Very twisted stuff here. I wonder how widespread this very messed up rural desi practice is?

lots of "retro" brown practices have their cognates in other cultures (ie; marrying the rapist as a "solution" has been an issue in latinate and latin american cultures as well). in the ancient babylonian legal code to avenge a rape against your wife you could rape the wife or sister of the assailant as "punishment." sorry, but not all cultural imperialism is bad.

that said, i would argue that social arrangments common to lots of post-neolithic civilizations are repulsive precisely because they might conflict with other vectors of "justice" that are more common to our hunter-gatherer past. the relatively liberal sexual equalitarianism of the modern world (the world of cultural norms that derivese from the 18th century enlightenment in western europe) is in some ways, i think, a return to pre-neolithic customs and an abolishment of generic responses to the rise of dense stratified societies....

Yeah, it is pretty messed up. Yet the fact is that the Hindu victim (if she files a complaint to the police) will ensure that the rapist goes to jail, and that the marriage is annulled. No "Hindu" or "village" law (note: not that anyone has quoted from any Hindu text here, unlike in the Imrana case where the Sharia was cited) can be invoked. And justice, in keeping with the modern ideal of justice, will be done. Therein lies the difference. The equivalance between the two cases is superficial at best, and there's no doubt that the UCC is a progresive step, despite stray cases - both of Imrana and whoever this Hindu girl is - of these sorts.

For years, Tamil movies have portrayed such disgusting "solutions" being provided for rape, though the situations portrayed were mostly similar to date-rape.

I think the deeper issue has to do with social stigma and the very eastern fear of "loss of face". For most Indian women, rape means a reduced chance of being able to get married or lead a normal life (the two are connected). Marriage to the rapist puts a respectable face on things.

The worst part is that it then becomes easy for everyone to believe that it was just a lustful transgression and not a horrible crime.

Thanks Sibyl for pointing out the Tamizh movie solution. Middle period (1000 BCE to 500 CE) Tamizh custom differed considerably from that of other cultures in the Indian subcontinent. "Karpu" or chastity (if loosely translated) was reportedly a hot button in Tamizh literature. The South in those times is said to have prided itself on its superior sexual mores. In modern times EV Ramaswami Naicker the famous iconoclast and activist for the rights of the intermediate castes (as Ambedkar and Gandhi were for the Dalits) condemned the idea of Karpu and chastity. His views on the status of women are still radical. He advocated that women and men shd enter into any relationship as equals with neither having the right to dominate the other. He devised a humanist marriage ritual - the now famous "Self Respect Marriage". Marriage above all he saw as a civil contract. Religious implications (as he was a radical and militant atheist) were to kept out of the ambit of the law. Unfortunately the claimants to his legacy the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (or Dravidian Progressive Party) Annadurai, MGR and Karunanidhi for reasons best known to them decided to revive the old chestnut of "Karpu" in literature and the arts and have had no compunctions about projecting servility of the woman as the ideal. As a rule in Tamizh movies the rapist is forced to marry his victim and is expected to "give her a life" or "vazhvu kodukka vendum". Rajinikant's 1993 movie "VaLLi" made a bold departure from the custom and had his protagonist reject her rapist. Unfortunately the movie did not too well. But again it would be a mistake to generalise on the basis of anecdotal evidence. At least in Tamizh Nadu AFAIK challenging male dominated norms is an ongoing practice and happens in many ways small and big. Every now and then one can see incredibly plucky people - men and women - on Visu's popular talk shows on Sun TV. Watch one with an interpreter if you don't know Tamizh.

Messedup:

As I understand it, in the Imrana case Islamic law was invoked to say that she had to stay away from her husband to "purify" her, but there was no scriptural backing for the order to marry her rapist. Indeed, I thought the scripture pointed the other way, to putting her rapist to death.

In that case, the most heinous part of both of these cases has nothing to do with Islamic law or the UCC. Instead, it is coming from the panchayat system.

Razib: I find it interesting that many practices we associate with Islam are actually pre-Islamic practices that were widespread amongst Christians as well. These include FGM and the Veil. I can get you the cite for this if you like, but Ethiopian Christians resisted joining Rome b/c they didn't want to give up FGM, it was a status marker between high class and low class males.

The classic white supremacist literary work (or movie) of the 1920s Clansman (which was reprised by an excellent author as The Klansman in the late 50s) has the white woman who has been violated by a "brute" jump to her death to "purify" herself - not very different from the case of Imrana. What happened with K. Balachander's Maro Charitra - Ek Duje Ke Liye? An otherwise progressive director who had made a movie like "Arangetram" (where a Brahmin LMC girl demeans herself to support her family but finally finds a progressive man who marries her) had the heroine and hero jump to their deaths after the former ad been raped.

Even agreeing that there is a patriarchal thread running thru violence against women in all cultures and traditions - the ones that have provided cast iron legal safeguards have turned the tide. Maybe we shd keep religion entirely out of the discussion of we must make any progress at all.

Saw this movie as a kid and was horrified that Juhi chawla and Anil Kapoor agreed to act in it... the premise - a girl pursues her rapist to reform him and marry him...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101432/

Ennis wrote:
most of the discussion on this topic has blamed Islamic law and the lack of a uniform civil code in India for this horrifying outcome

You should not be so hard on your commetors. Only KXB, Aten, Soc and messedup (above) thought the Imrana case had anything to do with a Uniform Civil Code. Most of your sepia commentors are intelligent enough to know what the various religion-specific laws of India relate to (i.e. they have nothing to do with criminal matters).

Ugh, I can't believe that the movie that manuvaram mentioned was made in 1991. That's Bollywood for you, I guess.

All the apologists for the Muslim Personal Law seem to forget something – India is a multi-religious country. In such a country, which law is to apply when a Muslim marries a Hindu or another non-Muslim? If a Hindu woman marries a Muslim man, but the marriage does not work out, how is divorce to be handled? Even is she converted to Islam, couldn’t she say she renounces her faith, and wished to be considered under India’s civil code? Who is deciding such matters? Is a Muslim woman marries a Hindu (or other non-Muslim) man, and then it does not work out, could the Hindu husband use Muslim personal law to his advantage.

Second, if Islam is to be allowed a special status under Indian law, could not the same be said for other religious communities? Shouldn’t Catholics, Sikhs, and animists be allowed a separate code, each with their own body of unaccountable elders deciding which aspect of their religion to apply to a civil or criminal matter?

Third, no Muslim-majority nation has its own version of a Personal Law. Perhaps Saudi Arabia, but I am not sure India wants to use that backward, tribal society as a model. Pakistani divorce law does not allow for “talaq, talaq, talaq”, yet it is permitted in India.

Fourth, since the negative aspects of Muslim Personal Law fall overwhelmingly on women, why are not the usual suspects of the left up in arms? Advancing the cause of women has been one of the hallmarks of the left, and in a patriarchic society like India, they quite rightly make a big fuss whenever Indian women are treated unfairly. But in this case, Muslim women are considered to be Muslim first, and Indian second. Indeed, it seems to make the legal protection of Indian women dependent on the religion of her husband or father – that’s not really progressive, is it?

Fifth, the existence of any law does not prevent crime – they are there to punish crime. A law against murder or rape does not prevent those crimes; the laws are there to punish the perpetrators. So if a Hindu male rapes a woman, it is absurd to argue, “See, Hindus are just as bad as Muslims, so it’s okay for Muslims to have a separate set of laws.” It makes more sense to say, “Rapists, of any faith, need to be punished.” The victim should not expect less protection because of her religion.

KXB wrote:
India is a multi-religious country. In such a country, which law is to apply when a Muslim marries a Hindu or another non-Muslim? If a Hindu woman marries a Muslim man, but the marriage does not work out, how is divorce to be handled? ...

Amazing. The MPL has been around 70 years, yet no one has thought of this perceptive question! You should write to the President of India. The Bharat Ratna awaits!!

Ok. Sarcasm off. You can read the Shariat Application Act (1937) here. To be subject to it, the persons must declare they are Muslims, do not live in Kerala, Jammu&Kashmir or Goa, and other conditions.

So, in essence, the Muslim Personal Law is voluntary. You must declare, to a court, that you are Muslim to have it apply (and the other party in the suit must do the same).

Second, if Islam is to be allowed a special status under Indian law, could not the same be said for other religious communities? Shouldn’t Catholics, Sikhs, and animists be allowed a separate code ...

Yes. India has The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, the Indian Christian marriage act, the Hindu marriage act, the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act and special acts for intercommunal marriages.

Beyond that, 'customary law' applies to many communities. For example, Keralan Muslims are not subject to the Shariat application act, they are instead governed by the "marrumakathayam" system. In J&K, 'customary law', not sharia applies. In Goa, all citizens are governed by portuguese family law. Tribals, Gujurati Bhoras, and many other all have thier own personal law systems.

Third, no Muslim-majority nation has its own version of a Personal Law. ... Pakistani divorce law does not allow for “talaq, talaq, talaq”, yet it is permitted in India

Muslims are governed by Muslim law (or Anglo-Muhammadan law), reformed from time to time, in Pakistan (I won't speak to all muslim countries). In the 50s and 60s, the divorce laws became more woman friendly. Since Zia, they've gone backwards. The main difference isn't progressivity, its the frequency of reform. The Indian state has reformed the majority Hindu community's laws, but left the minority community with ancient rules. More info >here.

Fourth, since the negative aspects of Muslim Personal Law fall overwhelmingly on women, why are not the usual suspects of the left up in arms?

They are. Consider the All India Womens Muslim Personal Law Board, founded to fight the patriarchal view of the All India Muslim Personal Law board (there is also a Shia and a Barelvi Sunni board). If you are interested, I can tell you more about ways in which you can help, KXB.

Fifth, the existence of any law does not prevent crime – they are there to punish crime. ... The victim should not expect less protection because of her religion.

Well. At least you said on sensible thing in your comment. Good work.

KXB -- I'd love to have an intelligent discussion of sectarian personal law. I don't see an alternative to it in today's communally divided India, but there may be ways to improve the system. But I'd prefer that, before you begin to debate the issue, you do a modicum of research, and minimally inform yourself on the facts.

What is the etmyology of "panchayat"?

'Panchayat' is from 'panch' - five elders, AFAIK. Like Punjab, five rivers.

Here's Rushdie on Imrana and Mukhtar Mai.

Bah, I was merely trying to insinuate that this and female infanticide are because of the countless invasions of India by Muslims, old Islamic law and customs seeped into Hindu culture.

I retract the above point because resentment will get us nowhere and no culture is pure anyway so every one must take the blame.