When will we kill patriarchy for our honour?

I detest the term 'honour killing'. It assumes that somebody's honour is at stake and therefore the murder has social sanctity.

Farzana Parveen was attacked by her family for "marrying the man she loved". She was pregnant. This happened in a big city, Lahore, Pakistan. It was in the day, at a place where there is always a crowd — right outside the high court. People stood and watched as her family members, including father and brothers, hit her with bricks and batons.

She was appearing in a case filed against her husband Mohammad Iqbal for kidnapping her. Her family had come prepared with guns and first fired shots in the air. It would seem the intent was to take her away. When this did not work, they picked up bricks and started pelting her. Her husband managed to escape. I find this disturbing. While it would be impossible to shield her against 20 people, he could have stayed there.

What was the crowd doing? Even if they did not want to get involved, they could have called for help. This is sickening. A report says:

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a private group, said in a report last month that some 869 women were murdered in 'honour killings' in 2013.

These are cases that get reported. Most are not. According to Pakistani law, if the victim's family pardons the criminal, it is acceptable with a few conditions. Many of such families are poor and settle for monetary compensation. In this case, the family is also the criminal. Although technically her husband will have to take a call, her parents would be permitted to do so. With the lackadaisical attitude of the cops, it is likely that nothing will happen. They all escaped. The father who did not handed himself to the police. He is not one bit repentant:

"I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it."

This qualifies as 'honour'? It is true that in many societies such relationship decisions are still taken by the family. It is often explained as the need to protect the woman (and men too). However, the scales are clearly tipped against the woman, as in this case. How did she bring disrepute to the family, and how does their blatant act of bludgeoning her not do so?

Some people have taken to replacing the word 'honour' with 'dishonour', which is much the same. The onus continues to be on the victim. She is supposed to bring dishonour. Terminology reveals a lot about how cultures evolve, or rather regress. There is a tacit acceptance that a reputation has been compromised, which is why it is so wrong.

Did those onlookers know what honour was involved here? Yet, they kept quiet. Partly because it is understood that something must be wrong about the woman's character or behaviour that prompted such rage. It looked as though they were participating in some ritual where they did not need to comprehend the language, yet believe in its significance. This is not about an unacceptable love story, for folklore has plenty of them. It is about how patriarchy sustains itself.

We hear about gang-rapes "to teach women a lesson". The message being that if a woman chooses to be with someone other than what is deemed right for her she has become the property of a 'rival' and is therefore territory to be reclaimed, or just claimed if the criminals are not known.

Added to cultural conditioning is the class structure. It is often the ones higher in the hierarchy who commit such acts against the poor or those belonging to a 'backward caste'. In india, the latter is common, and almost every other day we hear about women sexually abused or killed because they went against the norms. Their partners are not spared if they belong to a lower caste.

It means that patriarchy itself has its own hierarchy. A bit like racism.

In Houston, Aaron Aranza beat up his 15-year-old daughter with a belt for choosing a Black man as her dance partner. It was for a traditional 15th birthday celebration, and he discovered her choice during the rehearsals.

Here too, he might explain it as 'honour'. A young woman in a supposedly progressive western environment cannot make a choice that goes against stratified ideas of what is acceptable. She was quite obviously unencumbered by divisive colour palettes in her personal interactions. That is the reason she probably did not think of her partner in black or white terms.

Some reports have specifically highlighted that her father is Hispanic, which says a great deal about how the media adds to the pecking order, that is no order at all.

The father's rage is about assertion of not just the superiority of colour, but of himself as owner of his daughter.

The centuries' old attitude has never gone away. There can be no freedom if women are treated as property and crimes against them are deemed to be about protection of resources, and these resources are women themselves. They aren't allowed to own their minds or their bodies.

Those who do so are seen as a blot. Isn't it time for such 'blots' to expose the stains on the male mindset? When will we kill patriarchy for our honour?

Update, June 2, 12.30 am IST:

What do the new angles mean?

Farzana Parveen's husband admitted that he killed his first wife to marry her.

There was no honour involved in that.

The latest news is her sister insisting that when they came out of the court, she wanted to go to her waiting family but Iqbal and Iqbal's accomplices beat her up with bricks.

Whatever be the truth, a few points:

Why did the father admit to the murder, then?
Why did the family not stop the husband, if he was the one attacking?
Why did he not stop them, if they were attacking?
Why did the onlookers do nothing?
What about the cops?

Irrespective of who did what, she was brutally killed. We should stop pigeonholing such murders as 'honour killings' because, besides the points mentioned earlier, they impede justice.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also: Is this honour rape?

Smriti Irani, Sycophancy and the Politics of Vengeance

Bend it like Modi

Narendra Modi is officially the new Prime Minister of India. L.K.Advani, who had expressed reservations about his candidature in public, proposed his name. He had no choice. The RSS decides these things, including portfolios.

To cut a very long story short. There is much emotion, as though it has come as a huge surprise. There is much talk about how emotional he got and how humble he was that he touched the steps of Parliament.

Modi addressed a gathering with the words:

“We are sitting here in the temple of democracy. We are not here for any positions, but to fulfill responsibilities.”

Parliament is the seat of democracy and paying obeisance means following the Constitution.

Mr Modi is, of course, quite accustomed to bowing – whether it is before the controversial boy godman Nityanand, or guns during shastra puja, irrelevant in contemporary times, or before Swami Pramukh Maharaj.

He repeated that he was the son of a poor man, and that was the strength of democracy.

“Sarkar vo ho jo gareebon ke liye soche, jo gareebon ki sune, jo gareebon ke liye jiye, nayi sarkar gareebon ke liye samarpit hai.”

Reminiscent of Indira Gandhi’s ‘Garibi Hatao’ slogan, he spoke about a government that thought about the poor, listened to the poor, lived for the poor, and dedicated themselves to the poor. It must be noted that this time’s Parliament comprises of the richest.

Meanwhile...these are not supplicants, but bureaucrats:

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

I do not know who would buy a mattress after seeing such images. Kurl-On is a well known brand. It has run a series using three public figures from different generations and for different reasons — Mahatma Gandhi, Steve Jobs, Malala Yousafzai.

The last one has been pulled up for bad taste.

The ad shows the young girl holding up her hands while facing down a gun, and then being shot in the head. She tumbles through the air before coming to rest on a Kurl-on spring mattress. Rejuvenated, sthen "bounces back" -- that's the campaign slogan -- to receive Pakistan's National Youth Peace Prize.

The ad agency is the local branch of Ogilvy & Mather.

The head of the Chilean studio that did the sketch admitted the gunshot stood out in the drawing.

"The Kurl-on ad tries to do the complete opposite, it's about triumphing over violence. The scene portrays a real event, an example of heroism that is very powerful, especially in Eastern countries, which is what they told us they wanted when we started the graphic."

If 'bounce back' is the tagline, I still don't get it. Do people want mattresses that bounce? Do they bounce on them? Being springy is a different thing altogether.

Ogilvy has apologised for the Malala segment. I can well imagine they would be concerned as she is an internationaly-accepted figure now and they cannot afford to antagonise the political brains behind her. There is silence about the other two though, and not only because they are dead. I find those images equally offensive.

• a young Steve Jobs being booted out the door, only to bounce back in his signature black turtleneck, showing off a Macbook in front of a camera.

• a young lawyer version of Mahatma Gandhi thrown out of a moving train and rallying back as the robe-clad Indian independence leader.

Bouncing back in a situation does not always mean being shot at, booted out, thrown out. In a subtle way, this is empowering those who do it — the corporates and the racists, who are everywhere. Normal people too bounce back from setbacks, personal and professional.

And many do not even have a bed to sleep in.

To Mrs Modi, the First Lady

Jashodaben goes to vote

Dear Jashodaben:

I hear you are in Tirupati to offer thanksgiving. Your prayers have been answered. Your husband has been rewarded, and may well head the next government.

You will, therefore, become the First Lady. There will be SPG guards protecting you. This can be extremely intrusive for somebody who led an ‘invisible’ existence for decades.

Do excuse my intrusion into this space, but now you are public property too. I desisted joining the chorus when you were flashed before the public on April 9. It was unnecessary to drag your name in, even though your name legitimised your husband in ways you may never imagine.

After 40 years, he publicly accepted you for the first time by adding your name in the spouse column in the affidavit when he filed his nomination papers. Clearly, he was aware that this time there would be more questions. You appeared as silently as you had probably disappeared. Your brother said you had gone off on a pilgrimage, as you promised you would the moment he accepted you:

“Jashodaben never stayed with Narendrakumar (Modi) after marriage and has led a life alone dedicated to spiritualism. But by heart she still considers Narendrakumar (Modi) as her husband. She had taken a pledge of not eating rice or any preparation made out of it till he (Modi) becomes a prime minister. She still considers committed to Narendrakumar (Modi) and is ready to go with him only if he calls her back.”

Why were you rejected? We tend to romanticise abstinence and asceticism. He was joining the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), where familial relationships are not encouraged. But, is not abstinence also about being above the perks of power? If anybody followed the vows, it was you.

Modi with his mother: isn't this family ties?

Your need for acceptance has been well-expressed by mythological figures and saints like Sita and Meera. But you were on banwaas and you had to give agni pariksha. Is this fair? You committed yourself to an idol, but what did the idol do?

Meera was strong. She said to those who taunted her, “Family honour, words of scorn? /I care not for these one jot, /For my Krishna’s bewitching form/Is etched forever on my heart.”

What did Lord Krishna do? He intervened in her dream to advise her, “If the gopikas could do their duty to their husbands, tend their families and above all be totally devoted to me all the time, you can do the same thing. Do your duty. I shall not leave you any time”?

For you he was both husband and deity, it would seem. You deserve more than a namesake relationship.

As the First Lady, will you have any influence? I am not suggesting that you should be doing the ribbon-cutting at inauguration for ‘ladies’ type projects. Your husband has promised many things to the women of India. It would make a lot of difference if you helped initiate schemes for ‘women’s empowerment’. Your husband keeps mentioning 'Nirbhaya'. There are many victims of sexual abuse who will never get media attention. They might not even want it. There are the widows of Vrindavan; they need more than an opportunity to spray colours during Holi. There is abuse at the workplace. There is domestic violence – a subject that causes a great deal of anguish and anger, because few want to go into what is considered a ‘private matter’, and a question of rights.

Do you believe in ownership in a relationship? Given your example, you gave up any claims not only to property or possessions, but also to the man you married at a young age. You made peace with your situation, but what about the many who lead lives of utter despair because they have been abandoned by some uncouth man in a fit of rage or for a higher purpose? Does the fact that the woman may not share that purpose count for nothing? Not everybody has the backing of a family they can return to. It is to the credit of your parents and siblings that you were not considered any less, which as you know happens often even among the urbanised, supposedly modern lot. You got an education, started earning, and became self-sufficient. You did not sell tea, and perhaps that will not bring a gleam to the eyes of people who get pleasure from hype.

Many women are illiterate and poor, and are often sold off into brothels. You are already aware of all this, and I am merely emphasising the points that are ignored when empowering women.

Now, I wish to touch upon a subject that is sensitive. You might have read about Snoopgate. A woman was being trailed and stalked by what a sting operation revealed to be the Gujarat government. The then Home Minister has been exonerated for keeping tabs for some ‘Saheb’. If we let this pass for the purpose of this note, then we still have the statement of the young architect’s father saying that the government had his permission to do so. It was to protect them. The woman is an adult. Is a father permitted to get in touch with the chief minister or other senior persons in the government to spy on his daughter? Is the state machinery meant for such purposes? Why has the father sought to quash a probe?

I was not and am not interested in salacious details, so I ask these queries because they can have serious implications. Women are stalked, and anybody can come forward to be a protector. With so many communication channels this can prove to be a means for blackmail, not to speak of an end to their reputation and future.

You have a right to a future, too. A future where you get the respect due to a partner. It may be difficult for you to transform from a Meera to a Radha, but no one worships Meera as a consort. Or will you stay in the background again – a name on a nomination paper, a prayer at a temple, footprints on a pilgrimage?

Your silence will be reflective of the silence of many women in a society where machismo takes different forms, sometimes even as abstinence.

Uth meri jaan...


© Farzana Versey

Marriage of Convenience: The ND Tiwari Saga

The N.D.Tiwari saga has now resulted in retribution. Whatever people might like to call it, the 88-year-old legalising his relationship with Ujjwala Sharma that was not anymore a relationship is the offshoot of years of guilt.

There are reports referring to his glad eye and other such stuff that is not germane to what he shared with the woman he has married. She says:

“He wanted to give social sanctity to our relationship, which was very old and we have a 35-year-old son. We will complete legal formalities after which we will invite all."

Social sanctity often means social security. Tiwari did not really care about public opinion. It is quite likely he is doing this because there is nothing left to lose anymore. He will be absolved of the feeling of having wronged; their son Rohit Shekhar who had dragged him to court in the paternity case will think he has scored some success in legtimising himself and his mother; and Ms. Sharma will be effectively 'saved'.

In all this, we forget a few things, including the fact that he was not quite the only bad guy here. (I shall reproduce some bits from an earlier post)

He snapped ties with her and the son in 1995. His wife had died two years ago. He was not interested in the relationship. She moved on and got married to Bipin Sharma; they have a son. Tiwari resurfaced in her life. Amazingly, she admitted: “Between 2002 and 2005 there was a semblance of a relationship between us.”

She had a husband, and went ahead to be with a man who was now quite a prominent politician, who had deserted her and the son, and shown no remorse.

In 2006, she and her husband parted ways. It was also the year Rohit started a campaign against Tiwari.

“In 2006, I started a campaign against him and sent out letters to everyone in Uttarakhand about our relationship. He kept telling people I was not his son but just a blackmailer. That’s when I started looking for legal options. This is not a battle for his property or money. I just want to make peace with myself. He had told me a 1,000 times in private that I looked like him. How I had inherited his nose. But if I met him in public, he would simply look through me. That hurt.”

I hope this puts an end to the hurt. It makes me wonder, though, about what really gives relationships sanctity. Is it merely the presence of people in our lives — their acceptance of us? Are they accepting themselves in that relationship with as much emotion?

© Farzana Versey

There are other aspects, should you be interested, here

The price of a home

Mukesh Ambani's home at Mumbai's Altamount Road still appears to me to be under-construction. There is something incomplete about it. Or, like a wedding cake that's been haphazardly sliced through. At night, it transforms into a lit-up bauble for Brobdingnagians.

It comes at a price and now it has topped the list, according to Forbes:

The title of the most outrageously expensive property in the world still belongs to Mukesh Ambani’s Antilia in Mumbai, India. The 27-story, 400,000-square-foot skyscraper home–which is named after a mythical island in the Atlantic–includes six stories of underground parking, three helicopter pads, and reportedly requires a staff of 600 to keep it running. Construction costs for Antilia have been reported at a range of $1 billion to $2 billion. To put that into perspective, 7 World Trade Center, the 52-story tower that stands just north of Ground Zero in Manhattan with 1.7 million square feet of office space, cost a reported $2 billion to build.

A rich person is most certainly entitled to spend wealth as s/he desires. There are wannabes who aspire to things the rich want. However, when it is a home in a city with a huge disparity in wealth among its citizens, then it ceases to be a question merely of personal riches.

Reminds me of wellknown architect Charles Correa, who and said:

“When I visited Australia I realised that save for a few homes most of the people in the cities live on similar-sized plots. Australia, I thought is locked into equality while in India we are locked into inequality. Mukesh Ambani has proved it. ‘This is the amount of urban space I control,’ he is telling us by building that home. At the same time you have to be impressed. What a huge ivory tower!”

Poverty bothers us, whether it is due to sympathy or because its presence is considered a nuisance, an intrusion into our space. We drive past, eyes averted. We walk past, waiting to get out and inhale. We are uncomfortable; this is not about us.

Why don't we feel the same way about the ostentatious although that too is not about us? We drive past and look with awe. We walk past, slow our steps until a guard looks with suspicion. This makes us uncomfortable because poor guy has access to super rich.

In that, we too live in ivory towers sponging on other people's make-believe.

© Farzana Versey