…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.
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.. 😛 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.
isnt that the case most of times? coming home to see your significant other getting it on or have I watched to many movies?
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?”
Kamaturana bhayam na lajja (Sanskrit, rough trans: one blinded by sex has no fear or shame). I have seen some pretty brazen stuff on my infamous block. Some don’t bother w/ the sophisticated route. I am arguing w/ your claim. Not trying to prove the victim’s “guiltâ€.
Just wild guess – you don’t live in Cooch Behar?
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.
Puli, when you get married, your drinking at friends’houses alone would be less, doesnt matter if its a girl or a guy.
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.