Jul 23, 2025 13:23 IST
First published on: Jul 23, 2025 at 13:23 IST
-
Share
-
Written by Mahima Varma
A viral video of an honour killing of a couple identified as Bano Bibi and Ashan Ullah in Balochistan, Pakistan — it has been circulating since July 20 — has rightly outraged civil society. Some reports point out that the killing was a punishment for marrying without the family’s consent. Others claim that the couple had an illicit affair — each was already married, with children.
The killings have evoked the fear of “punishment for love”. The implementation of repressive customary laws over constitutional laws — the tribal chief invoked religion to justify local laws, with the woman made to hold a Quran before being shot — shows how the system works against those who want to live by their choice. The recording of the video and its circulation for mass consumption were possibly intended to set a precedent for dissuading others from making similar choices.
Incidents of honour killings are not new. The groups who consider themselves superior on the basis of class, gender, region, ethnicity, religion and caste perpetrate violence, legitimised by local laws to protect their power in the name of tradition, custom and honour. Notably, sometimes, even the marginalised stand with the dominant local leadership in return for access to material resources, security and moral regard — often trading their own kin’s welfare to customary laws. In marriage, honour is tied to subservience and compliance with the social laws. Digressions — romantic love and exercise of choice in marriage — especially by women, lead to punishment: Sometimes death.
In the honour killings in Balochistan, the dominant group was men — his brother, the tribal chief and a coterie of male witnesses and shooters. Women were excluded from both the decision of the council and from the site of the violence. The absence of other family members of the couple, barring the woman’s brother, also showed the marginalisation of the family within the community. They are punished for their failure to “control” their women.
Marriage accords legitimacy to progeny. And thus, marriage alliances are closely monitored and carefully decided. It represents a social, political and economic alliance. A woman’s act of “cheating” is interpreted as a dishonour to her reproductive labour that gives her the sanctity of being “wife” and “mother”. In Balochistan, the role of the woman’s brother in reporting the case and shooting his sister shows the intensity of “shame” that such an act brings to the family.
Against this backdrop, honour killings push us to rethink the idea of the collective. What parameters are used to decide the leadership of the collective? Can the “collective” have a common conscience when there exist both critics and supporters of such a heinous act? Where both customary and constitutional laws are in operation, how does the collective define crime and punishment? Whose view is upheld and whose is marginalised? The solution to address honour killings lies in finding an intersecting point between these views. If customary laws of the collective are prioritised over the constitutional mandates, women would continue suffering. The Balochistan incident is just a symptom; the broader question lies in the patriarchal understanding of love and gender rights.
The writer teaches sociology at Jesus and Mary college, University of Delhi
