hear often- on social media (I have quoted directly from someone who said it on Twitter), on television, and even when people get together and chat at a party or in the office cafeteria.

The statement is wrong on several counts. Let’s break it up-

“Keeping our daughters safe…”

The moment we utter these words, we are focussing on the ‘victim’ of sexual harassment/ abuse. And as long as we continue doing that, we will not find a solution to the problem.

Shouldn’t we move beyond “keeping our daughters safe”, now?

The focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman. There can be no solution till we acknowledge the perpetrators, and focus on reforming them so it is safer for women.

This may seem like nit picking but it is not.

If we focus on the victim, we are looking at enabling conditions to keep them safe. That would include telling them what to do, how to dress, where not to go, and when to return home.

But restricting the freedom of women is not the solution.

The world needs to be made safer for women. And to do that, the focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman.

We need to create conditions that make it difficult for the perpetrators through awareness, better vigilance, and a more accessible legal system. Till we acknowledge the perpetrators and work on the causes, there can be no long-term solution.

“.. our daughters…”

This is the obvious one.

Do only ‘our’ daughters, ‘our’ sisters, ‘our’ wives, ‘our’ mothers, ‘our’ friends deserve to be safe? Shouldn’t we be concerned about the safety of every woman? Why should there be an ownership or relationship with victims?

This feeling of ‘ownership’ itself is a contributing cause for the lack of safety for women. Since men feel compelled to guard the chastity of ‘their’ women, others have sought to assert their superiority by establishing their dominance over the women.

When we stop looking at women in terms of their relationship, and recognise them as individuals who make up roughly half the population, we will move beyond keeping individuals safe and towards making society safer.

“… herculean task”

Yes, ‘keeping’ women safe is a herculean task- it is attempted by policing women, by curtailing their freedom, by telling her what and how she should do.

But do you remember how Hercules cleaned the Augean Stables?

Hercules didn’t use brooms and shovels to remove the muck. He diverted a river to flow through the stables so all the muck was flushed away. The same solution can be applied here.

Instead of “keeping” women safe, if we focus on creating a safer environment, it would be far more effective.

“It was not this bad when we were younger”

Both statistics and anecdotal data may give the impression that women were safer earlier, but were they really?

Have crimes against women really gone up, or are they being reported more because of greater awareness?

Statistics show that states like Goa and Kerala have a higher incidence of reported crimes against women. What is more likely is that these states have better systems for women to come forward to report a crime, in which case, the growth in reported crimes is welcome.

There is also greater awareness among women about what constitutes sexual harassment/ abuse. Till the #MeToo movement gained momentum a few years back, women ignored a lot of inappropriate behaviour because we lacked the vocabulary to articulate the harassment.

Also, women are going out of the house more, which increases the probability of them being sexually harassed/ abused in public. This gives the impression that women are more unsafe today than earlier.

However, this is not the case.

Women (and children) have always been vulnerable to harassment and abuse. However, when the perpetrators are family or close friends, there is a greater chance of the crimes being ignored.

It is only when the perpetrator is a stranger that families recognise that women are unsafe.

Instead of worrying about “keeping our daughters” safe, we should work on creating a safer environment for women.

This can be done by- generating awareness on appropriate behaviour, incentivising calling out harassment and creating an environment for reporting crime. It cannot be done by locking up “our daughters” and mourning about how the world has become unsafe.

When will the so called 'honour killings' end?

[In a patriarchal society, the purity of caste, class and religion is rigidly maintained by controlling the sexual agency of women. First published in Women's Web.]

Trigger Warning: descriptions of extreme violence

Nagaraju and Syeda Ashrin Sulthana, a newly married couple were traveling on their two wheeler in a Hyderabad suburb when they were forced to pull up. In front of Ashrin’s eyes, the assailants attacked her husband with steel rods. She tried to shield him with her body, but she was pushed aside. She screamed and begged bystanders to intervene, but nobody came to her rescue. The assailants stopped only after Nagaraju was dead.

A dazed Ashrin later named her brother as one of the people who murdered her husband. It was what is called an “honour killing”.

Though we often hear of “honour killings” in India, this gruesome murder sent shockwaves because of the audacity with which it was conducted on the busy streets of a city, in full view of the public. It also shone the spotlight on how dangerous it can be for a couple to marry outside their prescribed faith and/ or community.

The crime can be looked at in multiple ways

Their’s was an interfaith union- Ashrin Sulthana was Muslim, while B. Nagaraju was Hindu. It was also an intercaste union- though Islam doesn’t have a formal caste system, Ashrin was a Syed which is considered one of the ‘highest’ communities, and B. Nagaraju was a Dalit.

In a statement made to the press, Ashrin stated that Nagaraju was willing to convert to Islam to marry her, but her family made it clear that they would not permit them to get married even after conversion. To her family, according to Ashrin, Nagaraju was an unsuitable suitor because he was from a lower caste. This is borne out by some of Nagaraju’s relatives who say that he was willing to convert so he could marry Ashrin, but her family was still not willing to accept the union. Even after the wedding, Ashrin feared for Nagaraju’s life, and her worst fears came true when her family killed him in an extremely gruesome manner.

Women ‘owned by their families and community’?

Regardless of whether Ashrin’s family killed Nagaraju because he belonged to a different religion or because he belonged to a different caste, the root cause of the crime is patriarchy.

It is the belief that the woman is the ‘property’ of the family and the community, and that she somehow brought shame upon them by marrying someone they deem unsuitable. For the family, the only way to restore their “honour” is by eliminating the man who dared make “their” woman fall in love with him.

Honour killings are not unknown in India, nor is it restricted to any one community. Whenever a couple ignores the barriers of caste, class or community and falls in love, they find themselves pitted against the might of their community.

“in every house is a life bomb that can erupt at any time. Do you know who that is? Daughters are the honour of the family and the community, and to protect them is our … duty and … culture.”

This statement was made by a VHP leader as quoted in Kavita Krishnan’s book Fearless Freedom, but it could well have been uttered by Ashrin’s brother, or by the families of the countless other women who fall in love with a man outside their community, and are willing to defy their family to marry him.

In a patriarchal society, the purity of caste, class and religion is rigidly maintained by controlling the sexual agency of women. When a woman chooses to fall in love with someone outside her tightly controlled community, she threatens the established order of things. Her family perceives that their “honour” is challenged when a man who is deemed unsuitable because of birth based limitations succeeds in winning her affection.

Everything is tried to break up a couple like this, including violence

When the family finds out about such a relationship, they exert tremendous emotional and physical pressure on the woman to give up the man she has fallen in love with, and marry someone who they deem suitable. Most women give in to this intimidation or are tortured into submission. It takes extraordinary courage for the women to defy the community and marry the man they love.

Even after the couple has got married, the family feels compelled to restore their lost prestige by breaking up the couple. The family attempts to intimidates the couple through emotional blackmail, or by threatening violence. Often, the family of the woman even file false cases of rape and abduction against the man to coerce him into walking away from the relationship. For instance, while analysing all the cases of sexual assault that came up in the sessions courts in Delhi in 2013, it was found that 40% of cases involved parents filing cases of kidnap and rape against young men who their daughters had eloped with- most of whom were inter- caste or interfaith couples who chose to defy parental opposition to the relationship. The family resorts to honour killings when such intimidation fails.

Nothing can get back the dead – what justice?

Ashrin’s brother and his associates have been arrested for the gruesome murder of Nagaraju, and the police has promised to fast track the case. In this case, since the politicians and civil society have condemned the crime and demanded justice, and the entire crime was caught on video, it is likely that justice will be served. In other cases, however, the perpetrators often get away because with her husband gone, the woman succumbs to grief and emotional pressure and doesn’t push hard enough for conviction.

While Ashrin may get justice, that will not bring Nagaraju back to life. Ashrin will not only live with the guilt that it was her love that got her husband killed, she will have to face a family that will continue to blame her for “bringing dishonour upon them” and indirectly causing the imprisonment of her brother.

It is not enough to merely respond to an honour killing after it has taken place. We need to create and maintain networks that support people who are in inter caste and interfaith relationships. This should include proactively ensuring the safety of such couples, but enabling them to file a formal complaint against families that threaten their safety. If required counselling support should also be provided to the families of such couples to help them accept the relationships.

Most importantly, those of us who believe in the right of young women and men to love without fear should stand up against patriarchy, and against a system that seeks to maintain caste and religious purity by breaking up such unions. Till the larger society starts to accept the agency of women to love who they want, such tragedies will continue to occur.