Mai, M., & Cuny, M. (2006). In the Name of Honor: A Memoir. New York: Washington Square Press.
Mai’s memoir chronicles all the events (with exact dates and times!) that led up to and followed after the gang rape that was approved by her village’s jirga*. However, the book is not particularly critical of discriminatory laws toward women. I picked up the book with hopes of not only finding more about her case, but also understanding why the media publicized her story and how that played a role in her trial. The first reason why her story circulated around was due to the local imam, who publicly denounced the horrific crime in Friday prayers. This act held significance on two accounts: first, it was announced to the entire community and for those people who stayed away from controversial news, the imam’s public announcement rendered them to discuss the issue openly; second, when a leader (even if he/she is locally known by a small number of people) takes a stand, it influences people’s opinion.
There were some shocking parts of the story that I had not gathered from my previous research about her case. For instance, she says, “…decision to rape me was made in the presence of the whole community. My father and uncle heard that verdict along with all the other villagers…” But if that is the case, her family knowingly walked her over to where she was going to be raped. My earlier readings made it seem that along with her father and uncle she was asking for forgiveness for her brother’s alleged misbehavior when the Mastoi dragged her and raped her; in other words, they had no knowledge of what was coming. Also, if both the decision and denouncement of Mai’s rape was public, it seems that the community members of Meerwala village were aware of both sides of the story. I still haven’t answered why media took such a strong interest in Mai’s rape. For one thing, she recognized its value: “I sense[d] instinctively that I must take advantage of the presence of these journalists.”
Mai calls attention to class differences. She repeatedly mentions that since she belongs to the Gujar clan and the accused men were from Mastoi clan (rich people who owned a lot of land in the village), the police were not cooperative and sided with the Mastoi. In fact, she states that the police and all the justice system is controlled by upper class people like Mastoi. To illustrate this point, she narrates her experience at the police station where is asked to dictate her case. The policemen ask her to thumbprint the end of a few blank pages. Later, she learns that they have written things inaccurately. While you can argue this shows that justice is reserved as a privilege for the rich and educated, it also exemplifies what an average peasant, who has never been to school and who cannot read and write, is denied her right to justice.
Mai adopts a rather unusual approach/ attitude when she says, “I was born in this country, subject to its laws, and I know that I am like all other women who belong to the men of their families: we are objects, and they have the right to do whatever they want with us. Submission is compulsory (67).” This sort of echoes what Socrates said when he refused to escape his death; Socrates asserted that since the State married his parents, and had him nurtured and educated in Athens, he was bound by its laws because he had chosen to stay there after coming of age. Mai is also accepting that the laws apply to her and there is nothing she can do about it. However, she comes to the conclusion that, “But despising men is not the way to win respect. The solution is to try to fight them as equals (112).”
To sum it up, I can use Mai’s case to support my hypothesis. The jirga, which consisted of many Mastoi men, punished a peasant woman from Gujar class not because she had committed a crime, but because they sought revenge. The sad part is that such revenge was justified by the jirga because they claim to make decisions consistent with Sharia law.
*jirga: village council which makes decisions based on Sharia law.
