There Is No “Honour” In Killing

A newly-wed couple was set on fire in a village in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra as their family was opposed to their inter-caste love marriage. We can trace a series of such incidences of honour killings across India every year. Such news do make small headlines, but fails to become a topic of prime-time debates on national television or part of digital activism in terms of social media hashtag campaigns or never leads to candle-light protests. They have just become a part of the annual statistics on crimes. Have we normalized such killings in our psyche?

In India, all "honour (ijjat)" of the families/societies is positioned in the purity of women. Hence, instead of being considered as individuals with lives and choices of their own, women's lives are structured through a strict maintenance of an honour code. They are seen as the torchbearers of family ‘honour’. Honour killing is related to a perception that the couple has dishonoured the family by transgressing the societal norms.

The existence of honour killing all over the world put universal human rights under severe duress. It puts the agency of “individualism” and “choice” against the notion of collective social agency and stringent norms. Right to marry comes within the ambit of “Right to life” enshrined by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the notion of free will in exercising this right is more filial or social in nature, rather than an individual one.

So, how does a family execute such acts against their own beloved ones and which amounts to flagrant violation of "Rule of Law"? They either succumb to social pressure (a social code is often more powerful than a law) or become trapped in their own value systems to victimize or kill their own children. By the virtue of solidarity and conformity, family is under constant pressure to comply with the normative order. This regressive order when disregarded can cause disrepute and condemnation of family. The only way to preserve one's honour and remove the stigma associated with losing social status is to eliminate the very source of shame. Also, perpetrators often do not face negative stigma within their communities, because their behavior is seen as justified as per the collective norms of the society. Thus, social benefits for killing for honour are abstract and permanent.

In such collectivist cultures, punishment is not carried out to dissuade others but to satisfy collective conscience of the patriarchal society. The friction between universalism and cultural relativism is manifested in such cases. i.e. As per universal and liberal view, marriage is considered as a matter of individual choice and freedom; whereas being culturally specific, it is confined to ideas of sexual autonomy, marriage, religious conscience, caste, gotra etc. It is not just the act of the murder of the erring individuals but it is the process behind the construction of honour which is the bone of contention here.

Informal social systems play important roles in execution of such crimes. 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts gave village panchayats constitutional status. However, in some parts of the country they are still dominated and coerced by such informal systems like the Khap Panchayats which have resulted in the constructions of gender and sexuality, tradition and honour. Hence, in spite of the Supreme Court's ruling that any intrusions by khaps to stop a marriage between consenting adults is illegal, they still order diktats against any couple. These diktats are not tenable before any court of law but are acceptable to the community in question and are motivated by the need to perpetuate a feudal and patriarchal order. In the case of Shakti Vahini, the Suprem Court of India had given various guidelines to prevent honour killing. It includes provisions like immediate FIR against Khap Panchayats if they order any diktat against any couple, safe houses for the couples, along with security, if needed. These must be strictly adhered to.

Police should also take immediate action and provide security to such couples, which they often fail to do. In many cases, they don’t even lodge FIRs for fear of being ostracized by the community or village. In many cases, police is found to be highly patriarchal in their orientation and tended to view such cases as aberration from societal norms. They advise the victims not to pursue the complaints and instead opt for a negotiated settlement. This calls for a greater sensitization of police force towards better handling of these crimes. Along with a sustained nationwide media campaign to draw attention to the problem, community and religious leaders should be persuaded to speak out against honour violence.

At a time when on economic front, we have become a major global power; on the socio-cultural front, we are still caught in the unsettled conflict of tradition and modernity. It is indeed a matter of disgrace that citizens of world’s largest democracy are devoid of the privilege to exercise their fundamental right to choose the life partner of their own choice. It is a dark spot on Indian social values because it reflects Indian culture as culture of crimes. And by adding the word "honour" to killing, we view these murders through the eyes of their killers and indirectly justify the notion of "honourable" motives. We must stop doing this as there is no “honour” in killing.