Kashmir: Partition Trilogy #3 - A Framework For Understanding Kashmir

[First published in YouthKiAwaaz]

Kashmir is the third and last book in Manreet Sodhi Someshwar’s Partition Trilogy, which explores the events, exigencies and decisions that led to Independence, Partition and the Accession of States, which eventually led to the borders of India and Pakistan being what they now are.

Like Lahore and Hyderabad, the first two books of the Partition Trilogy, Kashmir too is a historical fiction told at two levels- the high-level political negotiations between the people whom history books talk about, and the stories of the common people who were being pulled apart by forces beyond their control.

Most people who have grown up in Independent India have only a vague understanding of what is often called the Kashmir issue. We know that the cartographic boundary of Kashmir differs based on whether the map was drawn in India or Pakistan. We know that the Army has been deployed in Kashmir for most of our lifetime and that the area has enjoyed only brief periods of peace. We know that Kashmir enjoyed “special status” till the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. However, most of us are unaware of the history of Kashmir, and of the conflicting interests which ensued that the issue never achieved a peaceful solution. This book goes a long way in addressing those gaps.

Almost all the historical figures who were involved in the process of decision-making appear as characters in the book. Through her study of archival material the author has recreated decisive moments of history and presented them as fictionalised scenes. Lord Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Sheikh Abdullah and Maharaja Hari Singh all flit through the pages of the book, and literally bring history alive. The invasion by the Kabailis and the battles fought by the Indian Army to defend their land and reclaim lost territory are faithfully rendered.

But what makes the book come alive are the common people. The husband who forces himself on his second wife every night in the hope of impregnating her. The husband who builds a floating vegetable garden and plants rose bushes on it for his wife. The man who ‘marries’ the woman he abducted and tries to kidnap her from the house where she is given shelter. The man who lost his beloved to mob violence and tries to atone by providing a safe haven for other abducted women. There are conversations between two brothers, one of whom supports the National Conference and the other the Muslim Conference. There is an entire family struggling in different ways to cope with the grief of losing a loved one. It is through each of these characters that the book comes alive, because they are the ones who face the consequences of decisions made in cities far away.

History has never been kind to women- they are either erased completely from the pages of history books or they are reduced to victims. Books set during the Partition, in particular, focus on how rape was used as a weapon of war and of how women protected family honour by sacrificing themselves.

Kashmir: Partition Trilogy #3, however, is full of stories of women who are recipients of or witness to senseless violence, but who rise above it to leave a mark.

No history of Kashmir can be written without mentioning the Sher e Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, but this book notes the contribution of his wife, Begum Akbar Jahan, who, when her husband was jailed, left the seclusion of her home to tour the villages, keeping hope alive in the hearts of the Kashmiri people.

Less well known than Begum Akbar Jahan but pivotal to the book are the composite characters Zooni, Durga Mehra, Kashmira and Margot Parr. Durga Mehra witnessed the murder of her husband at the hands of the Kabailis but kept her family together till she was able to find safe passage back to her homeland. Both in the refugee camp and after her reunification with her family, she, like countless other women before her, applied her empathy and her considerable organization skills to the welfare of other women who were left destitute because of events beyond anyone’s control. Kashmira’s husband was killed “by mistake”- one of several similar mistakes that the Indian Army would make in the coming decades- but even while giving in to grief, she never lost sight of her need to pull herself together for the sake of her family. The state of Kashmir, in particular, is populated by countless women like her, and through her, the author honours each of them.

Zooni, the activist and sharpshooter, is based on a real woman who was the poster child of the Kashmiri resistance. Though not much is known about the woman who inspired the character, Zooni rises over personal tragedy, exchanges her slingshot for a rifle and offers her services to the Indian Army. Her courage, resilience and abiding concern for the welfare of her family is symbolic of the moral force displayed by countless women of Kashmir.

Perhaps my favourite character was that of the US journalist Margot Parr. She faces misogyny in her profession but doesn’t let that come in the way of chasing a story. She smokes, drinks and has a relationship with a considerably older man. When asked for her personal opinion by a politician, she was quick to retort, “My personal opinion is nobody’s business; you’ll agree. But my professional opinion is a work in progress: the more I learn, the better informed I am.” However, despite the professionalism, she develops a deep emotional bond with the family whose houseboat she lives in and goes beyond the line of duty to keep them financially, emotionally and physically secure.

Comparisons with the previous books, Lahore and Hyderabad, are inevitable. Though the storyline of Kashmir concludes a few months before that of Hyderabad, it is fitting that it should be the third book in the Trilogy because the history of Kashmir remains inconclusive. While both the Partition of Punjab and the Annexation of Hyderabad extracted a heavy price, the long-term repercussions are largely personal. The political drama ended once the borders were fixed, and what remained was a generation of people who were left to deal with the trauma they experienced and the almost paralysing ‘what ifs’. Kashmir, on the other hand, remains as much of a contentious issue as it was in 1947–48, and the social, political and personal repercussions of the political deliberations and strategic manoeuvres of 1947–48 continue to be felt even today. Reading Kashmir gives us the framework to understand the Kashmir problem; for that reason alone, I would recommend the book to anyone interested in learning more.

I would recommend reading it as a part of the Partition Trilogy. Many of the historical characters were developed in the earlier books, and Kashmir merely builds upon them. Some of the ‘common people’ from earlier books, too, make a reappearance in Kashmir and knowing the back story will help in better understanding what drives them in this book.

Kashmir would shine as a stand-alone book, too. It is a tight page-turner that takes us through the political decisions made in Delhi, Lahore, New York, Srinagar, and Jammu, and the ramifications of those decisions on common people. It explains why the ‘Kashmir issue’ is as complicated as it is and how there can be no easy solutions to it. Above all, it is the story of human resilience and love, even in the midst of gruesome violence, which shines through is hope, empathy and courage.

Kashmir: The Partition Trilogy III is published by Harper Collins. I thank the publisher for an Advanced Review Copy, but the views are my own. 

‘H-Pop’: A Must-Read Dive Into The Secretive World Of Hindutva Pop Stars

[First published in YouthKiAwaaz] 

In April 2017, a Ram Navami procession snaked its way through the lanes of a small town in Jharkhand where Hindus and Muslims had existed in peaceful coexistence for decades. As the procession approached the main mosque where eminent Muslims of the town were waiting to receive them with sweets and good wishes, the music changed, and with it the mood of the people. The peaceful procession suddenly became a mob chanting Hindutva slogans in a way which was deliberately provocative to Muslims. The police swung into action turned off the music and prevented the situation from taking an ugly turn. Later that evening, however, some people returning home from the procession caught a Muslim man speaking to a Hindu woman and assaulted him. Later that night, the man died.

Two years after the incident took place, the author, Kunal Purohit, set out to interview eyewitnesses to find a clue to why the incident took place in a place which had earlier known communal harmony. He was struck when one eyewitness recounted that the mood of the people suddenly changed when the music changed. How could one song who’s lyrics were barely audible over the beat exert such a sway over the audience? Who were these Hindutva pop stars who were fomenting such divisiveness and hate? Were they acting in isolation or were they a part of a larger movement that was creating societal acceptance of the core beliefs of Hindutava? The author had to find out, and from these thoughts, ‘H=Pop: The Secret World of Hindutva Pop Stars’ was born.

“Can a song trigger a murder?
Can a poem spark a riot?
Can a book divide a people?”

These are some of the questions that the author sets out to answer through this book. He looks at three ways in which the Hindutva message is spread- music, poetry and publishing, and in each of these, he profiles one person who is immensely popular and effective in the genre. The book is based on ground research spread over four years during which time the author spent countless hours interviewing and interacting with not just the three people profiled, but also their family and close associates. He attended their programmes and spoke to them about their early childhood, their journey to fame, and their frustrations and aspirations. By choosing to profile one person in each genre, the author is able to convey a lot more than he would have had he chosen to write about each of the movements in general.

Everything written about in the book is set against the socio-political background of the country. The book is sprinkled with references to almost all the important events of the previous 4 years- the Pulwana attack, the 2019 General Elections, the Abrogation of Section 370, the anti-CAA-NRC protests that swept the country, Shaheen Bagh, the Lockdown, the Farmer Protests, the second wave of COVID and the UP elections. Each of these affected the people profiled in significant ways- either by providing material for their art or in more personal ways.

Each of the people profiled is fascinating in different ways, and though they all fall under the large Hindutva ideology, each of them is driven by different objectives and has different aspirations. Though this is the main source of livelihood for each of them, money and fame is not the only thing that drives them- they want something more, something intangible.

Kavi Singh

Kavi Singh is one of only two female singers in the macho, masculine world of Hindutva pop music. Her appeal lies in the fact that she has a quick turnaround time and is fast to react to current events, and she unambiguously directs her listeners to react in a certain way. The lyrics to her songs are direct and warn of an Islamic takeover of the country-

“Kuch logo ki toh saazish hai,
Hum bacche khub banayenge.
Jab snakhya hui humse szaada,
Fir apni baat manayenge.

(Some people are conspiring,
That we will produce many children
When their numbers go past ours
They will make us dance to their tune.)

Songs like these have little basis in reality, because the fertility rate of Muslims is going down, and unless Hindus stop reproducing completely, Muslims will never become the majority in the country. However, songs like these are widely popular and their target audience is swayed by rhetoric and doesn’t demand facts.

Despite her fame, Kavi’s own life is full of contradictions. Though she dresses in gender-agnostic outfits and has cultivated a male swagger, she is still a victim of patriarchy. Her career and image are carefully controlled by her adoptive father, and she is almost ostracised by her family when she chooses to display sexual agency. While Kavi Singh has achieved fame, she wants more- she wants to be recognised as someone who guides her listeners about the (imagined) danger that Muslims present to her idea of a Hindu state.

Kamal Agney

Kamal Agney is a Hindi poet whose poetry ‘revolves almost exclusively around the cause of Hindutva. His poetry furthers Hindutva in innumerable ways: he will find ways to emphasize some of the core elements of the ideology, he will clearly delineate the ‘enemies’ of Hindus, he will stroke anger and hate towards them, dehumanise them using his rhetoric and won’t shy away from creating new foes.’ He does this by creating false binaries, by asking provocative questions and by re-writing historical events and figures by giving them a religious spin. One of his poems, for instance, goes-

“Jinnah ko mila Pak, Nehru ko Hind,
Koi toh bataiye Chandrashekhar ko kya mila.

(Jinnah got Pakistan and Nehru India
Someone tell me, what did Chandrashekhar get?)

Through this poem, he implies that both Jinnah and Nehru were beneficiaries of Partition, even though it is well documented that Nehru opposed Partition till it was clear that it was inevitable. Timelines are also deliberately messed up by bringing up the name of a revolutionary who was martyred in 1931, well before the demand for Pakistan gained momentum.

It is interesting that the poet did not vote for the BJP in the first election where he was eligible to vote, but gradually came into the Hindutva fold and became one of its most vociferous champions. What is also interesting is that he is no longer content with just moulding public opinion; he wants to be able to wield political power and is disheartened that the Chief Minister he campaigned for hasn’t rewarded him sufficiently.

Sandeep Deo

Former journalist turned author Sandeep Deo wears many hats in his quest to advance the Hindutva ideology. He runs a popular YouTube news channel, has his own publishing house and is growing his e-commerce website to distribute Hindutva books and other religious items. He is also a spiritual guide and gives advice to parents and children on how to live their lives the Hindu way.

Deo has studied the Hindu scriptures extensively, and he wants to reestablish an Akhand Hindu Rashtra. Interestingly, he often criticises the BJP government when he feels they are not taking a firm enough stand in stamping out elements which Deo believes are against Hindus and Hindutva.

Unlike most people with strong Right Wing leanings, he does not shy away from criticising the Prime Minister, and in his news shows, he often comes across as anti-establishment. “Every Ram needs Vasishtha. Every Chandragupta Maurya needs a Chankay”, he says. Clearly, he sees himself as a kingmaker who can take down the established king if he strays from the path that Deo believes is the right one.

Through these three portraits, the author brings to life the world of Hindutva Pop, which is growing and thriving away from the gaze of the mainstream urban media. The author also puts these developments in the context of similar movements internationally, which polarised people and eventually resulted in documented violence against communities.

What makes the book exceptional is the fact that though it is meticulously researched and presented, the author leaves his personal opinions out of the narrative. While it is clear that he is disturbed by the objective and impact of H-Pop, he merely presents facts and leaves it to the reader to form their own opinions. The book is a masterclass in journalism because the author continues to maintain his objectivity throughout the book; something that is often missing in what passes for journalism these days.

This book, as summarised in the blurb, presents “the frightening face of new India- one that is united by hate, divided by art.” I would urge anyone who wants to understand what is happening in the country better to read this book.

The book has been published by Harper Collins India. I received an advance review copy, but the views are my own.

Why Women Celebrating Karva Chaut should not be shamed

 [Shaming women who observe Karva Chauth does not serve any purpose because all it does is make people defensive and defensive people tend to dig further into their own beliefs. First published in Women’s Web]

I knew Karva Chauth was around the corner when my social media feed started filling up with photographs of mehendied hands, and I braced myself for the sappy posts and the acrimonious debates that I knew would follow. I was not disappointed.

Every year, I find a vast majority of my female friends to be firmly on one or the other side of the Karva Chauth debate. There are friends who undertake the fast, dress up for the evening puja and post photographs on social media. And there are friends who write long, fiery posts denouncing the custom as patriarchal and anachronistic. Both these groups of women often end up clashing on social media, and there seems to be little common ground between them.

And every year, I end up reflecting on what my stand is. This year was no different.

Is Karva Chauth inherently patriarchal?
Of course it is. It is a fast undertaken by women for the well being and long life of their husbands. Tradition does not require the man to undertake a similar fast for the well being of their wives, so it is certainly one sided.

A few younger couples, inspired no doubt by Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, both keep the Karva Chauth fast, but that doesn’t change the fact that the genesis and intent of the festival is patriarchal. There are women who say that Karva Chauth is really a celebration of sisterhood, that it is a day when women get to dress up and pamper themselves, but when the purpose of the festival is to celebrate gender imbalance, that cannot be used to absolve the festival from being labelled “patriarchal”.

Should women be dissuaded from celebrating Karva Chauth?
This is a harder question to answer. Karva Chauth, as is much else, is a matter of personal faith. A woman who has grown up seeing the women of her family celebrating Karva Chauth is conditioned into believing that this is something that women do for the welfare of their husbands. For them, keeping the fast is akin to paying an insurance premium, and they are willing to do that for the sake of their husbands.

Personally, I do not think we have the right to force them to change their belief, especially since their actions are not causing direct harm to anyone else.

Should women be shamed for celebrating Karva Chauth?
Certainly not. Many women who consistently and vociferously speak up for women’s rights, have been called “false feminists” and have been shamed for observing the Karva Chaut fast. This in my opinion, this goes against the spirit of feminism. Like it or not, we have grown up in a patriarchal world, and have been conditioned to think and act in ways which go against true gender equity.

Most of our religious rituals (by our, I mean Hindu, but it is applicable to most religions) are intrinsically patriarchal. Across cultures and religions, women are “given away” in marriage. Hindu women are dissuaded from performing funeral rites. Women house owners have spoken of how difficult it is to find a priest even to perform a housewarming puja in the absence of a male partner.

As feminists, each of us, in our own way and at our own pace, challenge these age old beliefs and seek to change ourselves and those around us. There is no such thing as a “perfect feminist”; each of us is an “evolving feminist”. Shaming women who observe Karva Chauth does not serve any purpose because all it does is make people defensive and defensive people tend to dig further into their own beliefs.

Is it Ok that Karva Chauth discriminates between women?
There is however, one aspect of Karva Chaut which most people who observe it do not consider- Karva Chauth is not inclusive. Only married women are allowed to observe Karva Chaut. A woman who might have been keeping the fast and performing the puja for decades is prevented from observing the festival when she loses her husband.

If indeed, as some say, it is a celebration of sisterhood, does a woman cease being a ‘sister’ when she loses her husband?

In order to prove that the festival is not patriarchal, some women claim that the fast is for the entire family, not just for the women- if that is the case, does the family cease to exist when the husband passes away?

It’s the same issue for all Indian festivals!
Karva Chauth is not, of course, the only festival which is not inclusive. In fact, most Hindu festivals discriminate against women who have lost their husbands. But this is one aspect of the festival which the women who observe it should think about- do they want to be a part of something that is blatantly discriminates. Yes, as feminists, we believe in the right of women to choose. But inclusion is as important as individual choice, and the festival fails on that count.

At one time, in Bengal, only married women were permitted to participate in Sindoor Khela, where Goddess Durga is fed sweets and pampered on the last day of Durga Puja before being symbolically sent back to her father’s home. The ritual has now evolved to include not just unmarried women and divorcees, but also widows and transgender women. Today, Sindoor Khela is genuinely a celebration of Sisterhood, even though it too is rooted in the patriarchal tradition of sending the woman back to her marital home. If one festival could evolve, there is no reason why others should not, as long as those celebrating them are mindful.

Suhana Khan Was Supporting Re-Use Of Bridal & Party Wear, Not Being A ‘Clueless Star Kid’!

 [First published in Women’s Web]

Suhana Khan, in a recent interview, praised Alia Bhatt for wearing her wedding saree when she went to receive the National Awards, and went on to add, “as somebody with a platform, who has an influence, I thought that was incredible and a much-needed message. She took a stand towards sustainability. If Alia Bhatt can re-wear her wedding saree then we can also repeat an outfit for a party. We don’t need to buy a new outfit.”

Suhana Khan is being heavily trolled for her statement, with some of the less nasty comments being:

its so funny when rich people start doing things the rest of us have been doing forever and start thinking they’re being ecofriendly and sustainable.

Alia Bhatt wearing her dress twice is a symbol of sustainability and she is an inspiration for doing so, say the star kids! 

Many people mentioned that they wear the same pair of jeans for an entire week, or that they are still wearing the kurti they bought while in college. However, what all these people choose to ignore is the fact that Suhana Khan was not talking about everyday wear. She was making a very valid point about the clothes that the bridal party purchases for weddings.

How many times have you worn your wedding saree or lehenga?
My grandmother draped her 9-yards wedding saree to lit the lamps on Kartikai Deepam every year. The women of my mother in law’s family would drape their wedding chunnis over their head while sitting down to perform a havan. The bride reused all the outfits she wore at her wedding- often, they were the only “good” clothes she possessed.

Things, however, are no longer the same now. Today’s brides wear extremely expensive outfits for each of the wedding functions, and few (if any) of them are re-worn. One reason for this is a very practical one- today’s bridal outfits are far more elaborate than the ones worn traditionally which consequentially makes them less versatile than the ones worn by earlier generations. But the other reason, and perhaps more important reason, is that it is considered infra dig to repeat wedding outfits at other events, and people hesitate to do so because they know that they will get caught out because of the digital footprint.

It is against this background that one should look at Suhana Khan’s statement that “if Alia Bhatt can re-wear her wedding saree then we can also repeat an outfit for a party. We don’t need to buy a new outfit.” She was talking specifically about high end outfits, not about the jeans and kurtis which we wear daily. Far from being the “spoilt star kid” which people insinuated she was, Suhana Khan was in fact using her name and privilege to make a very valid point about sustainability.

Suhana Khan batted for the environment
”We don’t realise but making new garments creates waste which impacts our biodiversity and environment” she said.

While the statement may sound a little vague and contrived, Suhana Khan was drawing attention to a very important issue- that while we tend to picture huge smokestacks belching black smoke into the air when we think of polluting industries, the fashion industry is equally environmentally destructive.

Let us examine the environmental footprint of fashion
Fashion production is responsible for 8 to 10% of global emissions which is more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. The industry consumes over 93 billion cubit meters of water every year, which is enough to meet the needs of 5 million people. More than 20% of industrial water pollution originates from the fashion industry.

The social cost of the fashion industry is equally high. The industry employs women and children in developing countries at lower than minimum wages and forces them to work long hours in appalling conditions. Some of the chemicals used in production also raise health concerns both for producers and consumers.

What makes the environmental and social cost of fashion production worse is the fact that 85% of the textiles produced lands up in landfills every year, thereby creating the problem of waste disposal.

The only way to counter this is to embrace sustainable fashion
Today, one in six social media influencers proudly proclaim they never wear the same outfit again. This puts tremendous pressure on regular people to buy more clothes than they need. Each tee shirt, for instance requires 2,700 litres of water for production, which is roughly equivalent to amount of water 3 people would drink in an entire year. While the people who trolled Suhana Khan might wear the same pair of jeans for 5 years, I wonder how many of them think of the environmental cost while mindlessly purchasing yet another tee shirt?

It is essential that we reduce the number of garments we purchase, and that we wear the garments that we already possess as many times as possible. This can be done by buying, wherever possible, good quality and classic outfits that will last for several years. Borrowing and exchanging clothes was extremely common in the past, and enables you to get more wear out of the same number of clothes. Thrifting and hiring are becoming popular in niche circles of people who make the effort to exert sustainable choices.

This requires a change in mindset
All of this, however, requires a change in mindset from excessive consumerism to more responsible shopping. When celebrities and influencers are seen and photographed wearing the same outfit more than once, it can lead to a change in mindset. By wearing her wedding saree at an extremely prestigious professional event, Alia Bhatt sent out the message to brides that they could and should look at whether their bridal outfit could be worn even after the wedding.

Instead of calling out Suhana Khan for speaking about Alia Bhatt re-wearing her bridal outfit, we should appreciate her effort to normalise and popularise sustainable fashion.