Living in courage and dying without fear

By R K Bhatnagar

Indira Gandhi, thrice Prime Minister of India lived in courage and died without fear. On November 19,1919 when she was born, the nightangle of India Sarojini Naidu had greeted her as "the arrival of the new soul of India". Born in the Abode of Allah — Allahabad - and in the holiest of places, the Triveni Sangam, she combined in her the future of the whole of India. She rose naturally and effortlessly above all castes, creeds, religions, regional and linguistic prejudices and stood out as symbol of Indian unity.

Her education at Santiniketan and Oxford helped to widen her horizon. But deeper education came to her from her father, Jawaharlal through his loving letters and his Glimpses of World History. Jawaharlal was, therefore, both father and teacher; guardian and guide. It is particularly apposite that his portrait of Smt. Indira Gandhi is to directly face that of her father Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru - both having been painted by the same distinguished Soviet artist Svetoslav Roerich. It is also appropriate that this painting should stand between those of Pandit Motilal Nehru, her illustrious grandfather and Sardar Patel, whose iron will she matched during her administration of the country. Her political apprenticeship under her father gave her an insight into men and matters of Indian politics and equipped her for the great role she was to play in shaping the destiny of India.

Indira Gandhi possessed an alert, probing, independent mind, a capacity for precise, apt and sometimes unsparing comment, criticism and characterization and, with friends, a deep but engaging sense of humour so absent in public life today. She was an apostle of peace and disarmament. Above all she was a humanist. Indira had few parallels in history.

42 years ago in 1962 when India faced massive aggression in North-Eastern region from China she rushed to Tezpur and displayed extraordinary courage. But it was as Prime Minister during the Bangladesh liberation action in 1971 that her image and the image of India soared to heights hitherto unknown. The influx of refugees from East Pakistan threatened Indian existence. The action initiated then was a master-stroke in conception, preparation and execution. Even in the face of Seventh Fleet of United States moving into the Indian Ocean when the air was thick with rumours of American intervention, Indira Gandhi stood like a rock undaunted and in her memorable speech at Ramlila Grounds in Delhi said: "We will not yield; we will not retreat a single step.

Towards the end of 1979, she requested the late Dr. Salim Ali to suggest a set of steps for eco-preservation. All the points suggested by the distinguished naturalist, including the setting up of separate Ministry of Environment, were accepted and acted upon by her when the nation entrusted her with the Prime Ministership of India, once again in 1980. She blended with the environment and wherever she went, whether to Nagaland or Saurashtra, she enjoyed wearing the local dress to the immense delight of the local people. At her touch Art blossomed and artists, be they musicians or dancers, poets or painters, sculptors - and sportsmen, all received encouragment and inspiration from her.

Indira Gandhi was a devoted daughter, a resoponsible wife and an affectionate and caring mother to her children and later grand children. She was a private person in so much so that she kept Sundays to herself. She close to her husband particularly before, his death. This scribe saw Feroze Gandhi's dead body on Sept. 8, 1960 in Teen Murthi House with Indira Ji sitting by his side and Jawaharlal Nehru supervising arrangements for funeral. She was so pained on the demise of Feroze Gandhi and wrote to a family friend abroad. "I do not know what to write — I am feeling so utterly desolate and miserable. How much Feroze and I disagreed and quarrelled over the years and yet instead of separating or slackening the bond of friendship, brought us closer than before. We had a wonderful holiday together for nearly a month in a houseboat in Srinagar and we made many plans for the future. The boys (Rajiv and Sanjay) are of an age when they need a father more than a mother. I feel lost and dead. And yet life goes on."

It is not often when a daughter in law has all the praise for a mother-in-law. Sonia Gandhi has admitted in an interview to Hindu Correspondent that "Indira ji was a role model for her who had great influence on her. " Indira Gandhi was totally involved in politics. Therefore Sonia Gandhi looked after the House and also after her. When she got married to Rajiv, she had two aides, a Personal Secretary and a Social Secretary to help her. Soniaji picked up from them what she needed, her likes and dislikes.Sonia ji practically took over from them the entire personal side. Very often, Indira Ji confided in Sonia Gandhi about her own life and what it was like at different stages.

Speaking about the imposition of Emergency in June 1975, soniaji said" Indira Gandhi herself regretted it. She was a democrat to the core. This is proved by the fact that she held elections, and she publicly regretted it [the Emergency].

How will India Gandhi be judged by history is a million dollar question. In the opinion of Hindustan Times Editor Vir Sanghvi "she will be remembered as the second most important Indian Prime Minister of the 20th Century. The first was, of course, Jawaharlal Nehru. There were foreign policy achievements of substance: the dismemberment of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, for instance; the dogged pursuit of non-alignment in the face of American hostility, Lyndon Johnson's sneering and Richard Nixon's duplicity; and the ability to build bridges with the countries of Asia and Africa without allowing Pakistan to successfully play the Muslim card." On the domestic front, no doubt that she managed to keep India together during a troubled and crucial period in our history. But in no single sphere was her influence more marked or more pervasive than in the manner in which she recast Indian politics. It would be no exaggeration to say that almost everything about Indian politics, as we know it today grew out of her manipulation of the system. She left behind a fragrant memory of sacrifice and service that can enliven the path of generations to come.

Limited choices for women in ‘fuzzy’ communities

By Abha Chauhan

The present write-up has instigated by the following questions that arose out of the controversy surrounding Gudiya -Arif-Taufiq episode. What would have happened had Arif of village Mundali in Meerut district of U.P. not returned from Pakistan in August 2004 with a status of Prisoner of War (POW) or 'Kargil war hero' and received the rousing welcome well-covered by the media? What could have been the result had he opted to divorce Gudia and helped her in legalizing the second marriage with Taufiq of Pataudi village in Haryana to whom she was married after waiting for more than three years and whose child she was carrying? And indeed, what would have been the situation if the programme entitled Kiski Gudia was not televised live on Zee TV on September 20th where a 'decision was taken' as to whom the Gudia would stay with under the Shariat law?

One answer to all these questions is that the entire event would have gone un-noticed and unreported. It would have not led to the kind of debate and dialogue it did on the gender question and women's position under various laws where still their choices affecting their own lives remain extremely limited as their horizon get bounded by host of religious and customary practices that are largely patriarchal and patrilineal. The situation is worse for the women of communities in fuzzy state that tend to simultaneously follow often contradictory practices that creates dilemma and uncertainty in taking decisions. The situation deteriorates when their personal choices become public and are discussed with little concern for those being affected directly. The debate often gets bogged down with the different schools of thought, as happened in the case of Gudiya between the Islamic Schools of Deoband and Bareilly, or with the rhetoric between the personal and uniform laws with little concern for women's own views.

The media opened the debate and it was criticized largely for organizing a 'live panchayat' and reaching a solution without giving much space to women to express themselves, even though there was a presence of religious leaders from Deoband and representatives of Muslim Women's Forum. It was suggested that Gudiya was not given informed choice and that other options like khula where a married women could seek for separation or fasq-e-nikah where was could go to Qazi for dissolution of marriage under Shariat were not even suggested to her. The views Gudia expressed later that she was unwell and confused and could not think straight under the presence of elders, outsiders and religious leaders speak volumes about her state of mind when such a vital decision about her life was being taken. So overpowering was the influence and ambience that not only she went back to Arif but now says that she is happy being with him!

The role of media, the significance of religion and the personal laws, the need for uniformity in civil laws and the decision that Gudia finally took, all continue to be debated from women's point of view with most women and organizations criticizing media role and supporting the view that Guida's place was with Taufiq, the father of her child and not Arif who had to leave for Kargil war soon after his marriage to Gudia.

I return to my initial questions and say now that if the three things had not happened this episode would have passed off like many others that occur more frequently and at times with much harsher results for women in our society. If Arif had not insisted probably Guida would have continued to stay with Taufiq with the former pronouncing talaq to her or taken the same step abiding by the decision of the community panchayat reached at its meeting on 18th September at Naurangabad that Gudia and Arif be united in accordance with the Shariat rule. In various fuzzy communities of India, identified as 415 in K.S. Singh's well known and widely acclaimed People of India (1992) that still follows customary rules and follow different faiths having very different principles, such problems are bound to arise and suggested an urgent need to take steps in right direction to resolve them. As large numbers of women in many of these communities are illiterate, their problems get multiplied, especially with vested interests playing their own roles.

The Meo of Mewat region at the borders of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh is one such rural community. Muslim by faith for centuries now, the Meo follow a combination of Islamic tenets and Hindu marriage practices and kinship rules. With the recent changes in the community, the dilemma and ambiguity regarding the civil issues are only increasing with occurrence of different 'types' of cases now and then. Most of these do not get the media attention, but they nevertheless occur and gives us enough reason to seriously ponder over them and do something rather than wait for an 'incident' to occur which purports to put women at the 'core' but actually marginalize them. Two instances from a village in Nuh tehsil of Gurgaon district in Haryana will highlight the point. In the first case, a woman was divorced by her husband who pronounced talaq three times in presence of some people in a fit of anger. But when his anger subsided he realized he has committed a mistake and since nobody objected to this, they continued to stay together. In another case, a man, living not far away from the house of the first, similarly gave divorce his wife and on this she went to her parents house in another village. When the husband went to take her back, the father refused to send the daughter saying that she has been divorced. But when the husband insisted, it was decided that as per the Islamic law first she has to marry another man and get divorce from him and remarry her former husband. Finally the elder brother of the husband married her and later divorced her-all in quick succession.

In both cases the incidents did not become 'issues'. Such a possibility was there in the first case had the people objected to the staying of the couple together saying it is illegal according to the Islamic law or in the second case had not the second man divorced the woman so that she could marry the former husband. But both these cases speak volumes about the plight of women. In another case of a village in Nagina block of the same district, a young girl mistreated by her husband could not get divorce for three years despite running from pillar to post for it because he refused to give her divorce. In yet another case, the husband did not divorce his wife and therefore did not give her any compensation and not even the mehr which is her property, but refused to take her to his home and instead remarried. This young girl, a mother or two small children, is neither given a divorce or is taken back by the husband. The community panchayat which otherwise is active did not do much in these cases as they were not brought to the panchayat and where regarded as personal matters.

None of these incidents and many more that frequently occur in different communities is reported in the media, but they need not wait for the media attention to be worked and improved upon. A consistent effort is required from all quarters to widen women's choices and expand their horizon that get circumscribed by several customary and religious usages. And if reporting means giving the same treatment as was given to Gudia, it would tantamount to similar kind of torture and injustice. The episode however, was an eye-opener to the multitude of glaring disparities that women face in their lives and it is high time for the people to be awakened or else women would be slept into oblivion!

(The author is on the faculty of the Department of Sociology, University of Jammu)