NUMBER NINTEEN, 1983 43

RAZIA SULTANSultan Razia was a great monarch. She was wise, just andgenerous, a benefactor to her kingdom, a dispenser of justice,the protector of her subjects, and the leader of her armies. Shewas endowed with all the qualities befitting a king, but shewas not born of the right sex, and so in the estimation of men,all these virtues were worthless. (Minhaj-us-Siraj, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri).

Minhaj was a perceptive historian, to have captured sosharply the essence of Razias career as Sultan of the infantkingdom of Hindustan established in the thirteenth century.Razia was the only woman in India to have ascended a thronein her own right, as lawful successor. All other queens, likeLakshmibai, for instance, were acting as regents for minormales. But the Razia of the contemporary historian, or evenof the better textbooks available today, will be obliterated andcast aside by that monster of modern India, the popular cinema,which has turned her into a beautiful passive object to bewooed and fought over by men, rather than an achiever whocreated history.

Kamal Amrohis Razia Sultan has serious implications forthe historian. A historical film is a potent means of interpretingevents and personalities to people who will never be exposedto history in the course of their lives. Although a historical filmmay not be oral history in the technical sense, it could havethe effect of contributing to oral history since it will becomepart of popular consciousness. While India has neverproduced a really good historical film, neither have we beforeproduced such a monstrous distortion of historical reality asRazia Sultan. The fact that this film chooses to focus on awoman is not an accident. It is central to the blatant distortionsindulged in by the film maker. Who cares about history, whocares about women, who cares about the truth ? Not KamalAmrohi, not the Bombay film world, not the fat financiers whopoured millions into the film, not even the government, whichgave it tax exemption, though the grounds on which it wasgiven completely escapes one.

Let me here summarise the historical facts about Razia.

This summary is based on the contemporary historian Minhajsaccount.

In the time of her father, Sultan Shamsuddin Altamash,Razia had exercised authority with great dignity. The Sultanhad discerned in her countenance the signs of power andbravery, and although she was a girl and lived in retirement,the Sultan ordered that her name be put down as heir of thekingdom, his successor to the throne. Before the farman couldbe executed, however, some members of the kings inner groupasked him what wisdom there was in making a woman heir tothe throne, when he had sons ? The king replied that his sonswere devoted to the pleasures of youth and that none of themwas fit to rule. He said that after his death, the courtiers wouldfind that there was no one more competent to guide the statethan his daughter. It was later commonly agreed that the kinghad judged wisely.

Yet Razia did not succeed to the throne immediately afterher father died. According to Minhaj, the princes and noblesplaced Altamashs son Ruknuddin on the throne. The newking squandered the public wealth on his debaucheries. Hismother Shah Turkan took over the reins of government andperpetrated some cruelties. She had Altamashs younger sonKutbuddin blinded and killed. While Ruknuddin was awayfrom Delhi, Shah Turkan also tried to capture and kill Razia.But at this the people rose, and Razia seized upon the royalpalace, and made Shah Turkan a prisoner. When Ruknuddinreturned to the capital, he found that the guards and the Turkish

Razia Sultan : A joke in the name of history

FILMS

Sick Fantasies

44 MANUSHI

nobles had gone over to Razias side. Ruknuddin was madeprisoner and kept in confinement where he later died.

We are told that when Razia succeeded to the throne, allthings reverted to their old order. However, some prominentnobles refused to give her their allegiance, and instead theysurrounded the gates of Delhi. Hostilities continued for a onelong time. Sultan Razia pitched her tents on the banks of theJumna. Several skirmishes took place between her army andthe insurgent army. Finally, peace was made with greatadroitness and judicious management. Some of the insurgentnobles secretly crossed over to her side, and the rebellionsubsided. After thus securing her position Razia conferred theoffice of Wazir on an upright officer. The kingdom then beganto enjoy peace, and, in the words of Minhaj, the power of thestate became manifest so that all the princes and nobles madetheir submission. Subsequently, Razia ordered and her officerssuccessfully executed, the capture of the Ranthambhor fort.

Razia then made two appointments, that of MalikIktiyaruddin Itigin as lord chamberlain and Amir JamaluddinYaqut, the superintendent of the stables, as her personalattendant. According to Minhaj, these appointments createdjealousy among the Turkish generals and nobles. She alsocast off the veil of women and showed herself among her people.She ordered a march to Gwalior and ensured its submission.There was year of peace, but the following year, 1239, requiredher to put down the revolt of the governor of Lahore. In 1240,Malik Altunia, the governor of Tabarhind in the Punjab, revoltedand some officers of the frontier supported him. Razia marchedto Tabarhind to put down the revolt but she was attacked bythe Turks. The Turks killed Yaqut, captured Razia andimprisoned her in Delhi. Razia now found an unexpectedsupporter in Altunia. The two contracted a political marriage,and joined forces to attempt to regain the kingdom, but theywere defeated by the army of the new king Muizuddin,Altamashs third son. As Razia and Altunia were fleeing, theirremaining forces abandoned them, they fell into the hands ofthe Hindus, and were killed. Razia had ruled for three and ahalf years.

To this account of the contemporary historian Minhaj, othermedieval chroniclers added a few more details which havebeen used by the medieval historian A.B.M. Habibullah in hisaccount of Razias reign. One important detail is that whenRuknuddin ascended the throne, the people of Delhi did nottake the customary oath of allegiance. Razia successfullyexploited the popular discontent. Clad in a red garment whichis customarily worn by the aggrieved, she showed herself tothe people assembled for the Friday prayers. In the name ofAltamash, she appealed for help against Shah Turkan. Thisgesture produced an intense upsurge of loyalty to the memoryof Altamash, and the people raised her to the throne. Isami, alater chronicler, tells us that Razia entered into an agreement,the terms of which were that she be given a chance to proveher abilities, and if she did not prove better than men, her headbe struck off.

In effect, this ascension negatived the precedentestablished by the case of Ruknuddin, whereby the provincialgovernor had acquired a predominant voice in the kingsnomination. The episode as well as Razias entire career haveto be placed in the historical context of the struggle betweenthe crown and the nobles. Razia was the strong monarch whowould not allow herself to be manipulated like a puppet.Habibullah writes : She was herself aware of the dangerouspower of her fathers Turkish officers and slaves whomonopolised all power in the state. The crown was vindicatedwhen she overthrew the dangerous constitutional precedent.It was necessary now to follow it up by restoring the monarchyto its rightful position. For a dynastic leadership could yieldthe best results, in the circumstances in which the Turks wereplaced, only when it commanded absolute power. In thirteenthcentury India the monarchs firmness was the only justificationfor his/her existence. Courage and unflinching determinationwas to be her motto ; in strength of character she was to proveherself better than man.

According to Habibullah, Razias appointment of Yaqutwas part of her plan to break the Turkish nobles monopoly ofall important offices. Razia is described as having bestowed afavour on Yaqut. The same language is used when describingthe favour bestowed on Altamash by his predecessor. Theconspiracy hatched by the nobles was not only intended todepose Razia but also to render future sovereigns permanentlyand constitutionally ineffective. The execution of their planproved unexpectedly difficult because Razia commandedstrong support in the city. Also, her vigilance left no scope fora palace revolution, and a military siege of the capital hadalready proved unsuccessful at the beginning of her reign. Itwas therefore necessary for the rebels to decoy her to adistant province, and to occupy the capital in her absence.Razias deposition was in effect a victory for the militaryaristocracy. For the next 25 years, the oligarchy held actualpower and succeeded in reducing all the male monarchs tonominal rulers, something they were not able to do to Razia.

There is no doubt that Razias story could have made amagnificent film. Instead, Kamal Amrohi presents us with acalculated misrepresentation of facts. He has reduced the fieryand courageous Razia to a combination of a sleeping beautyand a Laila.

A review of the film is an unpleasant task but I mustdemonstrate the extent of vulgarity and dishonesty displayed.The only thing that seems to matter in the film is Razias undyinglove for Yaqut. Repeatedly, we are shown a still of Razia beinghelped to dismount from her horse by Yaqut, and fallinglanguorously into his arms in the process. Her normal posturein the film is recumbent. Sometimes we see her clad indiaphanous nightwear, spread across a couch, sometimesbeing put to sleep by obliging maidens who row her up anddown in a sleeping boat. Her companion or a disembodiedvoice sings in the background to tell us Razias thoughtswhich centre round such choice sentiments as Jalta hai

NUMBER NINTEEN, 1983 45

this film to be recounted here. I must mention that the filmmakes out that the only kind of oppression and injusticeperpetrated by bad kings was a sadistic exhibition of sexualperversion. Otherwise, medieval kings were basically goodguys. The grotesque postures struck by girls on all possibleand impossible occasions, under the pretext of palace interiordecor, are, of course, not treated as evidence of exploitation.Thus, Razia is shown throwing pearls into the water, which arebrought up by near nude women, and she is never seen incourt or at a banquet, without women in undress posing allaround her. Yet the people are shown protesting only at thesexual debaucheries of Razias brother. In actual fact, it wasthe acts of cruelty of Ruknuddin and his mother which led thepeople to espouse the cause of Razia.

It is not only pornographic films which affect the perceptionof women in society. Such perversions of history have equallydangerous implications for women, and should be resisted.Besides, one wonders whether some of the money wasted onthis distortion of history could not have been more profitablyspent on the renovation of Sultan Razias tomb, which lies ina state of shameful neglect, at Bulbulikhana, Delhi.

Uma Chakravarti

badan-.Bhatak rahihun.-Koi honton se sulaye to soyegi (Mybody is burning ..I wander around, lost...She will sleep only ifsomeone puts her to sleep with his lips). The diaphanous wearis particularly offensive since history tells us that Razia castoff her veil and openly went out in male attire even at the riskof public disapproval.

Kamal Amrohi makes Razia into a schizophrenic in whomthe sovereign and the woman are not only divided but are atloggerheads with one another. Thus we have a shot whereRazia, the queen, rides on an elephant while her split self, thewoman, trudges along in the desert sands, yearning for Yaqut.There is also a long drawn out sequence, supposed to be herfantasy, in which Yaqut comes along with barat in true filmistyle and marries Razia, a coy bride, clad in red. The filmsdistortions continue along the same track of neutralising theforce that Razia represented.

The first act Razia performs when she ascends the throneis to witness a vulgar display of maidens dancing in gopifashion round a Krishna figure. In the rest of the film, theaction is all looked after by Yaqut who reports to Razia fromtime to time. Thus we have a long scene of Razia swingingnonchalantly to and fro, and feasting her eyes hungrily onYaqut, while he gives her an account of all the disturbanceswhich have been quelled. In reality, every important actionwas led by Razia in person. The film also shows Yaqut actingas surrogate son or son-in-law to Altamash, who not onlyappoints him to high office but charges him to act as protectorof Razia. He dutifully does this by tattooing Altamashs will,making Razia the heir, on his chest. In fact, it seems a tragedyin the film that Yaqut could not be the heir, as he, in fact, takesall the crucial initiative to secure the throne for Razia and tosafeguard her both before and after ascension. He appearsfrom nowhere at every critical moment, to rescue this damselin distress from evil men such as Altunia. Never mind the factthat in history, Razia had contracted a marriage, for politicalreasons, with Altunia.

Kamal Ainrohis Razia could not care less for politics orsovereignty. Unlike the queen Razia who lived with the oneambition of wielding power, this filmi version proclaims thatshe finds the royal power an obstacle in her love (which isequivalent to her life) and that she will throw it away: Yehshahanshahi libas kafan nai. Mai ise utarke phenk dungiShe also declares : In future, whenever people take my name,they will couple it with that of Yaqut. People did not do sobecause of the faint pull of historical facts, but they may welldo so now, thanks to Kamal Amrohis investment of crores.

The film ends with Razia and Yaqut ascending to the milkyway, on their horse. They are pierced through with one spear,that thrown by Altunia. Earlier, he and Yaqut were also pittedagainst each other in a duel for Razias hand, in a scene straightout of King Arthur and his knights. In medieval India, therewas no question of a lady watching a tournament whereknights battled for her love. This is a direct import from thewest. There are too many outrageous and repulsive details in

KAYAMATA woman walks alone, barefoot, down the back alleys ofBombay. Within minutes she is attacked by men in a car. Theychase, she runs. Then she is raped. This is the opening sceneof the film. All this is supposed to be the outcome of localwarfare between gangs of hoodlums. The girls father tries toseek redress by appealing to the wealthy but goldenheartedsmuggler hero Rameshwar alias Shyam. This male saviourspecialises in taking revenge on the enemies of the poor, byunleashing his gang of ruffians. Of course, he offers hisprotection and revenge service to deserving women, too.

The scene shifts quickly to ruffian number two, Dayal. Heis stroking his favourite pet, a near lifeless doll whom he callsdarling. When he wishes to conduct business, he ordersher out to the car. Business entails extracting informationfrom a rival thug. Meanwhile, the darling is still standing there,terrorstricken. Dayal calls her lovingly, strokes her again andthen strikes her hard across the face. She falls, bleeding. Helaughs and warns his enemy that this is what he does to his

46 MANUSHI

darling when she disobeys him. Soon after this, Dayal forceshimself on to Gita, the girlfriend of Rajeshwar who promptlyrescues her. Dayal takes revenge by murdering Gita, just afterher marriage to Rajeshwar.

Given this fine start of male terrorisation, we know what toexpect. Rajeshwar, lonely, wronged, spends years accumulatingwealth and power, but remains single, lost in memories of hisbeloved. Oh, he only has recourse to prostitutes. He happensto encounter Dayal once more, and, having high technologyat his command, gets him kidnapped in a helicopter and whiskedoff to his residence, where he shoots him in a duel.

If violence, trickery, valour, wealth and power are the heroicqualities of Rajeshwar, they are also found in abundance inthe other hero, policeman Kamal. The only difference is thatthe latter has the sanction of the law and the former does not.The cop also uses helicopters, cars and other pieces of hightechnology to chase the baddies. He has too a younger sisterwho adores him and a wife who worships him with arti, aprecaution to maintain her suhag during his medal winningencounters. The good man thus has the good women at hisdisposal while the bad man has recourse to the bad woman,Shama, a dancing girl. True to the formula, cop and robberhero are childhood friends. They discover each other in afive star hotel and fall into each others arms. But the storylineinsists that the cop be set to catch the smuggler.

Shama is made the object of sale and purchase betweenRajeshwar and a rival. Soon, she and her madam are lured intoaccepting seven lakhs as the price to falsely implicate Rajeshwarin a rape case. Unlike our real life courts that shift the onus ofproof onto the woman victim, this court, even though thewoman is a prostitute, promptly sentences the man to sevenyears rigorous imprisonment. Rajeshwar feels let down thatKamal was unable to prove his innocence. So he hurls insultsat him, and looks menacingly at Kamals sister and wife.

The film then takes us scene by scene into the hunt,chase and systematic terrorisation of the sister by the hero.Worst of all is the self degradation that Kamals wife is made toenact. She offers herself to Rajeshwar, in order to prevent himfrom raping her husbands virgin sister. She says : Today Ihave got the chance to fulfil my true religion. Later, the sistertries to kill Rajeshwar with a spike but only succeeds insplashing herself with blood. This sight softens him intoremorse, and he swiftly reverts to the role of protector, savingher from attempted rape by a rival gangster. Kamal, however,arrives, sees Rajeshwar, and fires. His sister cries out : Brother,what have you done ? This man is a devta, not a criminal. Hesaved my honour. Kamal embraces his dying friend, and wesee in flashback, the two as adolescents embracing each otherin slow motion. Need this friendship have been fought outover the bodies and beings of women ?

Nina KapoorBE ABROOThis film is supposed to be an outcry against the forcibleinduction of women into the call girl racket. However the

presentation is such that it ends upexposing the female bodyand dwelling visually on violence in every scene. The realpurpose of the film seems to be to offer sex and violence of themost perverted kind. The audience is encouraged to enjoy thetorture women suffer at the hands of their clients. When awoman was being undressed by ten men, there were whistlesfrom the audience, and when she was burnt with a cigarettebut, there was laughter.

The film maker condemns the pimps as the main culprits inthe flesh trade but nowhere indicts the clients or holds themresponsible for its perpetuation. One of the victimised womendecides to take revenge by killing a number of pimps, oneafter another. She does not direct her indignation against theordinary men who are their customers. Instead, she preachesto a cabaret dancer that death is better than the kind of lifeshe is leading. Though convinced that marriage is the onlyproper thing for a girl, she refuses to marry because sheconsiders herself impure. Finally, she kills herself when thepolice arrive, because she does not want to surrender to a lawwhich would condemn her for killing pimps which she doesnot consider a crime.

The title song tells the audience that women who are Sitaand Kali, and who mothered Krishna and saints, ought to bebetter treated. However the only message that men who exploitprostitutes are likely to get from this film is that at best thewomen will kill themselves and at worst the pimps will be killed.In any case, they will be free to satisfy their hunger forperverted sex and sadistic violence at cinema halls.

Prabha RaniThe film opens with a quote from an article in Young India

by Mahatma Gandhi : The problem of prostitutes will not besolved until women with extraordinary purity and strength ofcharacter take the responsibility of uplifting this fallen part ofthe human race.

In the garb of shocking the audience into realising theplight of prostitutes, producer Anand Girdhari and directorShiv Kumar in effect only exult in the violation of these women.Why else is the good woman who kills pimps shown dressedso scantily ? The natural impact of such presentation is thatthe audience can only laugh at her antics.

The camera focuses only on womens, not on mens, nudity.Also, the pain of the women is not allowed to come through.For instance, after being gang raped, the heroine kills herabductor and then calmly walks out, most seductively clad.She reaches her friends apartment and acts perfectly normal.There is no trauma, no breakdown. Instead, she indulges inreveries of her former song filled days with her boyfriend.

This kind of blatantly unrealistic portrayal makes it clearthat the real purpose of the film makers is to sell the cult ofmale violence on women, and to profit from such merchandise.It is no accident that this four lakh budget film, which, byBombay commercial standards, is a low budget, is reaping arich harvest of Rs43 lakhs per territory. After the industrysbig investment Razia Sultan flopped miserably, producers

NUMBER NINTEEN, 1983 47

Police and post mortem recordsavailable at Tiruppur, a biggish town inthe Coimbatore district of Tamil Nadu,suggest that Nagammal Muniappan, a29 year old college lecturer, died ofhanging on July 1, 1983. The officialsconcerned have been going out of theirway to assert that the death was asuicide. But investigations by variousorganisations have revealed that it wasanything but suicide.

Nagammals troubles began beforeher marriage. Her brother contracted anintercaste marriage with the result that alarger dowry was demanded by all thosewho offered to marry Nagammal.Muniappan, an assistant professor inmathematics, demanded Rs 20,000 incash and gold jewellery worth 40sovereigns. He almost cancelled thealliance when her parents offeredslightly less. For months, the bargainingwent on. The price ultimately agreed onwas Rs 12,000 in cash and goldornaments worth Rs 45,000. The vows

End Of A Life

of matrimony were taken on March 12,1976.

In several letters to her friends,Nagammal said that Muniappan nevertouched her, and they had no conjugalrelations at all. When she got a job as alecturer, her in-laws used to snatchaway her entire salary and only giveher exact bus fare every day. When sheprotested, she was beaten. Her jewelswere forcibly taken away from her.Then she was told to bring furnitureworth Rs 5,000 from her parents. Whenshe refused, she was tortured and drivenout of the house.

She then started living in a hostel.After four months she got a job in agovernment college, and had to go toMuniappans house to collect heroriginal certificates. She was beaten upbadly and was given the certificatesonly after she signed some blank sheetsof paper. She then began to share a flatwith some women colleagues. InDecember 1978, Muniappan filed a

directors, and distributors seem to be gravitating towards suchgreener pastures as Be Abroo. We are informed that five moresuch films are in the pipeline.

Nina KapoorUNMAIGAL (Tamil)Unmaigal is the story of people who are thrown into clichedsituations, try to rise above them, but get bogged down bywhat the director seeks to show are the inescapable truths ofsociety. Primarily, it is the story of Janaki, a woman of greatintelligence and integrity, who finds that her husband has goneto bed with the maid servant and made her pregnant. Whenconfronted, he shouts : You are the one to blame for this. Ifyou had been more of a wife to me, and had borne me a son, doyou think I would have gone to her ? Brushing aside hisprotests, she takes the courageous and dramatic decision toleave him and installs the maid in her place.

From the start, the director takes Janaki as an unusual anddifficult strength of character, contempt for sense of fairnessmake her a misfit among colleagues and unpopular amongstudents. Her husband finally suggests that she can alsostay with him. To which Janaki retorts, in a memorable line :Who do you think you are ? Lord Murugan ? This is areference to Subramania, son of Shiva, who has two wives.

The director then paves the way for her fall. Jeeva, anillegitimate child who grew up in an ashram, becomes a friend

of Janaki. Soon, he starts to have romantic ideas about her, thoughshe sees him only as a lost soul needing companionship. Reenter the still proprietary husband to find Jeeva sitting in hiswifes house,and to overhear his declaration of love and Janakisshocked Get out. The husband then delivers an ultimatum :Return to me, or marry this boy whom you have used to keepme at bay.

But she does neither, and the film hurtles along to end withthe timetested tearjerker of suicide by a helpless woman. Anuncharacteristically subservient Janaki, bedecked in weddingfinery, symbolic of her return to the married state, drinks poisonand dies coughing blood in her husbands lap.

Unmaigal makes you sit up, pleasantly surprised, but later,you find yourself wondering why the director, who tried to givean unconventional slant to an old story line, had to come upwith the cliched suicide, brought about in a perfectly preposterousmanner. Would a woman who took the considered decision ofleaving an unfaithful husband, be so upset by his baselesscharges as to hastily commit suicide ? Surely a woman whodefied her husband once can defy him or his flimsy accusationsagain, and continue to live ? But no, the director says, not evenan independent, intelligent woman can live without the supportand status provided by her husband. Logic and aesthetics aresacrificed to bring home the truth that a courageous womanmust be brought to heel. At any cost.

Bharati Sadasivamdivorce petition and the the case draggedon for 10 months. It is said that he hadalready arranged another marriage alliancefor himself. During this period, he severaltimes accosted Nagammal on the road andbeat her up in public, to force her to agreeto a divorce.

Her brother, however, continued topress for a compromise. Finally, after aninsecure agreement, Nagammal, loadedwith jewellery, was sent back to herhusband. Muniappan immediately tooktemple vows which prohibited him fromhaving any physical relations with her.However, he transferred her fixed depositsto his own name, and also continuedabusing, beating and starving her. Shewas kept confined to the house, andwas not allowed to write to her parents orto meet neighbours.

On June 27, Muniappan decided thathe and his wife should live separately fromhis parents so they moved into a separateflat. The next day, Nagammal went towork, looking quite normal. Muniappan,however, was busy spreading the rumourin his college that his wife was sufferingfrom acute stomach ache. Nagammalscolleagues not mention having been in

48 MANUSHI

On November 27, 1983, the ForumAgainst Oppression Of Women tookout a dignified march towards Vakolawhere Mr Zakariah, the husband of aWomens Centre member, lives.

The pamphlet distributed during themarch gave information about thecircumstances under which Mr Zakariah,who is a supervisor in a multinationalcompany, has been ill treating his wife,Achamma, ever since they married in 1967.We reproduce extracts from the pamphlet.

Just three days after the wedding,Achamma, to her utter dismay, discoveredthat her husband was already living withhis maternal cousin and wanted tocontinue a sexual relationship with her.In other words, here was a man whowanted to sexually exploit other womenwhile at the same time enjoying the statusin society which his wife and her dowrybrought him. Achamma was a workingwoman. Besides a sizeable dowry, shebegan to bring her pay packet home andthus contribute to the householdexpenses. Despite the terrible truth ofhaving to tolerate the presence of theother woman, Achamma tried her best tomake her marriage work. Early in hermarried life, she became pregnant Despitethis, her husband forced her to leave forthe Gulf, in order to fatten the familyincome. While she slogged abroad, hecontinued living with his cousin sister.Achamma came back to India in time forher delivery. After the birth of herdaughter she conceived again.

Life had degenerated into a nightmarefor her. Bitter arguments about the otherwoman resulted in frequent quarrels whichended with physical arid verbal abuse,Achamma was often hit in the stomach.

The result was miscarriage, septicemiaand hospitalisation. Zakariah remainedcallous and indifferent to her. Thebrutality continued even after this until,finally, the physical cruelty andhumiliation drove her out of the house.Shelivedalone,hopingthat reconciliationmight take place and she might sometime lead a normal family life. All appealsto Zakariah to mend his ways fell ondeaf ears. He continued to live animmoral life, had numerous affairs, evenmarried a second time. His illegal secondwife is a poor woman, equally ill treated.

Zakariah brainwashed their teenaged

daughter who used to live withAchamma. Now she has gone to livewith her father and stepmother, leavingAchamma lonely. Today, Achammacontinues to struggle alone, beingdenied the means to a comfortableexistence and the love of her only child.Life as a single woman without themeans to buy the necessities of life isbad enough, but Achamma had to facethe malicious personal slander thatfollows cases such as hers. All thesehardships have helped her become astrong woman who no longer submitsto humiliation, who refuses to besmashed, who has the strength to fightback.

We, as womens organisations, feelthat both Achamma and the secondwife are victims of Zakariahs schemingand that it is high time he is brought tobook.

As the morcha wound on its way, acurious crowd of onlookers gathered.Some members made short speechesto acquaint the neighbours with thesituation. They sang songs anddistributed pamphlets. Unlike themorcha taken out after the strangedeath of Varsha Venkatraman ofChembur, this morcha was not militant,nor was it a show of womanpower innumbers. It was womanpower insupport of an oppressed woman whohas been victimised for 16 years.

It is significant to note that therewere many men amongst the supporters.It is high time we realised that a fightfor justice is a fight for human dignityand freedom, affecting men and women.

Rinki Bhattacharya

SHE HAS LEARNT TO FIGHT BACK

pain, though she always shared herfeelings with them.

On the night of July 1, the lights wereput off unusually early. Late at night, thelandlord saw Muniappan spreading hisbed on the verandah. She is having themonthly curse, he explained. The nextmorning, when the milkman came,Nagammal did not open the door. Thelandlord was surprised because she was avery early riser. He told Muniappan to wake

her up. Muniappan knocked on thewindow. Suspecting something, thelandlord made his grand-son climb ontothe roof and peep in. The child sawNagammal, hanging, dead. Muniappanimmediately started saying that she hadcommitted suicide due to stomach ache.This he said even before he entered thehouse.

The post mortem showed burninjuries on her face and abrasions on her

legs. A paper was found on which asentence in Tamil was written : I and mystomach ache are the sole reasons formy death, signed by her in English. Thepolicemen refused to photograph thebody and insisted on registering a caseof suicide, in spite of Nagammarsbrothers protests.

T.S.V. Hari, Madras