Sunday December 17, 2017
Home India How Honorable...

How Honorable is Honor Killing?

0
200

By Nithin Sridhar

psycho-303435_1280

A scary tale from Bangalore

In what appears to be a case of honor killing, a person named Hanumantaraaya is alleged to have murdered his sister Kasturi and her lover Basavaraju in Bangalore according to a report published in Vijaya Karnataka (July 6 issue), a Kannada daily.

The victims were originally from Koppala district, and Kasturi was in love with Basavaraju. But their love was not acceptable to her family due to caste consideration. Her brother had forced Kasturi to marry another man against her wishes. Kasturi left her husband and ran away with Basavaraju and arrived in Bangalore, just days after the marriage.

It is alleged that Hanumantaraaya was very upset with this, and he searched for Kasturi and found her to be living in Bangalore. He visited their house and spent the day with his sister. At night, when Kasturi and Basvaraju were sleeping, he allegedly hacked them to death with a knife. Kasturi was 24 years old and Basavaraju was 28 years old.

This brutal double murder adds one more to the ever-growing list of honor killings that is happening in India. A typical honor killing issue starts with two young people loving each other, and it ends with the lovers ending up dead, killed by their own families for ‘defiling’ their family’s honor.

The question that society, of which these perpetrators are an inseparable part, must ask itself is: What honor is there in killing someone in the name of honor?

Honor killing is a global phenomenon

Honor killing refers to the killing of a person by the members of his/her own family, because of the notion that certain actions of the victim brought insult and dishonor upon the family.

Honor killings are a worldwide phenomenon. Though it is difficult to estimate the exact number of people killed annually, it has been suggested that globally 5000 people are killed for honor every year. The Indian figures are estimated at 1000 people annually.

Honor killings are rampant in the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Western UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Some experts suggest that the number of deaths globally is as high as 20,000 per year.

Apart from India, the cases of honor killings have been reported in Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, Israel, Holland, Sweden, USA, and many more countries. Therefore, this is clearly a global phenomenon.

What is honor?

Now, returning to the question: Is there honor in killing for honor? We must first look into the question: what is honor?

Traditionally, the notion of honor has been associated with zarr (wealth), zoroo (women), and zameen (land) in India. But does it mean women are commodities similar to land and wealth?

The answer is a definite no and therein lies the source as well as the solution to the problem. Pursuing land, wealth and women are considered as virtue because without them, a man cannot perform dharma (duties/righteousness). But, they can easily turn into a vice, if a man intends to misuse them.

The ultimate goal of life is considered as moksha (liberation), and this cannot be attained without attaining the wealth that constitutes artha, and without having a spouse, together with whom, one can pursue desires and duties that constitute kaama and dharma respectively.

Therefore, women are associated with honor of the family, not because they are commodities, but because without them, men are incomplete, without them the practice of dharma is impossible. When it is said, a wife is half portion of her husband, conversely it also means that husband is half portion of his wife. Hence, although their roles are different, men and women share an equal standing as far as a family is concerned.

There is no honor in honor killings

The next question is: whether killing is honorable?

Honor is related to virtuous and righteous actions. The scriptures have clearly defined what constitutes dharma or righteous actions and what constitutes adharma or unrighteous actions.

Ahimsa or non-injury is considered as the most important duty of whole mankind. When the Hindu scriptures, which are the basis of Indian life, clearly state that violence committed in self-interest is unrighteous, how can killing anyone, because of the notion that family honor has been ruined, be righteous? Further, such a notion of honor itself is based on wrong understanding.

Love or lust?

If it be pointed out, that few Hindu scriptures mention harsh punishments for adultery including death, it is easy to point out that love is not same as adultery.

It’s true that, adultery is considered adharma as it involves cheating and a wide variety of punishments have been mentioned depending the severity of the crime. But, nowhere do the scriptures mention that parents should kill their daughters, or brothers should kill their sisters by accusing them of adultery or of bringing dishonor to the family.

The authority of delivering punishments is only with the judicial systems and not with people. More importantly, in the present case of Kasturi, her forceful marriage itself is invalid as far as dharma is concerned. Marriage is called as kanyaadaanam because the bride is given as a charity. And charity is a very noble act.

But, anything forcefully given can never be considered as daanam (charity). Therefore, the marriage of the girl itself is invalid. So the question of adultery does not arise at all.

Also, love marriages are accepted as valid forms of marriage in Hindu scriptures which call them “gandharva vivaha.”

Therefore, any assertions that honor killing is committed because the victim had violated culture norms and family honor, has no basis.

Women, without whom no act of dharma is possible, are always honorable. And there is absolutely no honor in killing women. Honor killing is a dishonorable act. Period.

Next Story

Triple Talaq Ban in India: Union Cabinet Passes Bill Making the Practice a Criminal Offence

The BMMA celebrates its victory over the much-debated practice of instant divorce

0
0
Muslim women are often victims of triple talaq, in spite of the ban
Muslim women are often victims of triple talaq, in spite of the ban, VOA News
  • Supreme court had ruled that the practice of triple talaq as illegal in August 2017.
  • On December 15, the Union Cabinet passed a bill which would make it a criminal offence
  • .The bill recommends a sentence of imprisonment for three years in case of a violation.
  • The bill also makes provisions for “subsistence allowance” for the women divorced through triple talaq.

On December 15, the Union Cabinet of India cleared a draft legislation, which would make the controversial practice of triple talaq a criminal offence in India, a violation of which may result in imprisonment for a period of three years for the husband. The recently approved bill, deemed as the ‘Muslim Women’s Protection of Rights on Marriage Bill’, was framed by a group of ministers including the External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, and the Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, and was headed by the Home Minister Rajnath Singh.

What is triple talaq

The practice of triple talaq, or talaq-e-biddat, is a Islamic ritual through which a man might divorce his wife by uttering the word ‘talaq’, that is, the Arabic word for ‘divorce’, three times. The controversial practice, which dates back to Islamic scriptures of the 8th century AD, was a common one among the Muslim population in India, often enacted through letters, emails, text messages, Skype and Whatsapp.

The Supreme Court of India bans the practice of triple talaq
The practice of triple talaq still continues, in spite of the ban, VOA News

Triple Talaq Ban

On August 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of India had banned the archaic practice of triple talaq, after a long and hard legal battle fought by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), also known as the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement. “Triple talaq is against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and consequently, it violates Shariat … What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well,” they had declared, making India the 23rd nation to ban the practice of unilateral divorce, after Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Many non-governmental Islamic organizations, along with certain clerics had opposed the verdict, on the grounds that it was an infringement of their right to religion, which is ensured by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, had decided to uphold Article 14 of the Constitution, which grants every citizen equality before the law. The verdict had met with mixed reactions among the people of India, attracting applause as well as apprehension all over the country.

The Supreme Court of India bans the practice of triple talaq
Women can now demand subsistence allowance for themselves and minor children, VOA News

However, in spite of the Supreme Court verdict, there have been reports of instant divorces performed through the process of oral declaration, as many continued to ignore the various advisories issued by the government.
The new bill approved by the government also makes provisions for Muslim Women to demand “subsistence allowance” for herself and her minor children from her husband, in case she feels victimised by the now illegal practice of triple talaq.

 

Next Story

Women influence, irrespective of the field, is good for everyone, says Farhan Akhtar

Farhan Akhtar says that influence of women irrespective of the field is good for everyone

0
0
Influence of women in any filed if good for everyone, says Farhan Akhtar.
Influence of women in any filed if good for everyone, says Farhan Akhtar. IANS

New Delhi, Dec 15, 2017: Actor-filmmaker-singer Farhan Akhtar hopes that actresses backing films as producers is not just a passing trend as he believes that women’s influence, irrespective of the field, is good for everyone.

Over the years, actresses like Dia Mirza, Priyanka Chopra, Anushka Sharma, Chitrangda Singh and Richa Chadha have shown interest in contributing to filmmaking as producers.

Asked what he thought about the trend, Akhtar told IANS here: “That’s how it should be. Not just actresses, there are also a lot of female producers and women who are working in different companies and handling the creative aspect of those companies.”

“It is amazing to see that. The more influence that we have of women in any field, why just films… it can be sports or politics also, it’s good for everyone because they have a different perspective on things because they have experienced life in different ways from what we (men) have; so, it makes a difference,” added the brother of director Zoya Akhtar.

Farhan’s latest co-production, “Fukrey Returns”, registered an opening day collection of Rs 8.10 crore on December 8. Are box office collections more important when he produces a film?

“The reason you do a film is because you want to share it with the world and when a lot of people see your film, the most tangible recognition of it is the box office collection, because you can aggregate a number through it,” he said.

But for him, success of a film also means “conceptually what is done to get people to think about things”.

“There are many films that were released in their time and not considered box office hits, but what that film meant, the kind of story-telling, the work that went into that film have sustained and at times (they are) considered as landmark films and way ahead of their times.

“So, success of a film can be gauged on many fronts; but is box office important? Of course it is, because people are putting money in a film. You don’t want anyone to lose money,” said the co-founder of Excel Entertainment that has produced blockbusters like “Rock On!!” and “Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara”.

The first look of his next co-production “3 Storeys”, starring Pulkit Samrat, Sharman Joshi, Richa Chadha and Renuka Shahane, was unveiled last week.

So, is a multi-starrer the formula for a hit film?

“I don’t think so. Eventually, a good story should be the formula for success… whether it is about one person in a room or 21 people in a colony like in ‘3 Storeys’. Our emphasis is on trying to tell good stories.

“Arjun Mukerjee, who is the director and writer of this film, has truly put together something that we consider very special. Now we are excited to share it with others,” he said.

Farhan is also passionate about fitness, among other things. The actor, who has fronted ads of vitamins and dietary supplements brand, is now endorsing Apollo Munich Health Insurance.

Is he deliberately focussing on health-related brands?

“It is not deliberate. I do feel good about doing it when it does happen. I don’t go around looking for it, but I guess the lifestyle that I lead, the kind of work that I do, information on my life and focus on health and fitness, encourage people to come and speak to me about it,” said the 43-year-old.

When did he start taking fitness seriously?

“I got serious about it in 2003-2004. I was shooting for ‘Lakshya’ in Ladakh. We were there for five months and I felt incredibly fit by the time I came back from there.

“When I returned to Mumbai, my energy levels were really high… it was a feeling that I didn’t want to lose. That’s when I started training with Sam (Samir Jaura), who is my trainer,” said the “Bhaag Milkha Bhaag” actor.

He believes fitness is not about “going to a gym and getting big biceps. It’s much more than that”. (IANS)

Next Story

Veerappan: India’s most wanted

Veerappan was hunted by the police for over four decades, making it the longest man-hunt in India

0
0
Veerappan was a smuggler, poacher, murderer and extortionist who was killed in Operation Cocoon
Veerappan in his heyday, He was killed via Operation Cocoon
  • Veerappan was a smuggler of ivory and sandalwood in the southern states of India.
  • He killed government officials and civilians alike when they tried to stop his illegal activities.
  • He died in October 2004 during ‘Operation Cocoon’, which was carried out by a Special Task Force.

Poaching, smuggling, extortion, smuggling, brigandry, murder — these are some of the few charges against Koose Munisamy Veerappan Gounder, popularly known as Veerappan, for whom was constituted India’s largest manhunt, on which the government spent around 1.5 million Rupees. From his childhood, narratives about the elusive dacoit were laced with fiction, as he became an object of myth when he was only ten years old, and had infamously shot his first tusker elephant for ivory. His notoriety became a national concern when the government banned ivory trade in India, and he began felling trees for precious sandalwood, thus beginning a period marred by Veerappan killing government officials and locals alike when they became an obstacle.

Veerappan unleashed a reign of terror on the southern states of India from the early 1980s till his death in 2004; during which Veerappan killing police officers and civilians alike caused a nationwide uproar. In 1990, the notorious smuggler had beheaded a forest officer K. Srinivas, which wasn’t recovered until three years later. In 2000, he had kidnapped the Kannada actor K. Rajkumar, whose release was negotiated through Nakkeeran editor Gopal, to whom the infamous poacher admitted to murdering as many as 120 people. Matters came to a head when   abducted the former Karnataka minister H. Nagappa in 2002, and killed him when his demands were not met.

Operation Cocoon:

Veerappan leading his gang in moily forest,
Veerappan leading his gang in Moily forest. Wikimedia

A Special Task Force or STF was constituted for the capture of Veerappan in 1991, which, headed by K. Vijay Kumar, launched Operation Cocoon in 2004, which finally resulted in Veerappan’s death. Kumar, aided by his previous experience with Veerappan, based Operation Cocoon on human intelligence and interaction, during which multiple STF personnel blended in with the locals in areas frequented by Veerappan. The initial stages of Operation Cocoon consisted of gaining the trust of Veerappan’s associates, till they started divulging details about his failing health. In the years before his death, the elusive outlaw seemed to have lost much of his vigour and vitality, as he suffered from diabetes, and a cataract had almost blinded him in one eye.
On 18th October, 2004, the police lured Veerappan out of familiar terrains in an ambulance, and apprehended him at a roadblock, where he was killed in the crossfire between his team and the STF, via three bullets. The photographs after Veerappan’s demise show him in a pathetic light, bereft of his signature handlebar moustache, and the agility which had facilitated his escape for over four decades.

There have been a lot of controversies regarding his death, as many media houses and activists have claimed that Operation Cocoon has derived Veerappan of a fair trial by law. Some have even claimed that he was tortured to death in police custody. The facts regarding the elusive sandalwood smuggler remain inconclusive even after a decade of his death, due to the lack of concrete evidence.