.6677 This incident. which occurred ill 1952 or 1953.

involved Joginder Kaur, a very beautiful married woman from Nakodar and her husband Mihan Singh. One day two brothers, Amar Singh and yara Singh, who were related to Mihan, came to the village and happened to meet Joginder in a relative's house. Joginder became infatuated with Amar and they met several times. After Amar confided about his relationshi! with Joginder to his younger brother yara, they !ersuaded her to elo!e with them. "hey fled from un#ab to a village in ilibhit district in $ where one of their relatives $mrao Singh hada farm. %n the meanwhile, Joginder&s husband filed a com!laint with the !olice who tracked them down and arrested $mrao, Amar and yara. 'owever, Joginder stated in court that she had gone with yara of her own will and was married to him. (hat followed was the start of the feud which led to a series of murders. "he story ended only in )*+, after most of the male characters had been killed. Joginder, however, survived and later remarried to live in !eace. "he !rimary !ur!ose of narrating the story is to show that love between a man and a woman can trigger an unforeseen saga of revenge and retribution lasting decades. %t is therefore im!ortant to focus on cases where the murder victim is either the boy or the girl or both. -et us begin by situating romantic love between a boy and a girl in a society that !rohibits such relationshi!s. Marriage is the second ste! whose !ur!ose is to let a cou!le settle into a !ermanent relationshi! that is socially recognised and legitimate. 'owever, while nobody seems to be aware of the rules for falling in love, all are familiar with marriage norms. However, these norms vary rom one social grou! to another, e g, while in western societies dating has develo!ed into a well.established institution, in %ndia, where tradition and modernity combine, rules are com!le/. Once we establish that in un#ab marriage is governed by normative order but love is not, it o!ens u! !ossibilities to make sense of honour killings. 0irst, arranged marriage becomes the norm and love is acce!table only after the cou!le is married, im!lying tradition has been modernised. Anthro. !ologists and sociologists argue that after a cou!le gets engaged, they fall in love and behave like lovers. 'owever, certain !arameters of marriage within the normative order are ful. filled by this arrangement, one of which is both belonging to the same caste. (e also have instances where a boy and girl fall in love and inform their res!ective !arents and if the !arents agree to the marriage, love becomes. acce!table. "his has begun to ha!!en in middle class educated families in both rural and urban 1 un#ab. An arranged marriage is not sim!ly the beginning of a rela. tionshi! between a &man and a woman, it also leads to the . /!ansion of the kinshi! unit of both families. Marriage.in the % rndll tonal sense of the term, is much more than social sane. lion f r establishing a family2 it is to forge an interfamily al%i. ))))34 %n which !rotection, security and mutual hel! are the knywl5rdn. Mol& OV r, %t is amechanism for maintaining.and %on!o,,))%+ . rmln rill S and noMs of behaviour thought to be &ss4ntlol f r tl6 conttnulry of th se structures of.e/tended kin. shi!, will %% %s k.nown by two nam S . biradari and shareeka.
,+ 8ir9dari refers to the immediate !in and caste pers"il#

7777777777777777.66 .7777t;%A777"%;lB interesting manner ( the "uter pan o the house is meant or men and the inner !ortion is intended for women. (hile the men deal with the outside world, the women remain !rotected within the four walls of the house. "raditionally, un#abi society has been characterised by a similar division but there are o)vious distinctions o caste and class. #uch divisions were traditionally visible among the u!!er casteCclass households and absent among the lower castesCclasses. "here are many im!lications of such divisions. $!!er caste women would normally not !artici!ate in any activity that involved going out of the house, e g, in Heer, (aris Shah makes a !ointed reference to Jat women working in the fields. On the other hand, KhatriCAroras, brahmins and =a#!uts were among the u!!er castes whose women would remain confined to the inner !ortion of the house. 8oth 'indus and Muslims maintained the tradition. Jars became !ros!erous in the late.medieval !eriod but Jat women were not totally confined in their homes. "hough Jats did begin to emulate =a#!uts and Syed Muslims after becoming rich landowners, such !ractices develo!ed in a limited manner. 'owever, irres!ective of their religion, Jats develo!ed a strong sense of honour and narratives of such kind began to a!!ear Auite early in a visible manner.4 Kee!ing in mind the division of the house on gender.s!ecific basis in traditional u!!er castesCclasses and the absence of their women in the labour market, it can be said that any woman who transgresses the division violates the normative order. "herefore, the action of a woman 3generally the unrnar. ried daughter5 that violates this division 3as !ointed out ear. lier5 amounts to rebellion and must be handled with the force of all legitimate sanctions. As a result, love becomes a serious threat not only to the family but to the community as well. ( therefore find that in most cases it is the daughter who is murdered. %t shonld also be remembered that though only a %S involving bloodshed normally come to the fore, !oisoning. which may go unre!orted, isalso Auite common. %t may bl& mentioned that killing the &daughter to save honour %s &l)7y because she cannot defend herself and, if the family cOn)f&7 %B% know in time, it is still convenient. On the other hand, the manCboy in love is A h ro, f%.%%%'%.l home a woman des!ite the odds is considered a moll .r 4rll& %%v4, y and courage. %ndeed, we have narrativ s about lortl ,),)))&4 doing !recisely this. arado/ically, the act of fu %%% "H %nluv,& wltir a woman, elo!ing 3in the sense ofudllaCna5, nnd %flklnN h%4 %%% . the village as a lawfully wedded wife is vi wl&d !ONltlDl&ly Jly falling in love with the daughter, a man be ouie6 till& )))) 'rl %%% her father and brothers& wrath . Mir9a&s Alssn &Bt&,,4 %lrlllllll strates that if caught, a man could be kllled wilhlllll 4%74 y. %% both the boy and girl are Jat and &lo!& su tt&s6,flllly, )))%),,7h )))) boy must remain concerned for his snfl&ly, ))3E %%%).y ,till hr "" given. 'owever, if a dalit boy commits %ll& 4)))) %%.k FF 4 )%%lrllllll' 1in love with aJat girl, he&is a d finite tors &% of )%)))tl&k lilt 4&l%ld be killed even after a marring r mony hll7 %ilkt&lll&irll %%, Heer's Aissa is crucial to und ..slolld h ( '%&,4%,&, %%%%%G. )))))). in the feudal cultural conte/t of hono4r kllllll'N, AN )))44))))))) H) in the first !art of the !a! r,)% r&iS O%Cl%ll(Illlylll&lll%l%lr )))))J =an#ha dies of shock on h4%%% %ng %hl& ))))))4 ,%l %%lh 4))&4
h

within the locality in which a family is both secure and threat. ened . security comes by way of any com!etition and conflict with others outside the biradari and threat comes from within in terms o the normative e$pectations o voluntary compli. ance from members of the family and emerges in the form of their violation. "he head of the family is threatened by the actual and !otential actions of members as it would lead to loss of face or honour. Shareeka is the kinshi! structure that e/ists around a family involving the kin of both husband and wife. %t is said in un#ab, 4After marriage, even real brothers become shareeka4, :ener. ally, shareeka is not e/!ressed singularly2 it is called shareeka. bhaichara. 8haichara means fraternity, signifying that shareeka is closer to the family in terms of kinshi! ties than biradari. %n shareeka.bhaichara, a family has to live in com!etition with other families by com!lying with norrnat&ive e/!ectations. ;om!ulsions to u!hold honour, even if one has to resort to violence, are functions of this com!le/ mechanism of com!en. tion, threat and effort at maintaining the securiry of social life. 'ow does it ha!!en< %hy Is Romantic Love Regarded as Rebellion? =omantic love is regarded as rebellion by the family and com. munity. (hy is this so< >urkheim 3)*?,5 calls this a crime. 'is definition of crime in a society that is characterised by me. chanical solidarity is the violation of the rule of the collective conscience. &rom >urkheim&s stand!oint, punishment is not' carried out to deter others but to satisfy the collective con. science. (hat is collective conscience< %t is the sum total of beliefs and sentiments held by average members ?f a !arti. cular sociery. One of the !toblems with >urkheim&s inter!reta. tion is that it deals with society and its normative order in terms of neat categories, that is, mechanical solidarity 3tradi. tional5 and. organic solidarity 3modern5. =ebellion is by defini. . tion a criminal activity in virtually all societies. 'owever54, 4 rebellion is also !erceived with a degree of ambivalence since it symbolises the sowing of seeds of social change, invariably against o!!ressive structures. 8ut, as Marc 8loch4 !oints out, there can be situations where o!en rebellion may reinforce o!!ressive structures. .& Non.conformity to normative e/!ectations and e/ercising .. choices that are the e/clusive !rerogatives of the !arents and community !oses. a serious threat to the e/isting normative 4 order. -ove threatens e/isting family arrangements and has the characteristic feature of being a rebellion. "hough both& the boy and girl have rebelled, the girl&s rebellion !oses a much bigger. threat . her action brings shame on the family. Shame is a curse for the family because living without honour and res!ect and in humiliation is regarded as worse than death. 8ourdieu 3)*@*5 has analysed honour in his study of Algeria as .6 a !art of the larger social world instead of its being confined to romantic love. Shame is the conseAuence of loss of honour .. Shame, dishonour and %oss of face accom!any the situation in which a daughter violates the normative order. "he im!lita11 &6 tions of such a situation are riot tem!orary for it woulBi&never
NOVEMseR 3 !"#! VOL $LVII NO %%

. . be forgotten by rhe shareeka and biradari. Since family and community are connected to each other in terms o solidarity and conformity by virtue of which the family is under constant ressure to com!ly with the normative order, failure to do KH 7an result in the !ermanent condemnation of the family. Nobody forgets the dishonour and in any situation of minor conflict, the family is reminded of its lack of honour and !ut to shame. 0or e/am!le, somebody would say, 4Gou couldn&t control your daughter 3sister5 and you&re showing your valour hereB4 7 #uch a comment rarely provo!es a man into violent reaction* he can only lower his head and walk away. %ndeed, shame can become a millstone around a family&s nec!. +ven generations later, the event continues to put a am( ily to shame whenever the event is mentioned as a reminder. "he com!ulsion is built into the way !eo!le interact with each other. %f someone dare make light of the taunts and ask, 4%t is a matter concerning my daughterCsister, why are you bothered4, the biradari would conclude he does not have any sense of shame, im!lying he is a man who has !ermanently lost his ability .to act in critical situations concerning his loss of honour. "he !oint % am underlining is that for mosr families involved the only way to defend one&s honour is to eliminate the source of shame . it is a situation where the legal system can do little ... e/ce!t award !unishment to the offender. "he social benefits .... ~f killing for honour are abstract and !ermanent. After the event, the biradari and shareeka would not dare to say any. thing that could cause shame2 his shame is !ut to rest only ifhe undertakes the e/treme ste!. %fhe does not do anything about it during his lifetime, his following generations will have to do something about it. "he most notable element in this built.in .F . com!ulsion is the gender of the victim of honour killing that reAuires e$amination. 7ite. of 'onour Killing: Gender and Honour &in the final !art of the !a!er, % will e/amine the issue of gender .and violence in the conte/t of honour and shame. "here are two issues for !robing honour killings in the conte/t of gender6 0irst, what is the gender of the !erson whose act leads to the loss of honour and causes shame2 and, second, who is killed for the restoration of honour< -ogically, it seems sim!le that the violator of the norms whose actions have led to loss of honour would be 4,.,7lilunished. "his is not so. "he foremost element in this regard is 6764&771.gender of the victim because in all cases e/ce!t a few 3for ,726@eLii6m!le, Jassi was killed on her mother&s orders5, the killings 6ate&orchestrated by men. %n all cases, when the victim is it woman, she is related to the killers by blood . she is either a sister or daughter of the !erson3s5 who has carried out the act. On the e7er&hand, the male victim is not related to the killers. %n Dar. asal, the girl is killed by her father and brothers whereas in ~othe Kharhak Singh, the father kills his daughter&s lover. ,i,Jt is clear that the choice of the victim is conditioned by cer. tain cultural !erce!tions of the self as family and community . ,in which the gender is situated by tradition. 8ourdieu 3)*@*5 M .. 4 rovides a vivid descri!tion of the Kabyle house in terms of the S,N;ial and s!atial location of the members of the household. "he social and s!atial worlds corres!ond with1 each other in an
am
NOVEM)ER 3 !"#! VOL L-7%% NO %*#

I: %
%

i
I '
)

r:

I
I
.1
I

44(

##m Economic: , &olitical 'EEKL(

%$

~!