The Pulitzer-prize winning reporter, Mr. Kristof, of the New York Times, reported yesterday of a shocking case of teenage rape, followed by a fatwa and corporal punishment – of the underage victim, leading to her death. (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/when-a-girl-is-executed-for-being-raped/)
A summary of the case, from the article:
"A 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl, Hena,allegedly was ambushed when she went to an outdoor toilet, gagged, beaten and raped by an older man in her village (who was actually her cousin). They were caught by wife of the alleged rapist, and the wife then beat Hena up. An imam at a local mosque issued a fatwa saying that Hena was guilty of adultery and must be punished, and a village makeshift court sentenced Hena to 100 lashes in a public whipping....Hena collapsed after 70 lashes and was taken to the hospital. She died a week later,.....The doctors recorded her death as a suicide."
Such a tragic and nauseating scenario appears to be a consequence of antiquated notions of morality, gender relations, local government and punishment.
But "tragic" and "nauseating" only because we have different opinions on these issues. It was, for the overwhelming majority of those involved, perfectly acceptable – obviously. Perhaps even righteous.
The collective pronouns above ("we") and below ("our") refer to the basic tenets of Western civilization, in the year 2011.
If we wish to convince the sub-society mentioned in this example of the superior value of our opinions (our system of ethics, fundamental rights, open debate, gender equality etc.), we probably need to start with understanding the socio-economic parameters of their context.
For example, the outdoor toilets mentioned in the report. If one has little or no privacy whilst defecating, and considers this to be the natural state of affairs, and knows of no other, one probably tends not to worry too much about personal space. If one has little to eat, one probably does not have qualms about eating from a shared vessel. If one is forced to live with parents, siblings, the uncle and a grandmother in a single-roomed house, one has probably not been brought up to knock at a door before entering.
And if men perform the economically more valuable tasks, then women are looked down upon. Or, at least, a more plausible case is made for this sort of discrimination.
And if one hasn't had the time to introspect, one probably hasn't bothered borrowing books on philosophy and human rights from the local well-stocked library with high-speed internet access. Oh, there isn't one?
The more hardships we endure, the more animal-like we become. Compare Sanskrit “bubhukshita kim na karoti papam” (“What sin is it that a hungry one does not commit?”, Sukasaptati) and Latin “Homo homini lupus” (“Man is a wolf to his fellow man”, Asinaria).
Habits and customs form easily, even in matters that were once distasteful. This from personal accounts, written by intellectuals, of long incarceration – Primo Levi, Albert Speer.
And then comes another wildcard into play – religion. Religious texts often are not in accord with our ideas of equality, personal freedom, tolerance and justice.
The answer lies not in banning religious texts (this would probably be the reaction of the sub-society under discussion), but in presenting the alternative – through education, north-south and east-west interaction, through inter-religious debate, through economical justice, through art and literature, through subsidized housing that is in keeping with basic human dignities etc..
At some point, the innate love of freedom – and we must believe that it is innate – will prevail.
