South Asia is one of the most dangerous places for women to live. Every year, thousands of women lose their lives because of their gender. In India and Pakistan alone, the rate of honor killings has surpassed the statistics from any other region in the world. It is a criminal act on the one hand, and reflects the impact of the deep-rooted patriarchal norms on the other hand. Importantly, the silence on the issue due to the socio-political and other reasons is as dangerous as the crime itself.
“Women are unsafe even in their own homes, with relatives often the perpetrators of femicide.”
It is like a pandemic that exists in a society as a byproduct of gender inequality. Adding another layer of complexity, a shocking report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime indicates that in most cases, the murderer is usually a relative of the victim or a person having a close affiliation (being a friend, colleague, or neighbor). It shows that women are unsafe even in their own homes. Moreover, a lot of the cases went unreported, which hinders the effective policy formulation by the government authorities.
Femicide is a common issue in India and Pakistan. But the dominant category varies in each context. For instance, in India, dowry-related deaths are the most prominent form of gender based violence. According to NCRB, more than 1500 cases of dowry-related deaths have been reported in the first quarter of 2025. In the previous decade, thousands of women lost their lives in similar cases. Although Section 304-B of the IPC provides a separate legal category to dowry-related deaths, the enforcement remains weak due to under-reporting of the matter. The judicial complexities also result in the low conviction ratio.
In Pakistan, however, there exists a different pattern. Honour killings – a scenario where a close relative kills a woman over the accusations that her actions have diminished the honor of his family and have brought shame to the elders – remains a prevalent and the most tragic form of violence in Pakistan. In this regard, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has reported more than 405 deaths in 2024, but the actual numbers are far higher. A significant legal development happened in 2016, where the Honour killings were made punishable under law, and the grey area (possibility of family pardon) was removed. Yet, the low reporting, societal norms, tribal ethos, and the enforcement issues have hindered the desired progress.
The prominence of Honour (ghairat) killings in Pakistan and the dowry-related deaths in India are not incidental. Instead, the socio-cultural and historical factors have shaped the modern brutal practices. In India, the extension of the historical dowry system – the idea that a woman will take her belongings after her marriage – took place during the colonial period. Unfortunately, with time, the choice-based mechanism turned into an enforceable practice owing to the greedy demands from the Groom’s family. Moreover, the rising consumerism, commodity modernization, and the societal pressure on the bridal side intensified this practice. The government of India tried to curb the practice, but the enforcement remains fragile.
For instance, it introduced the Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961 to control this custom, but failed to achieve the goals till the present day. The bridal family also plays a negative role in this regard. Sometimes, the undue demands from the groom’s family (i.e., a fixed amount of cash, gold, and land), considering the marriage security, compel the groom’s side to reorient their outlook. Instead of addressing the concerns behind such demands, the groom’s side usually retaliates with their wish list. In this way, a beautiful relationship turns into a material ping-pong.
“Dowry deaths in India and honour killings in Pakistan reflect cultural practices turned violent.”
But, in many cases, what makes the matter worse is the acceptance of this bloody ritual as a normal practice. Usually, most of the marriages in the Indian society took place between two equal castes, and the dowry is considered a source of economic transition (in the tangible form) and the symbol of honor for the bridal family. These are the primary reasons that the chain is not yet broken.
In contrast, the Honour killings in Pakistan predate the state formation. These practices are deeply rooted in feudal and tribal practices. In areas like Southern Punjab, rural parts of Sindh, KPK, and Balochistan, where Jirga and other parallel tribal systems shadow the state’s authority, people justify the murder of women on the pretext of ghairat (something that needs priority-based government’s attention and the implementation of the rule of law alongside timely reporting to the relevant authorities). The missing link in the given context is the impact of colonialism on society.
As Amar Ali Jan writes in his book “Rule by Fear”, when Muslims lost their political authority, the influence of the tribal chiefs and the local administrators reduced significantly. To avoid the shame, the religious-culture version of the customs was developed, where women were made the private property of their patriarchal families. A little deviation led to strict punishments that later increased in scale and became a common practice after the independence of Pakistan.
When it comes to practical solutions of the issue, addressing femicide in Pakistan and India is not an easy task. Reforms in the domestic law (related to women’s protection) alone cannot do much; rather, the law itself must be aligned with international protocols and conventions. For instance, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Latin American Model Protocol for the Investigation of Gender Related Killings of Women must be ratified and incorporated into the domestic settings. Both of these serve the same basic purpose i.e., to eliminate discrimination against women and ensure that they enjoy the same rights and freedoms as men do. The latter clearly establishes femicide as a homicide while also removing all legal loopholes that may help perpetrators escape justice.
Pakistan must ensure the proper implementation of the 2016 reforms in its Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, which provides criminals protection, especially in cases of honour killings where the family often pardons the culprit. In the case of India, legal recognition needs to be extended beyond dowry deaths. For reference, the intersection of caste-based killings, honour killings, and female infanticide needs immediate attention. The UN recommends certain procedures, such as forensic evidence mechanisms, autopsies, and special police units, to be incorporated in the criminal investigation codes. Moreover, shelter homes, 24-hour helplines, and police units comprised only of women should be set up for survivors of femicide. All these procedures should be of international standards. So that the effective policies can be introduced accordingly.
The socio-cultural norms that validate honour killings and dowry deaths are too deep-rooted for legal change, making their effectiveness questionable. While cross-border NGO collaborations and regional integration would be ideal to combat femicide in these countries, the hostile geopolitical climate makes this politically unfeasible. That being said, civil society efforts can go forward in parallel but complementary ways.
“Legal reforms alone cannot end femicide without civil society activism and global alignment.”
Grass-roots activism needs to be promoted at the domestic level. In Pakistan, Aurat Foundation and Women’s Action Forum are two organizations doing exceptional work to safeguard women’s rights. They have persistently highlighted honour killings and the structural loopholes in the system that provide criminals with impunity. Similarly, in India, groups like Jagori and All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) are working tirelessly to enforce anti-dowry laws and provide survivors with support. In short, the proper government attention is required to strengthen the domestic and area-specific organizations in both countries. That is probably the only way for the government to fill the gap between the actual and the reported cases.
Many regional and international organizations, like Amnesty International and the UN Women Asia Pacific also allow free flow of knowledge between both countries. Although there are no collaborative efforts, both countries are fighting similar battles against patriarchal structures. With time, the cumulative power of these efforts can bring about meaningful change in reframing femicide as a systemic crime against women and not just a so-called “family matter”.
The rightful use of media is another potent instrument to bring a meaningful change in perceptions of both the public and the state regarding such issues. Noor Mukkaddam Case in Pakistan and the murder of Shraddha Walker in India show the crucial role media can play in amplifying calls for justice and accountability. It is the media that determines which news is worthy of national outrage and which can be dismissed simply as a private matter.
While it significantly impacts societal discussions and the way people receive information, the wrong use can also lead to victim-blaming, sensationalism, and radicalization in society. Hence, there must be ethical coverage rooted in accountability, as that not only helps translate individual tragedies into failure of systems but also forces policy makers to take action, making media a powerful tool of advocacy.
The selective coverage is also a hindrance in this regard. For instance, the recent murder of Eman Afrooz, a student of IR at IIUI, in a private hostel in Islamabad, did not get coverage from the mainstream media. Instead, the news channels were rather busy in highlighting the useless political events. It was social media that brought attention of the incident to the authorities. So, both platforms need to be streamlined in this regard in order to mitigate the loopholes in each other to ensure timely justice.
To create a maximum impact, cases of femicide should be placed in a statistical context and journalists should stop using euphemisms; instead, the motive behind every case should be stated explicitly. Collaborations between various human rights groups and journalists- where proper case tracking is done to warrant long-term visibility and accountability- can also yield positive results. Although digital activism is an exceptional way of garnering attention in the quickest possible way, it is not enough unless complemented with policy demands like fast-tracking cases or applying protocols in investigation, which are specific to femicide.
“Media must amplify femicide as systemic crime, not dismiss it as a family matter.”
It can be said that Femicide in South Asia is not just a legal issue. But it is the result of deeply ingrained, dysfunctional cultural norms. The weak legal system, with all its loopholes, has allowed men in these patriarchal structures a leeway for too long, as a result of which, there is no accountability anymore for such heinous crimes. Ultimately, an amalgamation of all three steps – domestic laws that align with international frameworks, relevant civil society activism, and digital activism- is the only way forward for a comprehensive and coordinated femicide response in South Asia. Only by dismantling the system of violence against women can these countries move towards a future where women enjoy the same privileges and rights that men do.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
