Roundup: Updates on Anu Solanki

Time for more details about Anu Solanki, the young woman who freaked out thousands of us, when we feared the worst had happened to her, while she was actually absconding with a platonic friend. She’s getting off lucky…for now:

Cook County authorities will not bring criminal charges against Anu Solanki, the Des Plaines-area woman who disappeared from Cook County forest preserve property last week, officials said Monday…
“Between us and the sheriff’s [office], we’ve agreed there aren’t appropriate criminal charges in the case,” said First Assistant State’s Attorney Robery Milan. [Sun Times]

She did not file a false police report. That is why she is off the hook.

In case you forgot the particulars, Anu Solanki disappeared after leaving work to immerse a statue of Ganapati in a river with a very powerful current. They found her car running, with no sign of her. This inspired a frantic search for her, which included divers:

The four-day search for Solanki involved several police departments. Chief Richard Waszak of the Cook County Forest Preserves said they had a minimum of 40 people working around the clock during the investigation.
The cost of the search was estimated conservatively at $250,000, Waszak said. [WBBM]

The possibility of suing Solanki to reclaim wasted money is still on the table; we’ll try to keep you posted. Now that the actual news is out of the way, let’s hear about the other person in her marriage: Dignesh, her humiliated husband.

A man whose wife seemingly vanished near a suburban Chicago river only to be found days later with another man across the country said he noticed romantic text messages he didn’t send on his wife’s cell phone two days after they were married a little more than a year ago.
But the man, Dignesh Solanki, said he believed his wife, 24-year-old Anu Solanki, would be faithful to him.
“I gave her a chance because she promised me she would be 100 percent faithful,” Solanki told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I completely trusted her. I would never have run away with another girl. I would have tried to work it out.”…[AP]

Note, he’s not vindictive (I think some of us would indulge our lesser impulses if we were in his place, “i.e. hell yeah, press charges!”)

Solanki’s husband, Dignesh Solanki, said Monday he was satisfied with the decision not to pursue charges against his wife.
“That’s fine,” Solanki said. “She just left. This is not a crime.” [Sun Times]

Anu Solanki maintains that it was never her intent to deceive people, and one article described her as being “embarrassed” by what she ended up causing.

Anu Solanki told authorities she never meant for people to think she’d drowned and simply wanted a clean break from her husband. She said she was not a victim of abuse, but regretted the marriage. She also apologized. [WTOP]

How is leaving a car running “a clean break”? And even if you regret your marriage and don’t care about worrying the spouse you turned in to a chump, why would you put your family through this nightmare? Look how nice they are:

Saturday, Solanki’s older brother Dhiren Patel wouldn’t say if his sister explained why she decided to leave without telling her husband or family.
Patel thanked authorities for working round the clock to try to find his sister when it wasn’t clear what had happened and he said he’ll be working now to try and lift his sister from the troubled place that caused her to cause so much heartache. [WBBM]
Dignesh Solanki said he spoke to members of Anu’s family, who “did say what happened was wrong.”[Sun Times]

Well, at least her family isn’t blindly defending her actions. What about Karan Jani, the platonic friend who rescued Anu Solanki from her marriage (and Illinois)?

Police say Jani and Solanki had met about a year earlier and had been corresponding on the phone and Internet ever since. But Solanki’s husband didn’t know of his wife’s contact with Jani.
Solanki’s husband spoke out on Monday, saying he was worried sick when his wife disappeared one week ago. Now, he only wants to ask her “why?”
“If she really wants to be with that guy why did she come into my life?” Solanki said…
Dignesh Solanki says he’s happy his wife is safe, but bitter over the pain she caused by fleeing with another man, Karan Jani, to California. [WBBM]

I can’t imagine how bitter, after everything he’d been through to marry her. He was commuting to Virginia, to “court” her on a grocery store clerk’s salary. Her family initially didn’t approve of him, but once Anu’s mother relented, their wedding was scheduled for May.

Their eight months of married life were not entirely blissful, he said: There was typical domestic tension over finances and housekeeping.
Still, Dignesh Solanki said he was in love. They traveled to Las Vegas, the Wisconsin Dells and the Indiana Dunes together this year. “I took her so many places, and we had a real good time,” he said. Solanki said he does not know what will happen to their marriage, but “I have to go on with my own life.”
“If she had to run away, she could have told me she needed a break from me,” he added. “The cops have spent all this time and money. I don’t know why she did this.” [SunTimes]
Dignesh Solanki told the Sun-Times he expects Jani to face God’s punishment.
“She was talking to him before, even six months before we got married,” Solanki said. “So I don’t know why she used me and for what purpose.” [WBBM]

As for what the future holds…

Solanki has not spoken with his wife since she returned to Chicago late Friday to meet with police, he said, adding that he has not decided whether he will file for divorce. [SunTimes]

197 thoughts on “Roundup: Updates on Anu Solanki

  1. I dont remember from the details of the story, but I dont know what kind of dough she was pullin’, but Im going to assume Dignesh was paying most of, if not all the bills.

    She worked in a hotel gift shop, he worked at a grocery store. I think we should stop with the assumptions. She wasn’t the stay-at-home trophy of an I-Banker.

  2. She worked in a hotel gift shop, he worked at a grocery store.

    Which is why I prefaced my assumption with “I dont know the exact details” Still the point about “noone being hurt” is still contestable. Obviously this guy invested emotions in this woman, and had it essentially swatted back in his face. Paying for all her sh*t wouldve just added insult to injury, but it seems to not be the case.

  3. HMF I’m not saying she shouldn’t be held accountable. But it could have been worse. She could have had the boyfriend kill her husband. And she didn’t run away with his money or his car, she simply ran away and left everything behind. And really the husband is emotionally hurt but it’s a far lesser pain than what could have been.

    You want stats?

    1. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends.

    2. Physical violence is estimated to occur in 4 to 6 million intimate relationships each year in the United States.

    3. Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape.

    4. 85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female. (You will note that that leaves the remainder of the percent to be shared by men and transgenders)

    This isn’t about women being abused by men. How many stats would it take to prove that women are victimized far more than men? The fact is that it happens and it often leads people to make certain inferences and my only point was that sometimes those inferences are understandable given the statistics.

    So I’m confused with what you are saying.

  4. 101 · SM Intern said

    She wasn’t the stay-at-home trophy of an I-Banker.

    Can we stop with this offensive generaliztion ;-). Look, I know like a bazillion ibankers and about 1% have trophy wives. the plurality seem to be smart attractive chicks that they met at yale or wherever they went to school. many, since they’re geeky, have trouble meeting chicks. look at pulli.

  5. This isn’t about women being abused by men. How many stats would it take to prove that women are victimized far more than men?

    No, its about you shifting the sphere of discussion to suit your argument.

    Again, if you’re going to shift the sphere to physical violence, (as what most women do when faced with the questions I pose) then engage in my thought experiment, if all those stats clearly show women disproportionately victimized by men, why do women seek their company? Why hasn’t the feminist separatist movement gained more traction. Simple logic would dictate that as the only level-headed choice given the indisputable stats you presented.

    I asked about stats pertaining to men leaving relationships and carrying on parallel relationships, my guess is they are about even.

    And really the husband is emotionally hurt but it’s a far lesser pain than what could have been.

    And who are you to determine whats lesser or more pain for him? You’d certainly cry foul if someone seeked to quantify the the “amount of pain” felt if the genders were reversed. As for physical violence being a possibility, sure, more extreme action could have been taken by her. she could’ve purchased an soviet made RPG-7 and shot it at her husband. there are many possibilities.

    but I took issue with your “no one was hurt” rhetoric, as it implies that she’s not as accountable as say a man who does the same thing, but now you seem to be backtracking from that.

  6. 105 · HMF said

    if all those stats clearly show women disproportionately victimized by men, why do women seek their company? Why hasn’t the feminist separatist movement gained more traction. Simple logic would dictate that as the only level-headed choice given the indisputable stats you presented.

    Because of sex, goddammit. propagation of the species. natural attraction. is this news?

  7. propagation of the species

    why propogate a species where one half the population is so bent on abusing and victimizing the other half? If you’re saying they can’t help it, then thats one cruel joke that God, nature, whatever is playing on them.

  8. Seconly, if sex with the opposite gender is intrinsic to our propogative instinct, whats your explanation for the fem separatists that do exist, or say the gay population who serve no species propogative purpose at all ? (unless you claim that homosexuality is a learned, socialized trait)

  9. 107 · HMF said

    why propogate a species where one half the population is so bent on abusing and victimizing the other half? If you’re saying they can’t help it, then thats one cruel joke that God, nature, whatever is playing on them.

    Yes, its instinct. but what are you saying? that the lack of gender separatism proves JOATs stats incorrect?

  10. 108 · HMF said

    Seconly, if sex with the opposite gender is intrinsic to our propogative instinct, whats your explanation for the fem separatists that do exist, or say the gay population who serve no species propogative purpose at all ? (unless you claim that homosexuality is a learned, socialized trait)

    well, the fact that propogation of the species is instinctual does not mean every individual posses the instinct. there are exceptions and probably genetic explanations.

  11. but what are you saying? that the lack of gender separatism proves JOATs stats incorrect?

    No, I’m saying it’s a logical contradiction for women to continue to seek male company, given those stats being correct.

    Let me flip the question on you, the women who do participate in female separatism use the same stats JOAT provided as reasoning for their movement, are they just crazy misinterpreters who lack this sexual, propogative instinct? or are they just all lesbos?

  12. there are exceptions and probably genetic explanations.

    So they’re just genetic anomolies, mistakes as it were. Then according to survival of the fittest, wouldn’t this population be systematically wiped out, as they don’t carry on genetic traits making them fit for survival and replication?

    Secondly, the purported 10% figure is not insignificant.

  13. The truth is men do this with far more frequency then women do (desi or otherwise) so the general assumption to attack them is natural. Not justifying it but I can see where it comes from.

    Philandering depends on financial and social independence, not gender. It is just that men have been historically more independent in the past.

  14. 111 · HMF said

    No, I’m saying it’s a logical contradiction for women to continue to seek male company, given those stats being correct.

    thats too general. it would be illogical to seek the company of a male who abuses them. although, interstingly, some do. but then again, not all slaves fled the plantation, not all homosexuals leave saudi arabia, not all Cubans jumped on a raft. and instinct was not even in play here.

  15. 112 · HMF said

    So they’re just genetic anomolies, mistakes as it were

    well there is also free will that can overcome nature. but its diffucult and probably explains the lack of traction for these movements.

  16. it would be illogical to seek the company of a male who abuses them.

    Im saying, given those stats at face value, it would be illogical to seek the company of men in general.. but the stats dont take into account how much violence occurs at an aggregate level. the states are, conditioned on DV taking place.

    see this, say there’s a thousand people and 100 of them are victims of DV, and 85 of those victims are women, you can say “85% of dv victims are women”, that doesnt mean 850 women are victims of DV.

    not all slaves fled the plantation,

    this is stupid. but not a surprise given the source.

    these are geopolitical issues. the US had secure borders (two oceans on either side) that prevented leaving the plantation. and its not as if slaves had a choice: you can go if you like, or stay here and work for nothing

  17. well there is also free will that can overcome nature.

    but I’m saying, what is the motivation for overcoming the sexual/propogative instinct (for those that aren’t genetically anomlied) that the fem separatists give?

  18. 116 · HMF said

    Im saying, given those stats at face value, it would be illogical to seek the company of men in general

    Which stats? I don’t think a logical response to JOATs stats would be to try to fight insinct and avoid men altoghter. You seem to get it here:

  19. 116 · HMF said

    this is stupid. but not a surprise given the source.

    the larger point being there are all sorts of situations where oppressed people have an opportunity to leave, but don’t. it not eeasy to leave ones family and hisory behind. so blacks stayed in apartheid south africa, women in saudi Arabia, etc…and women in abusive relationships in the US.

  20. 117 · HMF said

    but I’m saying, what is the motivation for overcoming the sexual/propogative instinct (for those that aren’t genetically anomlied) that the fem separatists give?

    i think radfems replace instinct with an extreme ideology, sort of like a cult or maybe like the communists tryed to erase self-interest and the profit motive.

  21. 113 · Topcat said

    The truth is men do this with far more frequency then women do (desi or otherwise) so the general assumption to attack them is natural. Not justifying it but I can see where it comes from.
    Philandering depends on financial and social independence, not gender. It is just that men have been historically more independent in the past.

    Thats not me but good points here and there

  22. Which stats? I don’t think a logical response to JOATs stats would be to try to fight insinct and avoid men altoghter.

    Then answer my question, how do you explain those who do participate in the fem separatist movement?

    oppressed people have an opportunity to leave, but don’t. it not eeasy to leave ones family and hisory behind.

    how fucking pejorative is this? how do you know what ‘opportunity’ existed for example, to black south africans, who essentially had all their assets taken from them? Do you think they could just jump on a plane? you’re conflating a systematic confinement with a willing choice (ie. you’re saying hands are ‘illogical’ because they can’t get out of handcuffs easily… forgetting the fact that handcuffs are DESIGNED to confine hands)… ie apartheid, S.arabias treatment of women are systems designed to keep them there, to confine them.

    Yet women willingly enter relationshps and seek male company time and time again having full knowledge of these stats. What Im saying is, a constant parroting of these types of stats (without background information about actual numbers, not just percentages) is fairly meaningless unless it’s done to support some kind of separatist or reformation – and the separatists do exist.. and I’m asking why? (unless you think they’re just lesbos)

  23. Let me flip the question on you, the women who do participate in female separatism use the same stats JOAT provided as reasoning for their movement, are they just crazy misinterpreters who lack this sexual, propogative instinct? or are they just all lesbos?

    The female separatist movement might use the same stats HMF for their own purpose but it doesn’t negate the stats. Men have always enjoyed a dominant position in societies for lots of obvious reasons. They are physically stronger, they have always been the traditional bread earner and they were the mostly in charge of patriarchal societies. Why is it hard to believe then that this position of power wouldn’t lead to some level of abuse?

    Why are we arguing on semantics? Irrespective of whether women leave abusive men, whether the lesbians hate men or there are gays or whatever else you are throwing out there to plump up your argument it doesn’t take away from the stats. They exist and they are real. You can try to argue that it’s not 850 women out of 1000 people (your example) but you can’t take away the fact that it is still 9% versus 2%!

  24. 122 · HMF said

    Then answer my question, how do you explain those who do participate in the fem separatist movement?

    they’re ideologues. like an extreme religious person can suppress there sexuality

  25. i think radfems replace instinct with an extreme ideology,

    it’s only extreme to your eyes. to them it’s logical, as they draw up on those very stats as impetus for their beliefs. you’re giving me a recursive proof:

    “The radical feminists are radical because their ideology is extreme”

    uhh. okay.

  26. They are physically stronger, they have always been the traditional bread earner and they were the mostly in charge of patriarchal societies.

    All the more reason for a feminist separatist movement to gain traction, in particular the latter.

    They exist and they are real.

    I’m not arguing against your biased presentation of them, rather saying that women obviously aren’t getting abused at the level as you’d have be believe, in a qualitative sense, or female separatist movements would be more followed.

    What is true, P(male assailant|physical abuse) = high, ie conditioning on physical abuse apriori, it’s likely to be a male assailant. Anyway, it’s you who shifted the sphere to physical abuse in order to serve your bs stats, when I had specifically asked for stats in another arena.

  27. they’re ideologues. like an extreme religious person can suppress there sexuality

    but what motivates them to such extreme positions. you’re simply answering the quetsion by stating the same words over and over again.

  28. how fucking pejorative is this? how do you know what ‘opportunity’ existed for example, to black south africans, who essentially had all their assets taken from them? Do you think they could just jump on a plane?

    well you don’t see american blacks jumping on planes to leave the US even though they can. does that mean stats showing discrimination are incorrect or they’re being illogical, as you claim women are?

    you’re conflating a systematic confinement with a willing choice

    not really. male domination is systmeic. there’s no place to go to avoid it.

  29. 125 · HMF said

    it’s only extreme to your eyes. to them it’s logical, as they draw up on those very stats as impetus for their beliefs. you’re giving me a recursive proof:

    well, for one thing radfems use fake pumped up stats as chrintina hoff summers and many others have documented. often they tie femeinsm to another extreme ideology like marxism or anachism. they are extreme b/c they try to suprees human nature too much, not b/c “The radical feminists are radical because their ideology is extreme” as you say.

  30. does that mean stats showing discrimination are incorrect or they’re being illogical, as you claim women are?

    No, its just a cost-benefit analysis, the cost of leaving here outweighs the benefits (better lifestyle) they’d receive outside of here. It just makes more logical sense for them to remain here and collectively fight the discrimination they face rather than leave.

    And black nationlist movements have had much more traction than female separatist movements (ie marcus garvey, etc..)

    not really. male domination is systmeic. there’s no place to go to avoid it.

    more reason for feminist separation to gain traction.

    Male domination is not systematic in the sense of a formalized social institution:

    Males didn’t go to oprah land and bring women here to be abuse and subservient to men. thats what I mean by a system generated for the purpose of confinement, as was slavery, apartheid, s. arabia, etc..

  31. they are extreme b/c they try to suprees human nature too much,

    That is what im asking! what motivation do they have to suppress human nature??? your answer = they’re extreme, they’re ideologues, they’re radical….

    it’s a recursive loop you’ve entered.

  32. 127 · HMF said

    but what motivates them to such extreme positions. you’re simply answering the quetsion by stating the same words over and over again.

    the best book to explain it is probably “the god that failed” about another ideology designed to fight oppresion by creating a society in opposition to human nature.

  33. 130 · HMF said

    And black nationlist movements have had much more traction than female separatist movements (ie marcus garvey, etc..)

    yeah, but not much traction. and they weren’t even fighting nature.

  34. 131 · HMF said

    That is what im asking! what motivation do they have to suppress human nature??? your answer = they’re extreme, they’re ideologues, they’re radical….

    actually, i’d suggest raymond aron’s “the opiate of the intellectuals” which also explains communisms appeal. you can’t understand radfem w/o understanding marx first. he’s the central figure in the emergence of all these radical liberation movements.

  35. Why is it hard to believe then that this position of power wouldn’t lead to some level of abuse?

    The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility. You would’nt want Paris Hilton/Anna Nicole to be your role model, would you?

  36. yeah, but not much traction. and they weren’t even fighting nature.

    this is my point, they had more traction than feminist separatists because their discrimination was not “natural”, not to say that female DV physical abuse is “natural”, however, I’d say that the rush to impugn men and divest women of any accountability in any general situation based on a biased presentation of stats, as JOAT provided is, illogical.

    I think the “no one was hurt” rhetoric came out because in this case the victim was male, JOATs stats do not corroborate the existence of some kind of inherent male abusive nature, only that when physical abuse occurs, it tends to be in the male –> female direction.

  37. Who woulda thunk that a post on Anu would lead to the new and novel topic of male-female power dynamics. But, I just wanted to address one point:

    Then according to survival of the fittest, wouldn’t this population be systematically wiped out, as they don’t carry on genetic traits making them fit for survival and replication? Secondly, the purported 10% figure is not insignificant.

    There are reasonably convincing genetic theories for homosexuality (for example, based on the influence of mitochondrial DNA). Also, not all results of “survival of the fittest” operating at the genetic level lead to globally optimal outcomes. Read David Haig, and to some extent, Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.

  38. 98 HMF said

    Fake feminists are all too happy to let that inequity persist, real ones (as post #74 is) don’t.

    Step right up ladies, and get your Male Certified Feminist Pedigree.

    105 HMF said

    if all those stats clearly show women disproportionately victimized by men, why do women seek their company? Why hasn’t the feminist separatist movement gained more traction. Simple logic would dictate that as the only level-headed choice given the indisputable stats you presented.

    Key word: simple.

    105 HMF said

    And who are you to determine whats lesser or more pain for him?

    Who are you to determine who’s a “real” feminist and who’s a “fake” feminist?

    111 HMF said

    ‘m saying it’s a logical contradiction for women to continue to seek male company, given those stats being correct.

    Who ever said women were logical, lol!

  39. 139 · SM Intern said

    <

    blockquote>

    The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it.
    Are they? Or are a few?

    Few? I didnt mean all women but most women girls Can you point me to any comment by a woman on this thread that gives a benefit of doubt to Anu, not counting Anna and maybe Kusala(if thats a she)

  40. The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility. You would’nt want Paris Hilton/Anna Nicole to be your role model, would you?

    We don’t know if she cheated on her husband or not. She claims Jani is a platonic friend. If we are willing to believe that Dig is an innocent and loving husband, why not give the wife the benefit of the doubt as well?

    Just because she ran off secretly, lied and left her car doors unlocked and motor running?

  41. 135 · Topcat said

    The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility

    I don’t see anybody justifying anything, I see people trying to understand why she behaved in such an irrational way. Some of us are not satisfied with a simple “She’s obviously evil.” explanation. Some of us are even willing to explore hypotheses which may be proven wrong.

    You are making sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations which is why you are losing your credibility.

  42. HMF, you seem to be saying that since the statistics show that men disproportionately abuse women in relationships (as opposed to women abusing men), women should stay away from men? I can’t speak for all women, but I don’t assume that all boys/men will turn out to be abusive. Perhaps it is sexual instinct masquerading as false hope in humanity, but I don’t think so. Perhaps it’s a more general human tendency, e.g. ‘Even if the statistics show this, it won’t happen to ME.’ etc. (you see the same sort of mentality among smokers, who tend to believe that nothing bad will happen to THEM specifically) If a man (like Dignesh) has his heart broken by a woman, is it logical for him to try to separate from all women? Most people would say no. Many abused women do have a hard time ‘trusting’ men again, but not all.

  43. 144 · Harbeer said

    135 · Topcat said
    The problem is not what Anu Solanki did, the problem is women here are justifying it. Lot of women are equating raunch to empowerment thats the reason why women are losing their moral credibility
    I don’t see anybody justifying anything, I see people trying to understand why she behaved in such an irrational way. Some of us are not satisfied with a simple “She’s obviously evil.” explanation. Some of us are even willing to explore hypotheses which may be proven wrong. You are making sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations which is why you are losing your credibility.

    Alright, Aalright. I am out of here. Let me know if you survive the maneaters.

  44. “Who are you to determine who’s a “real” feminist and who’s a “fake” feminist?”

    by consistency. if someone believes equality should exist across the board, they are real in my book, if they are selective about what differences should persist, and what should be eliminated, they are fake.

    “You seem to be saying that since the statistics show that men disproportionately abuse women in relationships (as opposed to women abusing men), women should stay away from men?”

    No, Im saying IF the stats conclude that it’s reasonable to apply a blanket generalisation that men are inherently more abusive, then it makes no sense for women to want their company. but you have just negated the conditional with your statement that “I don’t assume that all boys/men will turn out to be abusive”

    “If a man (like Dignesh) has his heart broken by a woman, is it logical for him to try to separate from all women? Most people would say no”

    the question was statistics, not personal experience.

  45. I think the “no one was hurt” rhetoric came out because in this case the victim was male, JOATs stats do not corroborate the existence of some kind of inherent male abusive nature, only that when physical abuse occurs, it tends to be in the male –> female direction.

    Oh what crap. She was a jerk to behave in the fashion she did. It was irresponsible and pathetic how is anyone justifying it? Calling her names is serving what purpose? Men have equal potential to be jerks. Again I’m trying to understand your point? What are you exactly arguing about? No one here justifies what she’s done for crying out loud. At least I didn’t see a single person do so. OK DQ doesn’t count in my books. But she didn’t commit a crime hell even the lawmakers couldn’t find any law she may have broken so far. She’s up there on the scale of stupidity but making her out to be some kind of monster is ridiculously extreme. I’ve known quite a few male jerks in my life unfortunately however that is all they are, jerks. They didn’t break any laws. Lets keep perspective.