The concept of living together, or 'live-in relationships,' once heralded as a beacon of modern freedom and a quiet defiance of rigid societal norms in India, has, regrettably, taken a grim turn. The recent reports compiled by Hadi Khan for The Times of India paint a chilling picture, transforming what began as an emblem of liberation into a trail of betrayal, violence, and death "Racy clips, blackmail and killings: The dark trail behind India’s ‘live-in murders’".
From Noida to Mumbai, the headlines are a stark reminder of the dark undercurrents that can fester when trust erodes and possessiveness takes root. We read about heart-wrenching stories like that of Amrita Chauhan and Ramkesh Meena, where intimate moments recorded on camera became a weapon in the hands of a jilted lover, allegedly leading to Ramkesh's orchestrated murder with the help of Sumit Kashyap. The disturbing precision, advised by Amrita, a forensics science graduate, to stage a fire, is a testament to how desperation can twist human intent.
In Bengaluru, Vanajakshi's attempt to escape an abusive relationship with Vithal ended in tragedy, burned alive at a traffic signal. Delhi saw a marketplace turn into a scene of deadly passion as Shalini, pregnant, and her husband Aakash faced Aashu, her former live-in partner, in a fatal confrontation. The quiet despair of Rakesh Kumar and Seema Nayak, found hanging in Bengaluru, speaks volumes about the silent battles fought over jealousy and infidelity. And who can forget the horrifying details from Mumbai's Mira Road, where Manoj Sane allegedly dismembered Saraswati Vaidya's body, or the Manesar field murder of Rita, strangled by Shiv Shankar Sharma in a fit of jealousy?
Perhaps most unsettling is the case of Sonali Bait, who, along with her lover Mahesh Pandey, allegedly killed her own father, Shankar Kamble, simply for opposing their relationship. And of course, the Shraddha Walkar case, murdered and chopped into 35 pieces by Aaftab Poonawala, which deeply scarred the nation's psyche and brought the brutal realities of such relationships into sharp focus.
These incidents compelled Uttar Pradesh governor Anandiben Patel to issue a stark warning to women: "stay away from live-in relationships, or you might end up chopped into 50 pieces." Similarly, Union minister Nitin Gadkari echoed sentiments that such relationships are "not part of Indian culture" and "often end in tragedy." This societal discomfort is understandable, given the brutal outcomes we are witnessing.
Psychologists Dr. Dipali Batra (psychomatrix@psynopsys.com) and Dr. Nisha Khanna offer valuable insights, terming these not as "crimes of passion," but "crimes of possession." As Dr. Batra explains, "The perpetrator sees their partner as property. When the illusion of control breaks, violence replaces love." Dr. Khanna adds, "It’s a power-control wheel. For many men, the partner’s autonomy feels like rebellion. The response? Punishment."
Reflecting on these events, I recall my observations from years past. In my blog post, "NO ONE’S MONOPOLY !" from 2011, I deplored crimes against women and the breakdown of law and order, noting that such incidents were not a monopoly of any particular state. Sadly, the geographically diverse cases in Hadi Khan's report underscore that this remains true, highlighting a pervasive societal issue rather than an isolated phenomenon.
What is particularly striking, and deeply disturbing, is the echo of a chilling phrase. Governor Anandiben Patel's warning about women ending up "chopped into 50 pieces" after entering live-in relationships directly brings to mind the horrific acts in the Shraddha Walkar and Saraswati Vaidya cases. This brutality, the act of dismemberment, tragically validates a dark prediction I had highlighted years ago. In my March 2014 blog, "Who all are scared of Namo", I recounted how Imran Masood had threatened to "cut up NaMo into pieces." At the time, I expressed a hope that such rhetoric was merely a symptom of nervousness, not the disease itself. Now, seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, I feel a sense of validation regarding the power of violent language, and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because the progression from threatening rhetoric to brutal reality clearly holds value in the current context.
The Supreme Court, in its pragmatism, has acknowledged the increasing prevalence of live-in relationships, stating that if two able-minded adults reside together for more than a couple of years, it can be presumed they chose this relationship voluntarily, aware of the consequences. This legal stance, while attempting to draw a line between consent and coercion, doesn't diminish the tragic human cost when these relationships turn sour.
Ultimately, as a society, we stand at a crossroads. Live-in relationships began as a testament to personal freedom, but the dark trail of murders compels us to confront deeper issues: the toxic brew of possessiveness, emotional detachment, and the dangerous erosion of empathy. We must find a way to reconcile individual autonomy with accountability, freedom with safety, and modern choices with enduring human values.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment