Do you hear a scream from next door?

How does a 27-year-old woman put up with the kind of abuse and starvation that left her a mere 20 kgs at the time of her death? Why does a young woman who lost her husband feel compelled to seek shelter with a man known for his criminal background and violent nature, who went on to torture her 7-year-old son to the point that he is now battling for life on a ventilator? Kerala with its high human development indices and fantastic sex ratios woke up to these two headlines today. An adult woman dead of torture and starvation in her husband's house. A little boy fighting for life after an assault by the man under whose roof he lived with his mother and little brother.

20 kgs is what my daughter weighed when she was 8. And she was not even a plump child.

I see the news videos 'investigating' the woman's death. The neighbours say they had raised complaints against the husband for battering his wife. Nothing happened. And then they stayed away because they were afraid of the woman's mother-in-law's powers in black magic. The woman's brother says they have seen her only three times since her marriage six years ago. They knew she was being ill-treated on account of dowry. They stayed away because they were afraid the in-laws would beat her more. A ward member - an elected representative of the people from the locality - says she came a couple of times to inquire about the way the woman was being treated by her husband and mother-in-law. 'They did not open the gate,' so she went away despite knowing that right there, inside that locked gate, a young mother of two was being battered and starved to death. And we are a people who love to know everything that happens within the 4 walls of the neighbour's house. If the young woman had had a secret lover visiting her at night, by now, he would have been caught by neighbourhood vigilantes and the honour of everyone concerned would have been preserved. But this was domestic violence. A sacrosanct act of privacy between a husband and wife. So we let her starve to death. In the privacy of her locked home.

The other young woman, grieving over her critically injured son, must be wondering about the moment she thought her son's assailant would take care of her and her children. Her traumatised younger child, also assaulted, apparently told neighbours, 'my brother is dead.' Initially I thought this was another helpless creature with no education and no means to sustain herself and scared of surviving on her own with no support. Turns out she is educated and well-off. I really can't fathom what made her stay till her son was nearly on the verge of death. Fear of being alone? Fear of losing the tag of 'wife' or of 'having someone to speak up for her' which is what all Indian women are brought up to believe is the key to respectability and a good life?

Two young women. Brought up by families with the loving caution that they must be well-behaved and modest 'because they would someday be someone's wife.' Why didn't someone tell them to get the hell out if someone was hurting them? That they could call the police on whoever was hurting them? That they should try to make a living on their own and not put up with the abuse and torture anymore? That it was okay to say 'go to hell' to their own parents and siblings who told them to stay put in the households where they were being tortured and starved for whatever reason. 

There is nothing honourable about being someone's wife if you are scared for your physical well being. There is nothing honourable about staying and putting up with torture because your own family either can't afford to support you or are concerned about 'what people will say.' There is nothing demeaning about standing on your own two feet even if someone offers to support you. The most important thing is that you stay alive. And keep your children alive.

Am I being completely blind to think that the Police would have done something if they had known? Am I being a complete fool to imagine a letter to the District Collector or the Department for Welfare of Women and Children would have made a difference to these two poor souls' lives? I still have faith that the right things would have been done if the right authorities were informed at the right time. Because it is faith in the innate goodness of people and systems that help us take our lives from one day to the next. I am unable to judge the uneducated neighbours who seemed genuinely afraid of the accused family's powers in black magic. One lady said she would sit in her house and cry when she heard the pounding from next door. I wish she had overcome her fears just enough to talk to someone who could have done something about it. 

The Government of Kerala has taken up the guardianship of the two tortured children. But there is nothing more to do for the victim of brutal torture and starvation. Can we as a society perhaps be more alert to the muffled screams from next door? At the very least alert someone who is supposed to take action in such instances? Can our girls be taught right from school that if anyone - whether in their own homes or when they get married, their marital homes - anyone at all subjects them to torture in whatever form, they should run to the nearest police station for help and assure them that it will be given, no matter what? 

I've heard that in Britain, children are taught to look for the nearest policeman if they are ever in any sort of danger or need any kind of help. Unfortunately, we are conditioned to be scared of our policemen even if we have done no wrong. Will that ever change? Will our police force be able to rise to the challenge of being 'Janamaithri Police' in the real sense? A proper understanding of the functioning of police and welfare systems, especially in issues related to the safety of women and children should be compulsorily taught in schools so that no one feels like they have no way out. 

No one deserves to die like Thushara. Or that hapless little boy on a ventilator. Let's look out for our neighbours. And each other. These numbers are supposed to help. Save them on our phones and share it with people who look like they need it. Or make that call for someone who needs it.

'I am a A Person in My Own Right'

On a day when everyone from saree brands to online fish vendors offered a 'Women's Day discount'; on a day when social media forwards, news stories and television vied to offer us the stories of 'strong women who overcame obstacles'; on a day when event after fluffy event 'honored', 'celebrated' and 'saluted' women, one woman's story stood out: in the highest Court of the land, senior counsel Indira Jaising stood tall and declared 'I am a Person in My Own Right.' This was when another senior counsel referred to her as her lawyer husband's wife in a matter that was before the Court. That, for me, was Women's Day. A day like any other but one that saw a powerful individual assert that she was far more than her gender or marital status. A day when a woman used her surname as a powerful statement of her refusal to be boxed into stereotypes. 

Indira Jaising

It was quite disheartening to see an internationally acclaimed lawyer like Amal Alamuddin give up her own name after her marriage to actor George Clooney. Priyanka Chopra now goes by Chopra-Jonas, adding her husband's name to her own just like any other school friend of yours or mine. Why? 

Family as a concept is an ever-changing one. Behind the romantic notions of 'you and I are now one' and 'we are one in flesh and blood' lie considerations of possession and property. Time was when women could not own property and they themselves were simply the possessions of their husbands. When they left for the marital home, it safeguarded the interests of their fathers' heirs to have them change their surnames. And in the husband's home, they were simply added to the list of things in the husband's ownership. There was no romance involved, sorry to say, at any point. The romance was imputed to the custom when people started choosing their own partners (as opposed to having the parents pick them out) because there needed to be a justification for an old custom that was not fitting in with new social mores. Then came in the undying proclamations of unity and other alleged complications in paperwork if a family unit did not have a common surname. 

Times have changed. Women have their own income and can own property at will. It is illegal to treat sons and daughters differently and ancestral property has to be equally shared between the heirs irrespective of gender. There is more than one kind of marriage with same-sex marriages becoming legal in several parts of the world. And most women use their maiden names on social media to connect easily with the people who knew them from before. Has anyone ever been denied entry to a county because their surname was different from their husband's? Has anyone been denied of rights over their children because they chose to keep their own name? Wake up and smell the equality clauses. NOTHING happens if you keep your own name. These imagined difficulties are simply perpetrated by people who are keen to maintain the social order as it is. 

American rights activist Lucy Stone, who in 1855 took the historic decision to retain her own name after marriage. 

I am a wife of 15 years in what you would call a 'love marriage.' I cherish what we share and adore my husband. I am proud of his accomplishments and glad to be introduced in his circles as his wife. But in my own social network, I prefer to be known as me. My husband is simply the person I am married to and not the source of my identity.  I don't foresee my kids growing up with an identity crisis because their parents don't share a surname. Their own surnames are different from ours - we coined a brand new surname of their own for them which sounds nothing like either of our names. But we have our government-mandated documents, bank related documents and everything else in order, in our own names. We have also traveled together as a family without encountering any problems (so far.) 

My mother-in-law, a respected college professor - and an immensely popular teacher - went her entire career with her maiden name. My father-in-law is a well-known personality and it would have been easy, convenient and natural for her to adopt his name. She once mentioned that it was not her choice to keep her maiden name (remember, this was the '60's) and this happened because of some certificate issue in the early days of her career which turned out too cumbersome to change later, especially when she had already started to gain popularity among her students as Ms. Daisy Luke. My point is, it allowed her to own her well-deserved and hard-won acclaim in the name she was born with, instead of having her identity overpowered by that of her more famous spouse. They have one of the strongest marriages I know of. Their children suffer from no psychological harm from having parents with separate surnames. 

There is no law that requires a woman to adopt her husband's name after marriage and in most countries where such rules existed, they have been repealed. An increasing number of women the world over are questioning the need to do so. Some have tried a mid-way approach with the hyphenated surname phenomenon. But there isn't and there never will be a satisfactory answer to the question of why only women are required to do this transformation act to preserve the sanctity of marriage. I think the larger question for the present is, is this really necessary to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Or maybe, both individuals entering marriage should give up on their surnames and adopt a whole new one which will uniquely be the identity of their family unit. 

When something has served its purpose and no longer deserves to be preserved, cast it off! Marriage no longer involves power equations. Subsuming one's identity into another's serves no purpose other than a willing submission into an archaic and outmoded social order. You can't change who you are born as and you cannot obliterate the first couple of decades of your life that shape you into whatever you turn out to be. A new chapter in life does not merit a change of name. Showing your love for your husband does not have to be by declaring yourself a brand new person in law from the date of marriage. Be you. Be.