I have blogged about how keeping their maiden names can save Indian women’s lives in wombs [link]. Now it seems killing an Indian citizen who carries further family lineage (and is also seen as a budhape ka sahara) is seen as a bigger crime than killing someone who doesn’t.
I have always held [link] that Indian citizens who carry further family lineage are valued more than those who don’t. The more valued they are, the more seriously any crimes against them are taken. So if they value their safety, they must carry their family names further and also be their parents’ budhape ka sahara.
In a country where the opposition goes hoarse protesting ‘Dynasty rule’ – carried forward by a daughter, we still believe only male children can carry the much valued family lineage.
Sandhya shared this link with this message:
So I have no chance of carrying on my lineage, nor do I have any support for my old age, as I have no ‘male child!’ The murder should have been reprehensible in itself, whether of a male or female child. Such statements further propogate the wrong mindsets.
1. “Agony for parents for the loss of their male child, who would have carried further the family lineage, and is expected to see them through their old age, is unfathomable. Extreme misery caused to the aggrieved party certainly adds to the aggravating circumstances.” (link)
2. “Just a week ago, a bench of Justices Sathasivam and F M I Kalifulla had commuted the capital punishment of a man convicted for raping his minor daughter on the complaint of his wife. On release from jail on parole, he axed his wife and daughter to death. Both the trial court and high court had given death to the man.” (link)
The man raped his daughter in 1999 and his wife was a witness. In January 2006, he was released on parole when he axed to death his wife and daughter. This time, his second daughter witnessed the incident and testified against him. The trial court awarded the death sentence and the high court confirmed it.
However, after comparing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the apex court said it was “not persuaded” to accept that the case can be called “rarest of rare”, warranting death penalty for the man who is now 48 years old.
“It was thirst for retaliation, which became the motivating factor in this case. In no words are we suggesting that the motive of the accused was correct, rather we feel it does not come within the category of ‘rarest of rare’…” the court held. [link]