…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.
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?
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that some people just don’t care?
I hardly think Kush or anyone else is justifying his actions. Even before murder, the man’s resume reeks of douchebaggery. It’s just that “What’s wrong w/ a few drinks w/ casual acquaintances?†line of thinking completely ignores local reality.
No argument there. Somewhat related — check out Rihaee.
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. I’m the foot fuckin’ master. Vincent: Given a lot of ’em? Jules: Shit yeah. I got my technique down and everything, I don’t be ticklin’ or nothin’. Vincent: Would you give a guy a foot massage? [Jules gives Vincent a long look, realizing he’s been set up] Jules: Fuck you.
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.
I can’t speak to the dead but I’m willing to wager Mumtaz didn’t find it “acceptable” to have her throat slit. Is she less a member of her society than her husband, or the villagers?
HMF:
I’m not disagreeing with you. It’s my view that the subtext isn’t particularly relevant, because society should (and the law already does) condemn killing people, no matter what the subtext. I know it’s not your intent to provide justification for the man’s actions, but all this focus on the woman’s actions ultimately does just that, IMO.
Thanks for the Pulp Fiction reminder. I’ve always wanted to order a Royale with cheese…
At any rate, I’m with Camille. Why don’t we just move on, honey bunny?
Girl to receive 60 lashes for illicit sex http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10133839.html
Wow! According to some people, women are to be blamed for luring innocent guys into having sex with them
The subtext is relevant insofar as it shouldn’t be ignored. but that’s it. I don’t know about “all this focus” I was just answering a claim (#14) that reeked of this very ignoring. Secondly, I’m always a little confused as to what we should be discussing on these types of threads. The man’s actions? Yeah. It was bad, unjustifiable, etc. etc. , we all get it, we all agree on it. There’s really nothing to discuss I feel.
I think question #13 is interesting. How would you have reported this story?
Rahul, I’m surprised you didn’t jump on this one, it’s ripe for the picking.
What, are we going meta on the snark now?
That’s gay.
Somewhat related to this discussion on the semiotics of actions is this article on the semantics of words in the courtroom by the always awesome Dahlia Lithwick.
great article, rahul. surprisingly, i didn’t find the ban of the word ‘rape’ completely ridiculous. i see the comparison to the ‘victim,’ situation, though i’m not sure it’s an altogether equal comparison. still, i think the accuser suffers for not being able to use ‘sexual assault,’ and also because the jury isn’t aware of the ban. if i was a juror in a rape cse, and i never heard the words ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault,’ i would be wondering why that was so, and taking those words out of play might colour the evidence in a way that’s unfair for the complainant. i.e. those circumstances combined actually move away from the objective of a neutral playing ground for both parties.
There’s really nothing to discuss I feel.
Why not the obvious double standard/hypocrisy of a society that thinks it’s alright for a man to be drinking socially with friends (and whatever that implies from a fidelity standpoint), but finds the same behavior from a woman suspicious?
In other words, the woman’s actions weren’t the only things worthy of discussion here, but that’s definitely the turn this discussion took.
i didn’t find the ban of the word ‘rape’ completely ridiculous.
I don’t find it completely ridiculous, and I have some sympathy for the view that the word “rape” has serious emotional impact on a jury. Unfortunately, I think this cuts both ways. A juror in a rape trial who doesn’t hear the words “rape” or “sexual assault” may not become fully aware of the seriousness of the charges against the accused, for example.
hema, i agree – and that’s why i think the jury not knowing that the word is banned is potentially detrimental to the victim. if i were a juror and didn’t hear rape, i would think that maybe something serious didn’t happen. on the other hand, if i knew the word itself was banned, i would be looking for other things that would substitute for pointing towards the assault.
Well, I can’t speak for society, but personally, I’ve always said that a negative reaction based on the obvious subtext, would be true irrespective of gender:
“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,”
In fact, that’s why I flipped the question, because I acknowledge that if a woman walked in to see her husband, in a similar condition, she’d be perfectly entitled to some kind of reaction as well. But instead of admitting it, there was a subtle denial and attempt to explain it away.
If anything, I usually pick up on a double standard, where the woman is irrigated of any responsibility or contributory component at all. It’s much easier to do so in cases like these, because someone who brings up points as I do, can always be accused of “blaming the victim” It’s an easy cop out. But again, I’m not commenting on this particular case, but in lesser cases of verbal disputes, or violence of a non-fatal, and non-critical injury variety, the male is blamed 100%.
I’ll give an example. A close family friend of mine divorced after 10 years of marriage. While sleeping with his wife (and by sleeping, I mean… actually sleeping, not “sleeping”) his wife would choke him, scratch him, sometimes bruise him. He’d wake up with scars, scabs and such, but usually find a way to explain it away. After they had a child, another “incident” occured. He called it quits, divorced her to protect his child from witnessing that bullshit.
Do you know how people reacted? “He should have been stronger, he must have provoked her, he should have just dealt with it…” Would anyone even dream of saying these things if the genders were reversed? If you wish to bring up double standards, we can go all day long.
I’m not commenting on this particular case, but in lesser cases of verbal disputes, or violence of a non-fatal, and non-critical injury variety, the male is blamed 100%.
I guess that’s the problem. I am commenting on this particular case, because I think the double standard is particularly obvious in this case. Whether that’s because of the specific social mores of rural India, I don’t know…but that’s worth a discussion, IMO.
<
blockquote>In fact, that’s why I flipped the question, because I acknowledge that if a woman walked in to see her husband, in a similar condition, she’d be perfectly entitled to some kind of reaction as well. But instead of admitting it, there was a subtle denial and attempt to explain it away.
<
blockquote>
HMF, I am really very sorry if I touched some hidden nerve when this thread started.What you need to understand is that everyone’s threshold for Significant Other’s behavior crossing “acceptable” limits is different. The only point I was trying to make in my responses is that its not right to say that the only reasonable response to seeing your SO in a similar situation is to freak out and go all cave-person.
We can agree that everyone is entitled to their own reactions and leave it at that
“He should have been stronger, he must have provoked her, he should have just dealt with it…” Would anyone even dream of saying these things if the genders were reversed?
What are you talking about? People say similar things about women who experience domestic violence all the time! “She should have been tougher. I wonder what she did to provoke him? Well, why is she so stupid that she stays with him when he treats her like that?”
HMF, I hear the same exact thing said to female survivors of DV. The difference in discourse (that I’ve noted) changes when you have women who have experienced DV or who work with DV survivors in the room. I would say the default, for what I’ve heard many times in the desi community here, is exactly what you wrote about your friend.
I just read Rahul’s article, and I do think there’s a huge problem with banning the terms “rape” and “sexual assault.” There’s a difference in understanding between “sex,” “forced sex,” and “rape,” and I think those differences are important to accommodate for, both for the psychological welfare of the victim, but also so that the jury understands the levity of the situation. Are they even told that someone is being charged with a count of rape/assault? Or are they told something else? This could be ridiculous, depending on how it’s used in the courtroom.
I’m not commenting on this particular case, but in lesser cases of verbal disputes, or violence of a non-fatal, and non-critical injury variety, the male is blamed 100%.
Does this usually result in the male’s murder, though? I mean I totally agree that there are double standards going both ways, but I’m not sure the consequences for stepping out of line cut equally both ways.
Also, I hope it is clear that I intend these questions to extend beyond merely the cultural context surrounding Mumtaz’s murder. In the US, homicide is actually one of the leading causes of death of pregnant women (not strictly related to this topic, but sadly, I do believe undervaluing a woman’s life is not restricted to any one corner of the globe).
Oh no doubt, I mean there’s a huge disparity in him having multiple wives (even if it’s religiously sanctioned) and her being asked to vest her emotions completely in him. I don’t dispute that one bit. But let’s not deny that her actions are a clear indication that she’s not vesting her complete emotions in him.
But maybe you’re right hema, maybe the truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, hema. I’m tryin’ real hard to be a shepherd.
I agree with Camille…I don’t see how the judge can ban the use of the word ‘rape’ in the first place (I know he has that discretionary power but it’s still idiotic), and then, not even let jurors know that it’s been banned. Totally ridiculous. How do they think they can ever successfully convict an actual rapist with these kinds of stupid rules? This is another one of the (relatively few) times that I’d side completely with feminist groups if they wanted to oppose this.
But maybe you’re right hema, maybe the truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men.
Maybe, but we still love ya anyway! 😉
We need to get rid of the jury system in this country anyway, but that’s a whole separate matter. Judges should decide cases. Although judges like that Nebraska judge do give you pause there as well.
We need to get rid of the jury system in this country anyway, but that’s a whole separate matter.
Hmm, I don’t know. I think the jury is eminently useful in criminal cases, but I think it should be thrown out for civil litigation (even though that would require a constitutional amendment for federal civil cases).
I think the blanket ban on the use of the words rape and sexual assault really makes it hard to conduct a meaningful trial. If there is concern about the prejudicial impact, I’d rather go with Weisberg’s solution of “gentle admonitions”. Certainly, not informing the jury of this restriction seems disadvantageous to the complainant.
Ok, I just want to disclaim by saying that I’m not typing this to be cruel or rude or mean or any of that.
HMF, I understand that you are all about the double standard. I understand that you’re not a misogynist, and you clearly spend time thinking out your responses. All that said, I think what frustrates me the most is the underlying assumption that these “double standards” exist on an equal playing field. This is like previous conversations we’ve had about DV, and it’s also like that huge conversation we had on whether “women have it easier” in job selection because they have less societal pressure to be the breadwinner. At the end of the day, guys generally have the leg up because we live in a patriarchal society that often punishes, ostracizes, and devalues women, women’s choices, women’s opportunities, and women’s work. Probably one of the only cases where I feel it is difficult for men, as well, is when they’re victims of DV, as you mentioned in the case of your friend. I know that you understand that also.
I just feel like I’m banging my head against a wall half the time because no matter what awful thing someone (usually male in these instances) does, the follow up comment is always, “well she’s not perfect either.” No duh! But what does that have to do with the factual underpinnings, i.e. that more women die at the hands of their partners than men, women are shunned or punished for trying to socialize on the same terms as men, and that there is a clear double standard in this relationship regarding expectations around fidelity, etc., and that those differing expectations are normalized and reinforced through legal channels and social norms? I think bringing up another perspective is important, but some acknowledgment of the differing reality would be nice, also.
i did an entire paper on this. i think both the jury and the judge as triers have their own drawbacks. judges are far less impartial than you think. their biases include education, wealth, race, criminal record etc. i would be very scared to leave the entire decision up to one individual. yes, some crimes do not require jury trials. but dealing with most felonies, i think there is too much at stake for the defendant to have his/her fate lie in the hands of one person. and appellate review is not a good checkpoint, because the majority of appeals are for criminal cases, and a very low percenetage are overturned. add to this the fact that trial judges are given an exteremely generous amount of deference and you can see the sort of problems that present themselves.
HMF, I’ve heard the exact same justifications and excuses made for men’s violence towards women by people very close to me, particularly the “she must have provoked him” one. And as the original post notes, more women than men are killed by their spouses or lovers in these situations. There’s a pretty important difference between jealousy and rage and hitting your spouse in a moment of passion, and killing your spouse. This in no way invalidates the outrage of someone making excuses for female-on-male violence or simply sneering at a man for putting up with it.
I’m not sure there are double standards at play in how people might judge your friend’s case – he’s less likely to have been visible, it would have been less acceptable to talk about it, more shame involved, and if much put-upon man kills his abusive wife he would probably not get as much sympathy as, say, a Kiranjit Ahluwalia. That’s hypocrisy, yes. But nor would most families (and here I’m thinking of desi families as they are the ones I know mostly) accept a woman beating a man with a shrug of the shoulders, something sad but common, the way they would accept or overlook a man beating a woman; there’s no cliche of the woman coming home drunk and beating up her husband as is the reverse. It’s a stretch to extrapolate from these examples that the poor male is always the one unjustly blamed while the woman gets away scot-free; rather like the paranoid ads put out by men’s associations in Delhi against anti-domestic violence laws that insist these laws are by their very nature fatally biased against men and very open to abuse by women, suggesting that a minority of cases of abuse is reason enough to get rid of these laws altogether, or of any pragmatic safeguards that assume women are more likely to be at the receiving end of such violence and therefore more likely to be telling the truth than possible perpetrators.
And I don’t think seeing your spouse drinking with members of the opposite sex (or whoever floats their boat) is really justifiable grounds for a Crime of Passion. Unless drinking was sort of a euphemism for in flagrant delict.
Camille there was nothing cruel or rude or mean in any of that. As for a male victim of DV, well, what can I say. The solution seems pretty simple. Unless she calls the cops (or her dad and brothers) on you.
But when it’s said to men, is taken with the same level of disdain and rejection?
Absolutely, and oftentimes it is paired with social rejection, ostracization, and chastisement for not “sucking it up” and instead speaking about it.
HMF, there’s something of a hazing mentality among a lot of women who have put up with domestic violence or seen it happen around them – they sniff at a woman who complains the first time her husband beats her, and say things like “we all go through that, don’t be a baby.” You hear that all the time back home.
Hema and AK, thanks for your perspectives on the jury issue. There are drawbacks to either situations, but I feel most juries are composed of unqualified people, and are not fit to decide complex cases. They are certainly not fit to decide most medical malpractice suits, where their emotions tend to get the better of them.
Let me just make one remark about judges. Are you willing to put your fate in the hands of a man who willingly wears a powdered wig?