Rajini Narayan, a 46-year-old Australian woman whom, for some reason, we feel the need to specify is of ‘indian-origin,’ stands accused of incinerating some of her house and 75-percent of her husband after an attempt at burning ‘only [his] genitals so that he would not ditch her for another woman,’ Alpha News reports today.
Neighbor John Chandler – the case’s tabloids’ star witness – stated that, shortly thereafter, he encountered the defendant staring at the remnants of her burning life, er… townhouse.
“He said the accused told him she was sorry and that she started the fire. When he told her not to worry, he said she responded by telling him he didn’t understand what she was saying.
“She said: ‘No, no, you don’t understand. I thought my husband was having an affair, I only wanted to burn his penis. I wanted to disfigure his penis so no other woman would want to look at it’,” Chandler was quoted as saying to the court…’
Though this statement seems at the least very misguided and at most outright sadistic – especially when considering that Rajini’s husband, named Satish, suffered in agony for several weeks, before dying (probably without testicles or a penis) – could it be that these actions show nothing more than a mark of how much Rajini truly loved her husband?
Could we not say she sought to seal absolute ownership over her lover’s, um, phallic objects by ‘disfiguring’ them to such a degree that they’d become something no one but her could possibly love… in both the literal and idiomatic sense of the word? And wouldn’t that make this infliction of pain the strange caress of what we might call unconditional love for, well, all parties involved?
This is, after all, how the couple is said have shown their love for each other: “The defense told the jury Narayan’s husband had physically and emotionally abused her for 20 years but she still loved him.”
But still we could wonder what it is about love, desire, that seems so often to inspire such similar actions, at least on the surface, as the most heated of our hatreds; and, also, if their respective ends can really be all that different after all when they use so many of the same means to achieve them…