June 20, 2007
Another, More Tragic NamesakeNews
…women are more likely to be killed at home by their spouse, ex-boyfriend, or some other intimate… [link]
That statistic was made in reference to this country, but I think I’ll be forgiven for wondering if it is applicable everywhere. SM reader 3rd Eye submitted a story to our News tab; it does not have a happy ending. It involves a couple named Shah Jahan and Mumtaz, though this Mumtaz wasn’t anywhere near as adored as her namesake.
Shah Jahan Ali, in his late forties, has been arrested on the charge of murdering his wife after he found her drinking with two young men at home late last night.
Neighbours at Dinhata’s Village I, who often joked about the couple’s names, said Shah Jahan suspected the comely, 30-year-old Mumtaz of cheating on him.
The murdered woman had one thing in common, though, with the Mughal queen remembered with the world’s most famous monument to love. Neither was born Mumtaz, both being given that name by their doting husbands. [link]
The victim, a divorcee, was born “Khaimala Roy”. She received her new name after converting to Islam, to marry Shah Jahan, her second husband. He sounds like a real catch:
The already married man would spent some five days a week with Mumtaz at Village I and the remaining two days with his first wife in Navina.
“I knew Mumtaz was a woman of loose morals. Still, I fell in love with her. I had told her there will be no affairs, but she didn’t listen,” Shah Jahan is believed to have told the police.
Yesterday, the youths had fled at the sight of him and the couple had then quarrelled through the night. The police said that in the early hours, Shah Jahan slit Mumtaz’s throat. [link]
Then, he went to his first wife’s home, where he was caught after Mumtaz’s family reported the heinous crime.
Shah Jahan punched a sub-inspector and tried to flee. After the police caught him, the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him. [link]
Can I get a hearty “WTF” for that last, bolded bit? I know, I know…a woman’s life is worth so little, especially when she smells like dishonor.
In case you didn’t know about the original Mumtaz:
Empress Mumtaz, whose real name was Arjumand Banu, too, was Shah Jahan’s second wife and the favourite among the nine he ultimately married. They lived in wedded bliss for 19 years before the 38-year-old Mumtaz, while delivering her 14th child, died in 1631. [link]
::
Off Topic (and yet not, considering this suddenly bookish thread): I liked Mumtaz until I read The Feast of Roses. Then I found her annoying. Nur Jahan, all the way.
anna on June 20, 2007 12:25 PM in News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Sad story.
But I LOVED the book "Feast of Roses" and the prequel- I wasn't consciously trying to exoticfy anyone- the book did that pretty well though.
I'm partial to Anarkali myself.
>> Another, More Tragic Namesake
Sounds like a crime of passion to me, husband comes home, finds wife in a 'compromising' situation with other men, completely looses it, kills her. Pretty common story, both in the west and the east, dont you think ?
You're so right. I can and should be more blase about femicide, because it's so ubiquitous.
well...maybe not blaze. but...this isnt a unique cultural thing. i mean, dishonor etc, makes it sound like a very muslim thing. but...a jealous husband isnt a new story endemic to this situation.
Emperor Shah Jahan spent his last days in jail as well after being ousted by his sons. Some googling here:
She was drinking with two young men? Whose word do we have for that, just his? It sounds pretty far-fetched, the sort of thing an angry husband would say because he was suspicious.
Lots of loud WTFs here, especially because the schmuck had a second wife and then flew into a rage because his wife was possibly maybe chatting to another man. Sheesh.
To add insult to injury, I suppose the Bajrang Dal will be all over this case and point to the tragic Mumtaz as an example of What Happens to Girls who Convert and Marry Muslims.
No, only in India.
Does anyone remember the Tom Jones song 'Delilah'? (no I'm not that old, but my father had the record).
Not that his actions are anything but deplorable, but why make up such a tame lie? If he were to make something up it would be much bigger than just drinking with two men, I would think.
crime of passion? please. quite frankly, that defense is pretty hard to prove. plus, i don't know what's 'compromising' about drinking with other men. though, culturally, it could be seen as suspicious, it's not compromising per se.
Shah Jahan punched a sub-inspector and tried to flee. After the police caught him, the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him.
What's up with this bit? They wanted to give Shah Jahan some village-style justice first?
>> You're so right. I can and should be more blase about femicide, because it's so ubiquitous.
If I reacted in a horrified terrified fashion to every murder that took place in the world, I would not be able to live with any sanity at all :-)
But then, the point I was trying to make is, that use of hot-button words and phrases like 'honor-dishonor' and 'a woman’s life is worth so little' in the context of this story is a little bit racist, perhaps in a subconscious and subliminal manner.
Consider this, if this tragic story that appeared in telegraph india, appeared instead in LA times and was about a crime of passion in a predominantly white, Los Angeles suburb, would it be expected that such hot-button words and phrases be used to describe that murder ?
Probably not.. So whats happened here is that there is a larger world view about India, Indians, Indian muslims, muslims, third world countries, women, men etc. that the blogger has used to comment on a story thats rather sparse on facts and details, that itself is perhaps colored by the perspective of the original reporter.
The post is interesting to me only in how it illustrates the 'world views' or the perspectives of the people who commented on the original crime, as nothing much, that matters is known about the crime in any case. The entire commentary is sparse on facts, but pretty big on opinion.
If so, then whats the point in talking about the original crime anyway ? Lets talk about the opinion, how it has crystallized, and perhaps use the real incident as a kind of reality check..
Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?
Sudeep, the story did not appear in a US newspaper. And it was probably reported in the Indian press mainly because of the couple's historically evocative names, and also probably because it confirms some stereotypes about Muslims (notice any pattern in what 3rd Eye posts?) I think you're imagining a western maligning conspiracy where it frankly isn't an issue.
only if he stays away from tequila body shots
Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?
Sure. Those other women have nothing on me! :)
maybe you should add 'bloody marys' to that list too. Point is, while this guy was completely in the wrong, let's not "angelize" her actions either.
HMF:
I gotta take exception to your remark. If , in a marriage, you cannot trust your partner with members of the opposite sex then what is next ? Don't eat with them? Don't work with them?Don't talk to them?
The days are long gone when "drinking" was considered immoral activity .
I tend to agree with Sudeep # 13 - there is nothing particularly subcontinental about the story except its setting.Human nature is the same the world over - love, lust, passion, jealousy - there is nothing uniquely cultural about this.
no, we shouldn't, and i'm not sure whether having drinks is all she was doing (perhaps it would be more of a dishonour to him to reveal what else, if anything, was going on?). but if that was it, or even if there was more, there's a big difference between being comfortable with it, or even outraged, and killing for it.
I'm with Runa. Trust is the ultimate thing in a marriage, and if you can't trust your spouse to go out and have a few drinks with others, then what's really the point of the whole exercise?
As for "angelizing" the woman's actions, I don't see that there's any reason to demonize her actions either. For all we know, her drinking with friends was completely innocent, and I don't see the sense in blaming the woman for her husband's irrational behavior.
True, but the names of the murderer and his victim have some brown significance, which is why I posted this story. Each blogger posts what we are moved by...for me, the juxtaposition of "Mughal" Mumtaz, so beloved and murdered Mumtaz...both named by their husbands, one killed by hers, well, I couldn't leave it alone. And while our community may not have a monopoly on DV, femicide or honor killings, I don't think there's anything wrong in creating a space to talk about them, if some of us are so inclined.
We don't know what she was or wasn't guilty of, but I'm fairly sure it didn't merit getting her throat slit, so how 'bout we not engage in unnecessary conjecture about her character?
It's not a slippery slope. Remember the pulp fiction debate? having an alcoholic beverage at her house, isn't the same thing as sticking their finger in the holiest of holes, but it's in the same ballpark.
It's not the 'drinking', it's the drinking at home that sends a clear message. Any sensible person knows I'm right, what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex? I think it's pretty clear, given all the little quippy answers given thus far.
Anna,
Don't get me wrong - I was definitely not criticizing your post.Just pointing out - before the inevitable misogyny in the des stuff begins - that some basic human emotions are the same the world over.
Of course the fact that the woman was named Mumtaz , teh fact that she changed religions for the man who murdered her make ot all very poignant.
I am a big fan of your posts and the fact that you have the courage to share your emotions through writing
I'm not, I'm seeing it for what it is.
SM playbook:
Rule 17-3: Assume any criticism of the female is a statement of justification male's action.
and i do agree with hema and runa - in a relationship - you cannot be watching over your partner at every moment - you have to trust that they love or respect you enough to be faithful. if my partner is unfaithful, i have to re-evaluate our relationship and whether i want to be with him, not his very existence.
what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex?
There are too many missing variables in your scenario, HMF...and in the scenario described in the Shah Jahan-Mumtaz story. You cannot generalize that having drinks in your home with a member of the opposite sex is automatically suspicious.
Rule 17-3: Assume any criticism of the female is a statement of justification male's action.
Dude, you did say we shouldn't angelize her actions. So while you may not be justifying the male's action, you seem to believe there was some sort of mitigating factor. That's where we part ways.
HMF,
My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.
The very fact that he is sharing a drink in my home makes it very obvious that there is nothing to hide. A drink is a drink is a drink and not necessarily a prelude to grande amour.
A sensible reaction is definitely not equating drinking to infidelity. And in any case, I do not think infidelity is justification for murder either.
I definitely agree with trusting one's spouse and not assuming every drink is one step to infidelity, but we all take sensible precautions, don't we? We meet friends of the opposite sex in a group and/or during the daytime rather than alone and with large amounts of alcohol or in a romantic setting. When people in couples travel a lot, though, drinking with friends of the opposite sex does happen more often, and the important thing is that my SO knows I had a drink with x friend, and I know he had a drink with x colleague, and everyone is open about the fact that they have spouses or SOs.
Having said that, the one time I walked over to a friendly neighbour's place in the evening to return a book and he was having a drink with a good female friend who was also a friend of his wife's, a month later we learned they were having an affair. Entertaining friends of the opp sex alone in one's home = not a good idea at the best of times.
appeared instead in LA times and was about a crime of passion in a predominantly white, Los Angeles suburb, would it be expected that such hot-button words and phrases be used to describe that murder ?
there are two points here. the easy & simple one is that in LA the community would not try to free the man. one can explain & understand behavior without accepting that it is proper and justified. so yes, men are men the world around. the key difference is how the community reacts to these tragedies, accept it as the nature of things or signal moral sanction through criminal prosecution. today in the USA the latter would be the case, though not always. societies and mores change (and in cases of flagrante delicto it hasn't changed that much).
but the second point here is that cultural mores differ. there is a wide variation across cultures in paternity confidence and assignment. how do we explain cultures, such as in working class white london, or parts africa, where 10-30% of the children might not be the biological offspring of their socially accepted father? cultures differ. in societies where female dalliance is socially accepted there tends to be a lot more female independence and less proportional male investment in this theoretical offspring. in the west the decline in this sort of rage about infidelity on the part of the woman has generally tracked economic independence and the loss of power of male clan lineages as powers within the social structure.
And in any case, I do not think infidelity is justification for murder either.
I agree. But I think that under the Indian Penal Code, infidelity would count as provocation sufficient to reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide. So maybe infidelity is sufficient legal justification, but would be pretty hard to prove in most circumstances.
Someone who actually knows something about criminal law in India, please correct me.
>>If , in a marriage, you cannot trust your partner with members of the opposite sex then what is next
It is a statistically proven fact that it takes an average of 3.21 seconds for a wife to materialise next to her husband when she spots another woman striking up a conversation with him in a party/get-together.
M. Nam
It almost certainly is if that drink is Zima
Oh, no worries. :) I didn't feel like you were criticizing the post at all. I think I was just trying to pre-empt the inevitable, "Whyyyy did you post this??" ;)
ANNA, thanks for this.
My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.
Even in the dusty backyards and fields in Dihata Village, in rural India. Are we being realistic and grounded in reality here? No doubt, in villages in India, people drink moonshine all the time, but drinking together with guys (while husband away) has a implied social connotation.
There is no justification for murder, absolutely.
However,
This is not a case from Manhattan, NYC or 6th Street, Austin, TX, or an upscale bar or condo from San Felipe, Houston, TX. It is from heartland of rural India - Understanding the basic social milieu is the key while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana.....I can see similar things happening in poor neighborhoods in Houston too or for that matter rich ones too.
but drinking together with guys (while husband away) has a implied social connotation.
I concede that, but if the woman in question really is about to do something nefarious, why would she do it in their home, when the husband could return any moment and catch her in the act? It just doesn't add up, and I refuse to believe that rural women are too unsophisticated to know how to go behind their husband's back.
man, that brings back memories. i was in high school when it first came on the market (boku was the light alcoholic beverage of the choice at that time). and an uncle at a party told me that it was OK for me to drink it because of the low alcohol content. i think uncle overestimated my tolerance.
cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are "Swanky" places...ahh...the "Swanky" industrial midwest.
This is not a case from Manhattan, NYC or 6th Street, Austin, TX, or an upscale bar or condo from San Felipe, Houston, TX. It is from heartland of rural India - Understanding the basic social milieu is the key while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana.....I can see similar things happening in poor neighborhoods in Houston too or for that matter rich ones too.
just a minor note, i think there is a strong tendency cross-culturally for female infidelity rates to be inversely proportion with male income/status. that is, the wives of poor men cheat a lot more than the wives of rich men (often with men of higher SES than their own husbands, this was the pattern in lower class london families). so there might be a reason for poor men to fly into rage more often.
Kush,
My comment was in response to HMF 's question. I am not speaking on behalf of Dihata ,its denizens or any one else.
See this is exactly what I wanted to avoid !
cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are "Swanky" places...ahh...the "Swanky" industrial midwest.
So you're saying it's not possible to have a swanky office in Ohio, Wisconsin or Indiana?
Tsk, tsk...anti-Midwest bias rears its ugly head once again at SM. It's almost like we can't go a whole week without someone trashing the Illinois and Michigans of the world.
razib, not sure if I buy the inverse infidelity proposition.
Again, with the midwest hateration! :)You have got to be kidding me. I want to kick that guys ass first and then line up the villagers one after another and repeat the process.
>> there are two points here. the easy & simple one is that in LA the community would not try to free the man. one can explain & understand behavior without accepting that it is proper and justified. so yes, men are men the world around. the key difference is how the community reacts to these tragedies, accept it as the nature of things or signal moral sanction through criminal prosecution.
I dont know about that.. I remember watching atleast one COPS where the cops go into arrest someone from an african neighborhood and they are pelted with bottles/stones etc. The 'community' in that case making it pretty clear that the cops were'nt welcome. The only difference in this situation and the one in India would be that Indian crowds are a lot more aggressive when it comes to mob action against cops, and that Indian cops are not well equipped to deal with mob control problems. In this situation, it would be very possible for the crowd to take extremely violent action against the cops, things like a cop getting his arms chopped off with a sword, or getting burnt alive, or getting castrated would not surprise me at all.
So what happened probably has less to do with accepting that particular mans actions as proper and justified, but a general distrust and hatred of cops. Even if the cops presented evidence of the most convincing kind, noone from that neighborhood would believe them anyway.
>> but the second point here is that cultural mores differ. there is a wide variation across cultures in paternity confidence and assignment. how do we explain cultures, such as in working class white london, or parts africa, where 10-30% of the children might not be the biological offspring of their socially accepted father? cultures differ. in societies where female dalliance is socially accepted there tends to be a lot more female independence and less proportional male investment in this theoretical offspring. in the west the decline in this sort of rage about infidelity on the part of the woman has generally tracked economic independence and the loss of power of male clan lineages as powers within the social structure.
Sure.. what you say is true.. but how does it impinge on what I am trying to say ? That this is a story thats rich in opinion, but very sparse in details and facts. Like in Rashomon, we'll find layers upon layers in these tragedies, each discovered by an observer with a different perspective. The truth can not be described entirely in simple 'subaltern-izing' terms as 'honor-dishonor' or female empowerment issues. (Note that we are not even observers in this drama, we rely simply on reports and opinions by others.. )
Indeed, the use of such terms only indicates to me, what the world view of the person who is making these comments is, and does not shed any light on what actually happened.
Sudeep, I think there's a different dynamic when poor black neighborhoods pelt cops with things to get them to leave versus when people try to free someone because they don't think that person did anything wrong. I can't speak for the village -- I have no idea which rationale they're using, but if it's the latter then the two cases are not comparable.
Agree w/ Kush. If I may apply couple common sense filters to “It was just a drink” comments. How many women from conservative society do we know, who just chill w/ couple guys? The husband had a legit claim to WTF moment. Nothing more. Certainly not violence or murder.
There was a study some years ago re: drinks w/ strangers or casual acquaintances (perhaps Razib can magically produce link). More than half ended up being more than just drinks.
No, not necessarily. I wasn't making the statment: if she didn't have the alcohol, with other men, in her house, without her husband, then her fate would never have happened. In fact, I'm not even entertaining that case. I'm saying given that she did, the obvious context and implication of such actions shouldn't be swept away with statements like
"well if it were me, I'd just embrace him, sing him a lullably and thank him for inviting younger women to my house, just to show them how wonderful he and I are, and how much we trust each other!"
Give me a break. I'd bet even if a woman called her hubands cellphone and having a unidentifiable female voice answer, would set the fidelity neurons firing off like crazy.
( File under Humor)
Okay -lots of divergent views here.So an someone please mark for me on an acceptability scale the following:-
Scale is 1 to 5 5 = totally unacceptable 1= totally acceptable
a) Significant other (SO) has alcoholic drinks with (known) member of opposite sex in a bar after work
b) SO has tea ( chai) with member of opposite sex at home in your absence
c) SO has alcoholic drinks with (stranger/unknown) member of opposite sex in a bar after work
d) SO has lassi with (unknown) member of opposite sex at lunchtime in a restaurant
e) SO has alcoholic drinks with (known) member of opposite sex in (known) member's home
Evidently,I don't think about these things enough
>> Sudeep, I think there's a different dynamic when poor black neighborhoods pelt cops with things to get them to leave versus when people try to free someone because they don't think that person did anything wrong. I can't speak for the village -- I have no idea which rationale they're using, but if it's the latter then the two cases are not comparable.
Sure, there is a difference.. but like you said, we don't now what rationale was used ! Its just one more factual detail thats missing from the story in telegraph and the opinion by Anna. Why automatically assume that it was one and not the other just because the setting is in India ? In fact, there are many muslim/non-muslim dominated localities that see cops as a nuisance and an imposition and cops are simply not welcome there.. e.g. Dagdi chawl (Arun gawli's headquarters) in Mumbai, or the chawl where Dawood used to hang out before he moved out, or the Gurjar villages where Daku Nirbhay Gurjar used to hang out..
Ofcourse it a lot easier to say that they did it because they thought it was right.. :-P Without getting into recriminations, one must take this opportunity to examine ones world view and how it leads us on to conclusions and "facts" that are simply not there to be discerned from the facts in the original report. (Its a different matter that the original report itself may be colored by the perspective of the reporter :-D)
Sudeep, I feel you on the lack of context there. :)
Runa, I'm laughing. :) Based on these comments, I'm actually kind of saddened (although not surprised) about the "kinds of behavior" that tip-off people's infidelity radar! Not saying that it's not justified, but some of these things sound so innocuous (e.g. hearing a woman's voice answer your husband's cellphone).
seems odd that it sets off peoples alarm beels that the woman was having drinks with guys at her house. ive chilled with my frineds wives at home with drinks. nothing funny going on. its just that my friends wives are also my friends. same as when i was chillin at their house with just the husband...
Personally, I find it sad that comments like #48 need to always be tagged with statements like the above. As if any sane person would actually say his actions were justified in this case.
Everything sounds innocuous when it's printed text on a screen.
HMF, the sad part is that people often do argue that such actions make it justifiable. It is sad that people have to use disclaimers to clarify that that is not what they're arguing, though.
Not just printed on the screen, but the context matters, and that of course varies by person and relationship.
Yep! Were you saying that during Othello or Omkara? (JOKE JOKE LOLZ ROFL LMAO)
i mean...the answer to "who was that" is more likely. "that was my cousin. she was borrowing my cell phone for the day". i would imagine a relationship would require more trust than jumping to "is he cheating on me?"
is it odder out there to chill with female friends without b*nging?
what I meant was people get caught cheating in their own home most of the times
Pinda USA,
I did not mean to sound harsh (apologies if I offended you). It just seemed odd to compare two very different social backgrounds. You could very well be describing my friend circle in # 53. I just wouldn’t assume it to be true everywhere else.
Even if it was in the middle of a workday?
Also, I believe this question is discriminatory. What if you are a homosexual couple? Then the relevant question is what if you find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the same sex.
Are there no guys here who have been in long distance relationships with non-cloistered women? Trust, people, Trust.
I think most people here are conflating "causal" arguments with normative judgments. I happen to believe that the two are distinct, and that you cannot derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. Yes, understanding the cultural background helps us make sense of the event, but it does not in any way morally justify it (the latter will depend on the moral standard you hold; incidentally I happen to think that there are some moral codes common to most cultures; some good work being done in cog psychology about this. But again the latter tend to hypothesize about "is" statements). Coming to this particular incident, I think (normative judgment begins here) the man's behavior was barbaric to put it mildly. The level of culturally sanctioned hypocrisy that allows you to have two wives yet kill one of your wives on the suspicion of infidelity is simply staggering (I want to make this clear that this kind of behavior is not unique to India). It only shows deep rot and malaise at the level of the very identity of such a male.
fair enough....
yeah...and she cheated on me, then left....muahahahaHAHAHA!
True. It's also discriminatory against punk straight-edge people, my apologies to them too.
For you folks, how would you feel if you came home and found your significant other moshing, dyeing their hair purple, and piercing their thorax with someone of the opposite sex? hmm?
Although, if any of you cloistered women are reading this, I think all that stealthy sneaking in and out could be kinda hot too. At least till we get caught and you get flogged or excommunicated.
Again, what about homosexual punk straight-edge people? Also, it would depend on if the SO was listening to "our CD".
You and I are both insensitive pricks. What of homosexual, punk sXe people in wheelchairs, obviously incapable of traditional moshing. I guess, I just assumed they'd be completely understanding of each other. And are flawless.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Now I'm hurt. I'm a very sensitive prick, actually.
Guess that's better than being too sensitive about pricks.
Honour killings! Aaaarg! It just makes my blood boil. In the middle east, its actually encouraged by the mullahs
I'd bet even if a woman called her hubands cellphone and having a unidentifiable female voice answer, would set the fidelity neurons firing off like crazy.
Hmm. On some level, I think that's worse than having drinks with a person of the opposite sex in your home. It's very unusual to have a second person answer someone's cell phone. Still, I don't know if it would set off any alarm bells for me. I'd just figure that my husband was having a dork moment and left his phone somewhere else.
Still, I don't know if it would set off any alarm bells for me. I'd just figure that my husband was having a dork moment and left his phone somewhere else.
You should marry me if your current marriage doesnt work out.
I don't understand the husband's justification for flying into a rage...if he could have multiple sexual partners,how can he be so hypocrtical for killing his wife who was just doing what he's done to her?
''I knew Mumtaz was a woman of loose morals.''...what a ridiculous hypocrite! if he could have 2 wives, why cannot his wife have 4 boyfrieds? I don't care about religious sanction ,if the guy can have multiple wives why cannot the woman have 10 husbands if she can provide affection equally for all of them?
I am surprised no comparisons have been yet made to the OJ case, a marvel of western judicial and forensic sophistication, conducted on national TV, involving hundreds of highly trained experts, and ending in the same shameful way that many femicides in "backward" rural India do - the wife dead, the husband a free man.
Oh the delightful serendipity of an SM thread. I am trying to go back to the post and the thread is now about the drinking etiquette for women.
Check #8
Sorry.
You can go back and forth with these nuances all you want.
Imagine this scenario: Let's say it was the opposite. Let's say he did call her on the phone (assuming both he and she had a cellphone), and an unidentifiable male voice answered and that triggered him to cut her throat.
then messages 20-60 on this thread would be a discussion about "whats the big deal? a guy answered the phone, it could have been anyone, how dare you try and justify the crime by that happening? bla bla bla" and then I brought in as a comparison, "well what if he walked in on her with two guys, having drinks casually"? then the answer would be,
"well thats obviously worse, he actually sees them together, he can read body language, on many levels that's worse..."
Now seriously imagine that scenario and tell me the event interpretation would be the same as it is here?
Look, HMF...I'm not really denying what you're saying on a normative level. All I'm really saying is that we have no way of knowing what the situation really was...and for me, her actions aren't immediately colorable as suspicious, just because having male guests in the house is unusual for a woman in rural India.
HMF: Was she in her home when she received the call? If it was the cellphone, how could the guy really be sure she was at home and not outside at the store? Could it have been her gay best friend answering the phone? If she was at home, why didn't he call her on the home phone when they might have been using peak minutes? Maybe there was a telephone repairman at home at that time? Clearly, we need to delve into these aspects before answering the question.
Seriously though, I don't understand what you are trying to get at with his line of inquiry.
My point is, irrespective of what her actions are/were, they wouldn't seem colorable to you. And when I ask you and others to consider the converse, it's met with quippy comebacks. Which is fine, I'm all for a helping of Mr. Quip, but it tells me those things would bother folks at some level.
I did consider the converse, I just didn't find it persuasive. My guess is that Mr. Shah Jahan was a pretty suspicious guy to start with, and he married a woman who had already been married once before, so any slight, even imagined, was sufficient to make him do something completely unjustifiable.
HMF: There was (an apparently very latent) method behind my madness. I am genuinely trying to (a) understand what the point of these scenarios is, and (b) figure out how we can judge anything from the information we have.
And hema, that's Mr. Jahan to you. Thank you very much.
Under the Indian Penal Code it is criminal offence for a man to have illicit sexual relations with a married woman. It is not an offense the way around.!!!
In a rural Indian context and a good part of urban india, having a drink in private with a non-relative (only opposite gender) is code for "sex".
Food for thought : How many indian women go into a local toddy / arrack shop and have a drink. After all it is the 'local bar'.
Any half way decent lawyer would be able to get him off fairly lightly. If the woman has brothers, he can expect some rough justice after he gets out.
I had my first drink with my grandmother who for many years was my drinking buddy :) Her favourites Kingfisher and Old Monk. Both my parents are teetotallers!!
You're giving her the benefit of the doubt, and you still think I'm in some perverse way trying to justify the killing. I asked you to consider the converse in your personal case, not their case. Because there are too many variables as you said before. who knows what transpired between him seeing the two men and him cutting her? Maybe she admitted to being ridden by them twice, maybe she said nothing happened. who the hell knows? We do know what happened was not justifiable.
But this denial of the actual event occuring before, and what it *does* transmit, in terms of an implied social interaction, beyond 'simple friendship' is what I take issue with. I said it once, I'll say it again, if the husband was there with two younger women having a drink, and the wife walked in on them. you'd have no problem relating to any suspicions, 'colorability of the event' or what have you, felt by the wife in this instance, right?
It's just the knee-jerk "oh my god how dare you blame the victim!" reaction that I call bullshit on.
You're giving her the benefit of the doubt, and you still think I'm in some perverse way trying to justify the killing.
Well, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, you did also suggest that we should not "angelize" her actions...implying that there was something inherently suspicious about her actions...and I can't see why that is at all relevant, except as a justification for the killing. I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.
I asked you to consider the converse in your personal case, not their case
And I've already answered too...by saying that I wouldn't find anything particularly suspicious about my spouse having a few drinks with a female friend at our house.
HMF: I think we are at a bit of an impasse. I know, from your general commenting history, that you usually come from a sane place (and I don't mean this in a condescending way at all), but I am not going to talk about personal experiences to justify that I am not being a hypocrite about this.
I read the post as "WTF. The dude just killed his wife?". I personally did not see anything specifically Indian/rural Indian in the nature of the response (jealousy/rage at being cuckolded/whatever), but I still DO NOT BLAME THE VICTIM.
I find Sudeep's question at #13 interesting though.
..implying that there was something inherently suspicious about her actions...
Within the context of rural India, and the social connotation of drinking as mentioned by melbourne desi, the answer is undeniably "yes".
Not in your suburbia in Michigan, or your enlightened social group but Dinhata ain't campus town @ Ann Arbor or any liberal-coed-concert going-white collar holdout. The Dinhata scenerio might even hold true in real small towns in your part of the country.
This does not justify any violence. We all understand (and respect) your decrying @ the violence but not even trying to understand the social dynamics actually on the ground is something.
hema, finally, somebody who loves the Midwest!
Within the context of rural India, and the social connotation of drinking as mentioned by melbourne desi, the answer is undeniably "yes".
I get that, and I admit that I'm not from rural India and cannot personally identify. However, if you were a rural Indian woman who wanted to cheat on your husband, why would you do it in such an obvious way? Especially if getting caught carried the twin threats of reputational and physical harm? Rural women are not stupid, after all. That's why I tend to think any "bad act" on the woman's part was probably imagined rather than real.
hema, finally, somebody who loves the Midwest!
I don't know about that. Just sounded like regular old "what do you Americans in your swanky Ohio offices know anyway?"
I think what the objection here is on priorities. who really cares what happened before the incident, it pales in comparision to what happened after it. the anger here at supposedly not understanding rural indian culture is misplaced totally
and if there's going to be time spent analyzing rural indian culture in this case, what blatantly stands out in that regard, if anything, is the hypocricy of somebody who is already married finding it troubling that the other party had a tendency for infidelity. isn't that aspect of culture as interesting, if not more so, than drinking shmiking?
it pales in comparision to what happened after it. the anger here at supposedly not understanding rural indian culture is misplaced totally
This is exactly my point. I don't think the focus on rural culture in this case is particularly relevant, except as some sort of justification for what the man did.
You midwesterners are never happy. Even when we consider you as a part of the civilized America.
You midwesterners are never happy. Even when we consider you as a part of the civilized America.
This is true. One of my friends from college had a bad travel experience. In his words, "My plane got delayed for nine hours on the tarmac. To add insult to injury, this was in Cleveland".
Sahej,
The couple here is Muslim. By Sharia law applicable to Muslims in India, the man can multiple wives under certain conditions. Yes, there are some conditions. But the social mores does not sanction lovers. This said, illicit love happens everywhere.
Sure, his wife can have lovers but in the eye of culture/ society/ law of the land - wives and lovers are not the same, anywhere in the world. I have nothing against his wife having lovers.
Talking of sex in rural India, it oozes with it.....you see people humping in fields, couples eloping, rearrangements in partnerships. Nobody takes precautions. It is a primal force. Talking of sex and social more, I was in Middle East few weeks ago, that place was bursting out of its seems with open sex.
The question never was justifying the violence, my issue is with nonchalance - "oh!, they were just having drinks", like our local pub, home watching Sunday night football over some bruskies, some cooed mixing, and discussing Satre and Picasso.
Well, I have no excuses for Cleveland, aka the mistake by the lake. Except at least it's not Detroit.
Don't know. Am not an Indian woman. But Justine Shapiro did:
Lonely Planet South India
Kush,
I can see your point, but that issue can be taken up with the people who maintain that position. the most recent comments have not been on that topic, from my point of view at least
Sahej: The hypocrisy is striking but that is quite the norm in most of India. In Tamil Nadu a Chinna Veedu is quite common for men. How many rich and powerful women have a Chinna Veedu (in public).
Hema - the question is not whether rural women are stupid or whether they have affairs. Married men and women cheat all around the world and rural india is no different. The point is that a woman drinking with a non relative has just one connotation and most "uncivilized" husbands would resort to violence. Forget drinking liqour, if you are a non relative you would not be drinking tea in rural india with a non-relative inside the house. In many Indian states non-relatives are served tea in the front yard or 'thinnai' or 'cutlapadi' - same rules apply even if you are the village headman. Beating the wife for drinking with another man would be normal behaviour for many Indian men - both in rural and urban india. Further, nearly everyone in that social circle would agree that it is the right thing to do (beating one's spouse for drinking with a member of the opposite sex).
Whether the reaction is justified or not depends one's ethics and morality. Violence against women is totally unacceptable in a Western context. This is not the case in other parts of the world.
Even if this were to happen in the USA / Australia (although not in Sweden), most lawyers would be able to claim grave provocation successfully and obtain a reduced sentence.
As an aside - is Dr JJ a lesbian?
Pingpong
My best mate in Australia was a regular at the local arrack shop in an outskirt of Bangalore. She is White and under 30. She had quite a circle of drinking buddies who incidentally never ever groped her. She found it safer being in the local toddy shop than in the Taj WestEnd ( in Bangalore) where she got groped quite often.
She tried to get me to go with her - I refused as I dont particularly trust the toddy or arrack to be safe.
Many white western women visit local bars to get an authentic experience :)
Even if this were to happen in the USA / Australia (although not in Sweden), most lawyers would be able to claim grave provocation successfully and obtain a reduced sentence.
Actually, in most states in the US, adultery (of the real or imagined kind) is not considered sufficient provocation to get a reduced sentence. I do think that's true in India though (provocation + murder = culpable homicide rather than murder).
Whether the reaction is justified or not depends one's ethics and morality. Violence against women is totally unacceptable in a Western context. This is not the case in other parts of the world.
So violence against women in this context is acceptable in some parts of the world? And whether such violence is justified ought to depend on local sentiment about ethics and morality? This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm objecting to. The idea that the woman's conduct (whether perceived or real) justifies killing her is completely reprehensible, regardless of the social milieu in which it takes place.
Kush:
You have put it much better than I could.
Hema
Laws are a function of social milieu. I could be wrong on the adultery provocation defense. I was talking about a crime of passion. Instant reaction - not cold blooded killing.
Although you and I may find certain behaviours unacceptable, if the said behaviour is acceptable to the folks in those societies then so be it. You may want to change the social expectation but that is a discussion for another day.
Yes, violence depending on the context is acceptable to the folks that live in those societies. And in this case, the social system permits violence.
Here, the husband could easily go ahead and chop the balls of the men found in the company of his wife and no one in that society would complain. Shame that he did not do so. After all, it takes two to tango.
Ethics and morality are by definition subjective.
Eg. It is ok for a soldier to kill whilst it is not for others. It is ok for USA to invade Iraq while it is not ok for India to invade Saudi Arabia.
You can have the last word :)
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
i have to side with the 'village people' on this one. when i read the post, one of the first things that ran through my mind was, did they seriously mean she was drinking alcohol with these men at home? pretty uncommon for a woman in a village. when i used to go to my family's village, i was forbidden from leaving the house after i turned 10. as an unmarried woman, my family made sure that i was never around any of the male family employees without 'supervision.' hell, i wasn't even allowed to hang out with my cousin alone. it's not only about what may happen, it's about what people might think may happen. obviously, i am not in any way justifying this man's actions. but this is the sort of thing that people in villages will justify. although, i'm not sure i would go so far as to say justification depends on the set of ethics or morality of a community. in reality, however, the different laws of different countries do reflect their varying values and moral codes. but i also think it's pretty weak to say 'this is the culture and values of this society' when several members of the society (here, mainly women) do not accept or agree with these 'societal' values. the issue then becomes whether this is actually a reflection of societal values, or whether it is how a powerful or governing faction wants to deem said values.
also, the courts would look to whether there was a cool-down period - all case-by-case, but if the husband had any opportunity to retreat or enough time elapsed essentially to put a gap between his act and the provocation, he might be out of luck. panchayat meetings are always far more scandalous than anything you'll read in US magazine...Since when did US magazine start covering panchayat meetings? Did C-SPAN tie up with them?
I'm with Sahej on this one. I actually don't really care that much about whether or not there was adultery, what drinking in a village means socially, etc. I think the back and forth has been happening, despite HMF and others saying they are not trying to justify the reaction, because it sounds just like that -- justifying. I know that's not the intent, and everyone's been clear about that, so why don't we move on? :)
Well, going on a tanget...there's a good old fashioned stoning today in Iran for a woman having a child out of wedlock...I wonder why the woman is the only one being punished? Wasn't a guy somewhere donating his sperm for the child?
IRAN: WOMAN 'TO BE STONED' ON THURSDAY
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.427604267&par
Yes, I know, and quite frankly I find it dubious that any woman, any person, would be able to walk in on their spouse, having alcohol with unknown, younger, members of the opposite sex without any forewarning, and not have some kind of reaction. Either way, when I brought up the cell phone example, you commented you'd find that more suspicious at "some level", and personally I just find that very convenient. That the only reason you analyzed it in that way, was a matter of historical record: the actual events. I contend, if the events were reversed, you could (and most probably would) easily find reason the "cell phone" was not particularly suspicious, and the "having a few drinks" was more suspicious at "some level" It just seemed another way to downplay the obvious subtext to her action.
And I still don't. But that doesn't automatically mean her actions deterministically & exclusively lead to her death. Of course, there's probably no way she could expect what happened, and no time or resources to guard against the possibility of death, but she'd be quite naive (even for a village girl) to not expect some kind of reaction. Her actions weren't harmless, innocent, and unworthy of some degree of suspicion, a degree that I think all of us, if we're truly being honest would have.
Don't you remember the pulp fiction debate? I'll quote it for you:
Jules: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... stop right there. Eatin' a bitch out, and givin' a bitch a foot massage ain't even the same fuckin' thing.
Vincent: It's not. It's the same ballpark.
Jules: Ain't no fuckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet, and stickin' your tongue in her Holiest of Holies, ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit.
Vincent: Have you ever given a foot massage?
Jules: [scoffs] Don't be tellin' me about foot massages.