Emergency Message Protocols protect the vulnerable

 [First published in Women’s Web]

A lot has been reported and debated on the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walker, but one small detail of the case is not receiving as much attention as it should. The investigation has revealed that the accused Aftab Ameen Poonawalla used her Instagram account for almost a month after her murder to give the impression of her still being alive.

Why an emergency message protocol is critical
Presumably he did that to avoid the possibility of a search being launched before he was able to dispose off all the body parts. It now turns out that he need not have worried- Shraddha’s isolation was so complete that it was not till many months after the crime that someone cared enough to go to the authorities. But assuming her friends, knowing about the abusive situation she was in, were keeping an active watch on her, by continuing to communicate with them, he may have succeeded in deluding them.

Given how a large chunk of our communication is through WhatsApp, Messenger or Direct Messages, where we neither see the person nor hear their voice, it is important for all of us to have emergency protocols in place especially if we feel we are in a vulnerable situation.

My scientist friend and I have an ongoing joke between us- “If you ever receive a message from me saying ‘vaccines don’t work’, you should realise that it is my way of telling you that I have been kidnapped.” The joke started because both of us were equally frustrated by anti-vaxxers, but it doesn’t hurt to have similar code messages with friends who you trust.

Shraddha’s friends were aware of the fact that she was in an abusive relationship. If they had set up a code like the one my friend and I joke about, the friends would have been alerted to something fishy long before they actually were.

How secret safety codes work and are widely used
Many bars and restaurants have a variation of the secret code pasted in the ladies washrooms. If a woman feels unsafe, all she has to do is to order a specific drink, and the staff will ensure her is extricated from an unpleasant position with minimal fuss. In an ideal world, there should be no need to put such elaborate systems in place, but given the perils of dating, particularly online dating, it is a level of protection that is much needed.

Secret codes are particularly useful as a way to protect children and adolescents. A mother of a teenager once shared how before dropping her daughter off at sleepovers, they finalised a secret code which the daughter would use if she felt uncomfortable and wanted to return home. It was always an innocent phrase, and on seeing it, the mother would hop into the car and drive straight to the place where her child was, with no questions asked. The obvious benefit of the secret code was that both the mother and daughter knew that if things were starting to get out of hand, the mother could swiftly and neatly extricate her daughter. The additional benefit was that there would be no proof of an SOS being sent on the daughter’s phone, so she wouldn’t have to lose face in front of her friends.

Younger children, especially those that lead semi-independent lives, are vulnerable to being tricked by strangers. It is not hard for strangers to approach a child who is waiting to be picked them up from school and trick them into accompanying them by saying that the parent got delayed and deputed them to pick the child up. Since there is a finite probability that there may be a genuine emergency where the child may have to be picked up by someone else, it is good to have a secret code. The child can be taught to go with a stranger only if they knew the code. My children and I had a code word, which we would repeat often so we did not forget. We never needed to use it, but it doesn’t hurt to be prepared.

In State of Terror, the geo-political thriller jointly written by Hillary Clinton and Louise Penny, the protagonists use a linguistic play on words (An oxymoron walked into a bar… and the silence was deafening) to identify themselves to each other. It may appear childish, but it never hurts to have back-up systems in place.

Though Shraddha Walker had been systematically isolated by her partner, some of her friends knew she was in an abusive relationship. If she had a fool proof way of communicating to her friends that she was in danger, things might have been different. “Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst”, they say. Setting up secret codes with people you trust is a simple way of protecting ourselves.

Focus should be making Workplaces more Accessible for Mothers

[First published in Women's Web]

When a District Collector, Dr. Divya S. Iyer, took her child along to a private function and addressed the gathering holding him in her arms, her detractors immediately took to social media to criticise her “improper” behaviour. According to them, it was unbecoming of a senior government official to take her child along for a public engagement, and that she should have left the child behind at home. Others were quick to point out that the function was a private one which she was attending on a holiday in her personal capacity and that she had already informed the organizers that she would bring her child along. 

As the debate over the propriety raged, her husband took to social media to remind people that such a discussion was good in one way, since it highlighted the challenges that working women need to overcome in order to fulfil ‘their multiple roles as wife, mother and so on, besides handling professional duties.’ “Working mothers do not need anyone’s sympathy”, he added. “But, the society should give them a positive space to work.”
There are two major issues here, both of which need to be addressed.
The first is of inclusive workplaces. While it is easy to pass judgement on parents who bring their children to work, the fundamental question that needs to be asked is why they need to do so. Given a choice, parents would certainly prefer to work without the distraction of a child- that they need to bring the child to work indicates that they do not have enough flexibility to stay at home on days when they are not able to arrange for childcare.
People who say that it is “unprofessional” of an employee to bring a child to the workplace should reflect on whether they will say the same thing if an organization expects an employee to respond to official phone calls and check the official e-mail after office hours. If no eyebrows are raised when work spills over to the home, why should people have an issue when in an emergency personal life spills over to the workplace.
In this particular case, specifically, the official engagement was on a holiday, and the employee was well within her rights to say that she will only attend provided the child could be brought too.

The second point which, unfortunately, is lost completely is on the role of the woman. Dr. Divya’s husband took to social media to talk about the many roles that a working woman is expected to play. On the surface, this would seem like an extremely encouraging statement, because the emotional load of a woman is almost always overlooked. However, the pertinent question to be asked is what the role of the father is in all this. If a marriage is an equitable relationship, why is the wife expected to fulfil the roles of a “wife, mother and so on”? If both partners take equal responsibility for housekeeping, caregiving and parenting there would be no need for a woman to take on as many responsibilities as she now does.

Instead of merely celebrating women for juggling multiple roles, shouldn’t society encourage both partners to share the responsibilities, so they can both reach their full potential at home and at work? For this to happen, things need to change at various levels.
Men are celebrated for doing even the basic minimum, while women are expected to do it all without appreciation or acknowledgement. New mothers often complain that even when the fathers pitch in to burp the baby, to change diapers or to soothe colicky babies, the reaction of others embarrasses them to such an extent that they stop doing those chores at least in public. This needs to change if there is to be a more equitable relationship between both partners.
Workplaces should also encourage their employees to maintain a better work-life balance in order to facilitate more equitable relationships. If fathers of young babies are expected to work extremely long hours and/ or take official calls at home, it restricts the time they can spend with their children. The mother is, therefore, forced to take on the major share of caregiving, which in turn makes it extremely difficult for her to return to work when the maternity leave gets over. This leads to reduced labour force participation of women, and to women taking on increasing amounts of the invisible workload.

Many of us have grown up spending weekends and holidays at our parents’ workplace. Indira Nooyi once shared that her daughter had slept under her desk so often she regarded that desk as her own and didn’t want it given away. If they cannot find reliable childcare at home, employees often find it easier to concentrate on work if the child is with them at the workplace.
Ideally, all workplaces should provide child care facilities for their staff, both male and female. Most organizations do not want to invest in childcare facilities because the number of female employees is low and the number of female employees with young children even lower. What these organizations do not realise is that if they provide child care facilities, it will be much easier for them to recruit and retain women employees. Women who know that their babies will be well looked after in the office premises will be far more likely to return to work on completion of their maternity leave. If organizations set up child care facilities, even male employees might access it so their wives can go back to work- this will help retaining male employees, since the this would serve as an incentive to remain in the same employment.

Yes, by bringing her child to an official function, Dr. Divya, IAS did stir up a debate. However, instead of debating whether or not she should did something wrong by bringing her child to work, if we discussed the need for more inclusive policies at work it would better serve the cause of improving the labour force participation of women.

Hijab Ban Verdict And The Need To Prioritise Girls’ Fundamental Right To Education

 [First published in Women’s Web]

Yesterday, the two member bench of the Supreme Court handed a split verdict on the appeal against the Karnataka High Court judgement upholding the hijab ban by educations institutions in the state.

Those of us who have been following the case in the Supreme Court expected Justice Hemant Gupta to dismiss the appeals challenging the decision of the Karnataka High Court. It was no surprise to anyone that his judgement dismissed the plea by the young women that they should be allowed to wear hijabs in the classroom.

However, the judgement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia gives hope.

When the young women filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking permission to wear the hijab in the classroom, the High Court dismissed the petition by stating that unlike the turban in the Sikh faith, the hijab was not an “essential religious practice” of the Islamic faith, and therefore they were not exempt from the guideline issues by individual educational institutions.

While ‘hijab’ is mandated in the Quran, there are different interpretations on what ‘hijab’ actually means. The High Court, therefore, should not have based its judgement on whether or not the hijab is an “essential religious practice” or not- if some women consider it an “essential religious practice”, it is not for the High Court to decide that their interpretation is not the right one.

Instead, the High Court should have realised that by upholding that hijabs were not permitted in the classroom they were forcing may young women to choose between following the dictates of their faith and getting an education.

There is little to be gained by creating a “hijab ya kitab” (hijab or book) binary- in a patriarchal country like India, young women already have to navigate complex minefields, without the system adding yet another level of complexity.

Many people who had absolutely no skin in the game, claimed that they were trying to free young women from a patriarchal society that forced them to wear a hijab. False equivalences were drawn with the anti-hijab protests in Iran to underscore the point that hijabs should be shunned.

So from some of the things Justice Gupta said, one had feared that the judgement too would be along similar lines, and the hijab ban would be upheld.

It is here that the judgement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia gives hope.

Justice Dhulia dismissed the need to establish whether or not a hijab was an “essential religious practice” and stated categorically that “when protection is sought under Article 25(1) of the Constitution [which states that all persons have the right freely to process, practice and propagate religion], it is not required for the individual to establish that what he or she asserts is an essential religious practice. It may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is, a matter of conscience, belief, and expression.”

“If she wants to wear hijab, even inside her class room, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her hijab is her ticket to education.”

By stating that, Justice Dhulia showed an astute understanding of the practical meaning of “choice”. When we make choices, we always choose between the alternatives that are available to us. For many young women (though certainly not for all) the choice often is “don the hijab and go to school” or “refuse to wear the hijab and drop out of school”. When schools/ colleges ban the hijab, the young woman doesn’t get mysteriously “empowered” to shun the hijab- often she just ends up dropping out of school/ college.

Justice Dhulia then went on to add: “But the thing that was most important in my mind while deciding this case was the education of a girl child. It’s common knowledge that already a girl child, primarily in rural areas and semi-urban areas, has to face a lot of difficulties. She has to help her mother in daily chores, in cleaning and washing, before she goes to school. There are other difficulties as well. What I ask is are we making her life any better?”

This part of the judgement will be quoted for many years to come, because it strikes at the heart of what the judicial system should do- keep the interests of the most vulnerable people at the center. As Justice Leila Seth says in her book, Talking of Justice: People’s Rights in Modern India, “treating persons who are in an unequal situation equally does not do away with the injustice. This situational imbalance has to be rectified first.” While educational institutions can and must uphold their rules, if these rules deprive young people of an education, the rules must be overthrown.

Even if people think that the hijab is a patriarchal construct, the way to “liberate” women is by enabling them to get an education so they are economically and emotionally independent, and therefore empowered to take decisions which may go against societal expectations. Anyone who genuinely cares for the empowerment of women should oppose the hijab ban, as Justice Dhulia pointed out.

n an ideal situation, one would have hoped that the Supreme Court bench would have dismissed the High Court judgment that upheld the hijab-ban. However, in light of the many pronouncements that go against the fundamental rights of women and minorities, the judgement handed down by Justice Dhulia is a ray of hope. As Harper Lee wrote in her book To Kill a Mockingbird, after Atticus Finch kept the jury out for hours in the trial of a black man accused of raping a white woman:

“You think about that,” Miss Maudie was saying. “It was no accident. I was sitting there on the porch last night, waiting. I waited and waited to see you all come down the sidewalk and as I waited I thought, Atticus Finch won’t win, he can’t win, but he’s the only man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like that. And I thought to myself, well, we’re making a step- its just a baby step, but it’s a step.”

This judgement is a baby step, but it holds hope.

With a split verdict, the case will now go to the Chief Justice, who will give the final verdict on whether educational institutions in Karnataka can enforce a hijab-ban. One hopes the verdict will be in favour of the young women. Justice Gupta will retire at the end of the week- this may be his last significant judgement. Justice Dhulia’s judgement will, however, continue to be quoted for many years to come.

Is a woman obliged to carry to term a baby that is the "nishani" of the father?

[First published in Women's Web]

A retired official, and advocate at the High Court recently narrated a story of the widow of a Kargil martyr who was pregnant at the time of his death. From a purely practical standpoint, her parents advised her to have an abortion, but her in-laws wanted her to have the child since that was the “nishani” of their son. When the lady insisted she didn’t want to have the child, her in-laws went to the District Collector who, purely on humanitarian grounds, ordered the woman to stay with her in-laws, carry the child to full term and hand it over to the grandparents to bring up. Though the person posting this story was deliberate vague on whether it was a recent case or an old one, she by specifying that there was nothing in the rules to permit it, admitted that the decision of the District Collector was purely arbitrary. She used it to argue that decisions around pregnancy should not be left to the mother alone, because issues like ‘inter-personal emotions, traditions and responsibilities’ also come into play. 

Looking at the case purely from the facts that were shared by the person, there are several aspects that are extremely disturbing.

The choice of the woman is not mentioned anywhere in the narrative- it only talks of her parents advising her to abort the child, and her in-laws demanding that she bear the child. This is, unfortunately, the reality in India. A woman has very little agency in deciding what she wants for herself. She is caught in the expectations of various people, many of whom do not even have a stake in her well being, which severely restricts her ability to think dispassionately for herself. In most conflict situations, the woman’s opinion is not even considered- different people face off among themselves to determine which of them gets to decide her action. This is the reason why women try to seek a powerful ally within the external family if they want to do anything that they think the family may not approve of.

In this case, the parents of the woman have a more pragmatic approach. Given that this is her first child, one assumes the woman is not very old, and perhaps not even equipped to have a professional career. Like it or not, remarriage is the most sensible option for her, and remarriage will be much easier if the woman is not burdened with a child. Even if the woman is not thinking of remarriage right away, it is extremely hard to be a single parent, and this may not be the appropriate time where she can take a decision on whether or not to have the child. Anyone who has the best interest of the woman at heart will remind her of the practical considerations, and request her to keep that in mind while taking a decision.

The in-laws, on the other hand are acting in a purely emotional way. Having lost a child, they want to substitute him with a grandchild. In stating that they will bring up the child themselves, they have clearly not thought the issue through. At their age, are they physically and emotionally ready to bring up a baby single handedly? Will they expect the mother of the child to breast-feed the baby for six months, or will they be able to make alternate arrangements? Who will look after the child after they are no more? Is it fair to expect a grandchild to look after their grandparents like they would a parent? 

There are other issues too, which pertain to the well being of the baby. Should a baby be brought into the world with the weight of other people’s expectations on them? How will a child feel knowing that they are not an individual by a “nishani” of their dead father- that people do not necessarily care for them, except as a reminder of someone else who has passed on? When the child asks about their mother, what will the grandparents tell them- would a child really want to know that their mother wanted to abort them, and that she abandoned them soon after giving birth?

There is a possibility, however low, that the mother will bond with the child and not be able to give the child up. What if she chooses to bring up the child on her own, and denies the grandparents access to the child? Is that a possibility that anyone has even considered?

The biggest question is the one that everyone avoids- the grandparents are presuming the child will be male. What if the child is female? Will they still consider the child a “nishani” of their martyred son? Or will the grandparents put the child up for adoption after having forced the mother to give birth?

Lastly, why should the District Collector be involved in something that is purely a personal matter? No laws were broken, nor were any evoked. The District Collector should have sent the in-laws away by saying that this was outside their ambit of responsibilities. Not only did the District Collector not do that, they chose to issues directions that impinge on the rights of the pregnant woman and could be easily challenged in court.

As if illegally coercing a woman to not abort a foetus was not bad enough, the District Collector has compounded the injustice by forcing the woman to stay with her in-laws till she delivers the baby. The logic behind this would have been to ensure that the woman wouldn’t quietly have an abortion and then declare it was a miscarriage. However, now the woman has been forced to live in a hostile environment for several months. The woman who is silently grieving the loss of a husband will not only have to bear the emotional fluctuations of a pregnancy she doesn’t want, she will have to do it in a house where her only identity will be that of a receptacle of her dead husband’s “nishani”. It is extremely likely that during the period of her pregnancy she will virtually be under house arrest and may not even be allowed to visit her parents or have them stay with her for emotional support. We also do not know how long after delivery the house arrest will last- will she be compelled to stay till the baby is weaned off?

What is even more disturbing is the fact that so many people are hailing this story, and using it as an example to prove that in case of medical termination of pregnancy, the woman should not have the right to decide.

People are taking it for granted that as a pregnant widow”, it is the moral obligation of the woman to give birth to the “nishani” of the “shaheed”. Without irony, the woman sharing the story says, “This decision, of course, was under no Rules and purely on humane emotions. Humanity and society is not a mechanical thing. It runs on. Our Hon. Supreme Court needs to understand that “my body my choice” is OK till it does not intervene with others’ rights.”

However, what “rights” are people talking about? The parents of the martyred soldier need grief counselling to help them get over the loss of their only son. A grandchild cannot, and should not, be a substitute for a dead child. Even if it temporarily numbs the pain of losing a child, it is not fair on the grandchild to bring them up with such expectations.

If anything, stories like this underline exactly why abortion laws should give the mother and only the mother the choice to decide whether to carry the child to term or not. While people may argue that the father of the child also has a say in whether or not to abort the child, in a healthy relationship, any decision taken by the mother will be one that is discussed by both partners. If the parents are not aligned, the only person who has the right to decide is the mother, since she is the one who will go through pregnancy, childbirth, and carry the larger burden of child rearing.

“My body, my choice” is not a western, feminist import as people claim it is. In the often repeated tale from the Mahabharata, Ganga agreed to marry King Shantanu on condition he will never question her. The story of her multiple pregnancies and child-births is the most powerful example of the agency that a woman enjoyed in the time of the epics.

The recent Supreme Court verdicts that reiterate the body autonomy that women enjoy is a welcome step. And stories like this only underline why it is important to tighten the laws so nobody can compel a woman to do something she doesn’t want to.

The Real Reason Why Ridiculing A School Girl’s Request For Cheaper Pads Is Problematic

[A very large percentage of young women do not have access to a hygienic method of menstrual protection, and the request made by the student was a valid one. I write in Women's Web.]

At a workshop on Empowered Daughters, Prosperous Bihar, a student from an economically marginalised family asked Harjot Kaur Bamhrah, Managing Director of Bihar’s Women Development Corporation whether it was possible for the Government to give sanitary pads to students of government schools.

Instead of acknowledging the very valid demand, the IAS officer responded by saying that there was no end to such demands. She went on display her utter lack of sensitivity by arrogantly adding, “Tomorrow you will say the government can give jeans pants too. And after that why not some beautiful shoes? Eventually, when it comes to family planning you will expect the governemtn to give you family planning methods and condoms too. Why is there a need to take everything for free?”

As a senior IAS officer, Ms. Bamhrah should have refrained from insulting the student who made a perfectly valid request, especially at a workshop presumably organised to ‘empower’ young women. More importantly, as the government officer in charge of implementing schemes for women and children in the state, she should have been aware of the ground reality.

As per a 2014 report nearly 23 million girls drop out of school annually due to non-availability of sanitary napkins and/ or lack of awareness about menstruation practices. The sure shot way to empower young women is through Education, and providing sanitary pads and safe toilets is one way of ensuring students aren’t forced to drop out of school after attaining puberty.

The statement made by Ms. Bamhrah also displayed her sheer privilege.

While most of us live in cities where you can easily purchase sanitary pads from groceries and pharmacies, the distribution network often doesn’t extend to rural areas. In most villages, even of you can afford it, you cannot just walk into a store and purchase sanitary napkins. According to the National Family Health Survey, 2015-16, the percentage of women in the age group 15-24 years who use sanitary napkins is 58% in urban areas and 48% in rural areas. This clearly shows that a very large percentage of young women do not have access to a hygienic method of menstrual protection, and the request made by the student was a valid one.

This is just the tip of the iceberg that considers sanitary napkins a non-essential item…

Though Ms. Bamhrah, IAS, on account of her gender and the position she occupies should certainly know better, she is not alone in considering sanitary napkins an non-essential item.

The recent floods in Pakistan affected over 33 million people, of whom nearly 7 million have been internally displaced. While humanitarian organizations swung into action to deliver food, water, medicines and other essentials to the people in relief camps, the women soon realised that the relief packages didn’t include sanitary napkins. When they understood the issue, women and women’s groups swung into action and started mobilizing and distributing sanitary napkins to the women in relief camps.

When a few women took to social media to raise funds for this, they faced an immediate backlash from men who decided that sanitary napkins were not ‘essential goods’ and that relief organizations should concentrate on food, water and medicines only.

Some of the statements made by men showed how little they understood the issue, on which they had such a strong opinion. They said things like-

“Why do women need sanitary napkins? They can use a rag or something.”

“The women can sit in a corner and the shalwar will soak up the blood. Pads are not essential.”

“In case of emergency like flooding etc, women can endure with blood & without fear of infection etc. Women are biologically equipped to deal with that. Where people are dying food/water is most important things. Napkins can wait…”

Some even came up with dubious statements like “During situations of stress, the pH of the urine changes, and this temporarily stops menstruation”.

Needless to say, most of the people had only a vague understanding of the physical and psychological issues around menstruation, yet, they felt they were competent to declare that sanitary napkins were not essential items, and therefore their distributions should not be prioritised.

Ideally, all relief kids given to families with women who are menstruators should include sanitary napkins, but people seemed to have an issue even with women raising funds for procuring and distributing sanitary napkins to the flood affected women!

Yet, sanitary napkins are a genuine need. During the Kerala floods some of my colleagues were involved in supplying food and other materials to the people in relief camps. While they were grateful for the support, a few women took the female colleagues aside and whispered that they desperately needed sanitary napkins for themselves and their daughters. When they received them, they were extremely grateful, because some of them were so embarrassed of their blood-stained clothes, they didn’t even want to go to the toilets for fear that someone may see them and judge them.

Lack of sanitary products and toilets reduces access to public spaces

Seeing how aggressively some people declare that sanitary napkins are not an essential item, I often wonder if denying sanitary napkins to women is a way of reducing their mobility.

There is immense stigma associated with menstruation, and unless she has a fool-proof menstrual product, a women will not go out in public during her periods for fear of potentially exposing herself. Restricting access to sanitary napkins keeps them bound to the house for a few days every month, and this would affect their education, employment prospects and their participation in community activities.

It does not take genius to understand that in order to increase public participation of women, it is imperative that sanitary napkins be provided to women who either do not have access to them or cannot afford to purchase them, and sufficient awareness created on usage and safe disposal of these products.

That is the main reason why it is so distressing to find women in positions of power being so insensitive and ignorant about the challenges faced by women.

However, I do hope that after this controversy, more people will understand some of the challenges faced by women and girls, and display greater sensitivity towards finding solutions that work.

The Unsung Women of the Telangana Armed Struggle

[A brief history of the forgotten women who took up arms against an exploitative system, and a book review. First published in Women’s Web.]

When one thinks of Partition, one thinks of Punjab and perhaps of Bengal. The bloodshed on both sides of the border. People unrooted from the only home they ever knew. trains pulling into station with coachloads of slaughtered people. Refugee camps crammed with bewilderment, nostalgia and a determination to start afresh.

The stories of Partition that we take about are stories enabled by Radcliff. But far away from the stories that dominate 1947, is the story of how Hyderabad came to be a part of India. A story that most Indians are not aware of- even many who live in areas that were a part of the Hyderabad State do not realise that they will officially celebrate 75 years of being a part of the Indian Union only in September 2023.

In her fictionalised historical novel, Hyderabad (The Partition Trilogy #2), Manreet Sodhi Someshwar examines the many people and forces that were in play in the months before the annexation of Hyderabad into the Indian Union. Unlike in other princely states, there were many more forces that were in play in Hyderabad, and Manreet does full justice to the many historical personages who were involved. However, where she really impresses is with her portrayal of the common people- people who were being pulled apart by forces beyond their control, but who never surrendered their agency in dealing with them.

Where are the women of the Telangana armed struggle in history records?

Women have been largely written out of the Freedom Movement, and even when we remember them, we do not think beyond a few prominent women Freedom Fighters who achieved some degree of fame.

Most of the women who have been immortalised are women who were women from privileged families; women with education who played a public role in post Independence India. There were no such women in the Telangana Armed Struggle, which was an anti-feudal and anti-caste movement against the oppressive regime of the Nizam and later of Independent India.

It was Dalit and Bahujan women who joined the Telangana Armed Struggle, and their fight was against caste oppression and for the right to own and cultivate their own land.

We know the name of Chakali Ailamma, who took up arms to fight against the structured oppression of the feudal system, and in the process also rebelled against gendered domestic expectations.

There were, however, many women such as her who took up arms to fight against the system. It is the stories of these women that Manreet tells through her fictional characters.

Jaabili

Jaabili accompanied her mistress to her marital home, where she was expected to serve as a concubine to her master. This was not acceptable to her, so displaying immense moral and physical courage, she escaped to join the Telangana Armed Struggle which she continued to serve despite the heavy personal price she had to pay.

She was unwilling to serve her master, but had sufficient agency to take on a lover of her own. She never gave up till the end, and was willing to resort to violence to achieve her ends.

Uzma

Uzma was sold into the service of the royal family. She was forced to abort an illegitimate child. Yet, instead of accepting her face, she displayed initiative and rose through the ranks to eventually become the confidant of a Princess. While she could have then lived in luxury, she chose to act as in informant for people seeking socio-economic justice for the labouring classes.

Far from being the submissive gender, she showed she was even willing to kill to further her cause.

Both Jaabili and Uzma are composite characters who represent the nameless, faceless, now forgotten women of the Telangana Armed Struggle. By breathing life into them Manreet literally entreats us to learn more about these (often unlettered) heroines who stood up valiantly for the rights of labourers, for caste justice and for gender equality.

Princess Nilofeur

There is one other character who glistens like the Kohinoor throughout the book. Princess Nilofeur was the exquisitely beautiful niece of the Last Caliph who, along with her cousin (the daughter of the Caliph), travelled from Nice to Hyderabad to start life as the younger daughter-in-law of the Seventh Nizam.

Nilofeur has always lived in the shadow of her equally beautiful and accomplished cousin who was married to the older son, but in this book, it is Nilofeur who dazzles. Her grace, her concern for others, her empathy and even her sense of humour. Nilofeur who sits in the royal car while her lady-in-waiting gets her Osmania biscuits and Irani chai from a café frequented by Communist sympathisers. Nilofeur, fresh as a rose, in the dank and dusty King Koti where the Nizam’s family resides. It is worth reading the book just for her interactions with her best friend Emily, and her lady-in-waiting.

The book ends with the Nizam’s forces surrendering to the Indian Army, but we know that for Jaabili and Uzma, and countless others like them, the struggle would continue for a few more years. You can draw boundaries on maps, and redraw them with blood on the ground, but the fight for freedom from oppression can only end when there is justice, equality, liberty and fraternity for all.

At a time when history is being erased one WhatsApp forward at a time, it is necessary that we read up on our history. Manreet Sodhi Someshwar’s ‘Hyderabad (The Partition Trilogy #2)’ is certainly a book that you will learn a lot from.

Author’s note: I received an ARC of the book, but the views are entirely my own. The book is categorised as historical fiction.

Bringing up Children who Read

[On Banned Books Week, my thoughts on whether or not we should control what our children read]

My children were babies when the last of the Harry Potter books came out, and though we loved watching the first three movies, I was very clear that my children wouldn’t be allowed to read beyond book 4 till they were old enough to handle the adolescent angst. 12 was the arbitrary age I’d set, before which they would not be allowed to read Order of the Phoenix.

When the older one devoured the first three books before his 8^th birthday, I realised that short of implementing a blanket ban, there was little chance of me being able to keep him away from finishing the series in a couple of weeks. I was also extremely conflicted. The Liberal in me detested censorship of any kind- if I didn’t want people telling me which books to read and which movies to watch, could I really stop my child from reading something that gave him pleasure? While I wrestled with my conscience, my child finished the series, and I consoled myself with the thought that while he had read something I deeded age in appropriate, I had at least remained true to my principles of not banning the written word.

Two years later, history repeated itself. The younger one, too, galloped through the Harry Potter books long before the age when I thought he should be reading them.

While the deed was done, I continued to worry. And the more I thought about it, the more I was conflicted. Restricting reading to age-appropriate books was different from banning a book, and as a parent didn’t I have the right and the duty to ensure my children read according to their age. The later books in the Harry Potter series dealt with complex emotions of death, sexual attraction, romantic jealousy. Had I failed as a parent by allowing my children to explore those themes long before they were ready for them? Should I have controlled their reading a bit more? Surely there was a difference between a parent telling her child “not yet”, and the state telling all people “never”.

July Blume’s essay on accelerated reading consoled me slightly. Her theory was that children read over what they are not yet ready to understand. So I might read the book and feel the full weight of Hermione’s frustration when Ron refuses to recognise her feelings for him, but my eight year old will probably just skim over that part and only remember the flock of birds that Hermione conjured in her frustration up to attack Ron.

There were other things which they read and remembered, but which they fully understood only a bit later. When an uncle that the children were quite fond of passed away in a climbing accident, we debated whether or not to break the news to them. I decided to, because tragic though it was, death is a part of life, and I could not keep them insulated from it forever. Strangely, they took it well. “Don’t feel so bad”, they told me, ”death is the start of a new adventure, isn’t it”. They even quoted Dumbledore back to me- “Don’t pity the dead. Instead pity the living. And above all pity those who live without love.” My children had taken enough out of the books to be able to recall them in a different context.

If as parents, we want to raise children who read, we need to let them read what they want to read, not force them to read what we want them to read. Children have more than enough books to read as a part of their curriculum- if you give them yet another book on Planet Earth or a story that ‘improves’ them, they are almost certain to reject it. Instead, let them choose their own books.

As parents, we may not approve of Captain Underpants, but the books will make the children chuckle and what they will take away from it is a healthy appreciation for word play. The myth is that comic books stunt the reading capacity of children, but comic books also teach children to appreciate the use of space and to articulate themselves with fewer words. We may find the Wimpy Kid series repetitive, but as long as our children enjoy reading and re-reading them, should we stop them?

All books, as Neil Gaiman says, build empathy because the act of reading forces you to build on the words of the author to create your own world. The characters in a book are as much your creation as they are that of the author, and through them you learn to look at situations from the perspective of other people. Yes, certain authors are boring and certain books are repetitive, but why not let the children decide for themselves instead of forcing our decision on them?

If you look at the list of books that have been banned from various school libraries, many of them deal with themes like puberty, sexuality, sexual ambiguity, masturbation and teen pregnancies. All these are issues that children and adolescents confront in their daily lives. When Nico confesses his love for Percy Jackson, it will not create homosexual tendencies in boys, but it will reassure an adolescent struggling with his homosexuality that he is not alone.

“Gender Queer” which is the memoir of a bisexual, asexual young person coming to terms with sexual and gender identity topped the list of books that have been targeted this year. Many people fear the book, because it challenges the conventional cis-het gender orthodoxy. Yet, it is an important resources for trans, queer and non-binary young people who are struggling with their identity and may not have an adult role model in their life. Books like these, far from being banned, should be made accessible to young people who may need them to better understand themselves or their friends.

Reading broadens our minds. Reading teaches us to look at things from other perspectives. Reading empowers us to ask questions. Reading enables us to challenge the status quo.

People who are comfortable with the status quo feel threatened by readers, which is why they try to get books banned. Seek out the banned books. Understand why they have been banned. And leave them hanging around where your children can read them.

The ability to read books, all kinds of books, is the biggest gift we can give our children. Let’s do it for them.