Last Post- a bit delayed

Before I begin to write on the male characters of Chand Grehan for my final essay, I'd like to pay tribute to the amazing feamle characters of Chand Grehan. With the exception of Mrs.Babar, they all end up strong and really well crafted individuals who know what they want. Sometimes the go after it with all they have, like Gul Bahar's pursuit of the elusive and fickle izzat, or Shehrbano's quest for choice and Shireen's determined chase after truth or Singhar's control over her body. 

These female characters in CG are truly reflective of the compassionate, truthful, virtuous and perceptive side of the society. These characters work within the triangle of feudal-bureaucratic-media, but their interests are not tied directly to it and so it gives them a clearer vision of whats around them like Gul Bahar says: "Aisa toh wahan bhi nahi hota jahan insan din raat biktay hain"  

If one is to look at Shireen, one realizes that she is one of the unique female characters. She is unique because she is not subject to an oppressive relationship with an overpowering egotistical male. the only guy she is with is the poor weak sahafi  who cant't kill a fly or coerce a thing to save his life. She is also unique because she is shown as one of the virtutous characters who do good and are associated with good and also voice these good values, thus their beliefs are there for every one to see and for everyone to believe. To elaborate, when asked to leave some option open for herself, Shireen replies: "Mera raasta raat se hota hua subah ko jata hai".  Her conviction in the face of her hardships is something I envy and would like to emulate given the prospect of the college officially ending now.

Anyways, that's it for the ladies of CG, and I believe this is it for this blog too.

Best of luck fellow domesticity girls(and the two guys). Its time for Goodbye now.

   

The Proletariat in Chand Grehan (week 11)

‘Hum malik hain is zameen k’ & ‘hum KAMMIYON ko paise dain ge’

These two dialogues sum up the whole argument of my blog. The bourgeois class, Syed Laal Hussain Shah, has a complete control over the proletariat class, in this case the kammi, of the society. The ‘kammi’ class is completey submissive to the elite class due the abundance of resources and power the latter possesses. ‘Hum apne jism ki chamri ki parchi daalain ge’ reiterates the fact that the proletariat has no other option but to conform to the demands of the upper class. This is basically what the drama is critiquing that the power politics of the ‘Power-Trinagle’ is so manipulative that a person with no or little resources is helpless and has to look up to these power-hungry landlords.

An extremely rigid class structure is seen in this drama where the lower class can never accede to the elite class and they will continue to touch Laal Hussain Shah’s feet; not out of respect but mostly out of fear and power difference. The drama in the end concluded that the Power-Triangle always perpetuates and the proletariat has no option but to obey the rules of the ‘Vadera’. The two election results shown in the drama further illustrates my point that no matter if the proletariat decides to use its power of vote to change the system but the power remains within the landlords. The power amongst the landlords might change but the power distribution amongst the class hierarchy is there to stay.

Hence, the proletariat is a powerless, fearful submissive body of people who have to bare the cruel gestures of the ‘vaderas’ and accept that the latter’s power is eternal.

Resurrection of Dr. Manette and Charles Darney (late;week 10)

A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens is a story of sacrifice and resurrection. Throughout the novel many instances of this are displayed. Charles Darnay, Dr. Manette and Sydney Carton are all examples of sacrifice and resurrection in the novel. Charles Darnay is resurrected through sacrificing his life as a French aristocrat. Darnay cannot stand to be associated with the injustices of his uncle, Marquis Evrémonde, and sacrifices his

freedom and privileges. At his uncle’s will, Darnay is placed on trial for treason against England. Because imprisonment is compared to a living death, when Darnay escapes imprisonment he is resurrected from social disapproval. Also his second resurrection takes place when he is caught in Paris and is prisoned for fifteen month at La Force but is resurrected by Dr. Manette. His third resurrection is when Dr. Manette’s written paper is discovered from his cell and is read out in court. He was sentenced to death due to this but his death was replaced by Sydeny Carton who was a kind fellow.

Dr. Manette also is a prime example of this resurrection. Dr. Manette, after being imprisoned for eighteen years and left to rot in solitude as "Prisoner 105, North Tower," , is essentially soulless and makes shoes as a way of coping with tortures of prison. Lucie Manette, his daughter, sacrifices her life to nurse her struggling father back to health and resurrect him. Although Lucie strongly influences Dr. Manette’s recover, he makes his own sacrifice to Lucie that completes his resurrection; the second resurrection. Through showing Lucie his own love in the same way she did for him, he gains spiritual strength. He started his medical practice again apart from starting a normal life by living with his daughter. Also, he gave up his shoe making and returned to sanity.

Degrees of female resistance

Chand Grahan opens up the avenue for several degrees of resistance shown by each female character in the drama. All of them are bound in one way or the other by the society and the cultural context but there is some form of active resistance that is played by each one of them. Sheherbano feels that she has been married to Amjad for all the wrong reasons where she is nothing but the worth her father, Lal Hussain Shah’s money puts on her. Her body language shows active resistance and she is very vocal about the unjust reasons which have tied her in marriage to Amjad. We see Sheherbano showing resistance for her own self and the injustice that has been done to her.

On the other hand, Jahania’s chattel Singhar, who belongs to a lower class in a village, is extremely submissive to Jahania mainly due to his feudal and political lineage. She is not educated and she has no conception of fighting for her rights until the abortion scene comes in and she shows active resistance in that. She does not hesitate to run away from the village for her child’s sake and she shows immense amount of bravery in fighting the feudal.

Lastly, Amir un Nisa, the subaltern female, also shows resistance in not working in the film. She is able to look Dilbar in the eye and also spits in the film maker’s face to show her hatred and vocalize the injustice. She has no strings attached to her and all she is looking for is money. As she is not part of the existing social system, her resistance is in many ways different from the other female characters shown in the drama who associate themselves to the existing social setup and act accordingly; Sheherbano being from a feudal sphere married in a bureaucratic sphere, Singhar being a low class villager and subservient to the feudal sphere. 

Domesticity in Chand Grehan

There is one thing common in all the female characters of the drama, regardless of class. In the domestic sphere, we never see the woman indulged in household chores or activities which we have clearly seen in the previous dramas. Whether it is the respectable upper class housewife, the middle class working woman or the lower class woman in misery, none of these characters operate in the conventional way in the domestic sphere and are frequently found idle. It is probably because of this that the kitchen, a place of great significance in Humsafar and used to show Fazeelat’s domain in Dhoop Kinare is never once portrayed in this drama.

If we look at the category of housewives, we see Gulbahaar, Sajida Begum and Sheherbano never lifting a finger and just sitting leisurely around the house. The first two are seen with their husbands having a meal that is brought by servants. They just sit in the company of the men and their conversations never have anything to do with domestic chores normally associated with the women in the household. Both women are seen making their hair as if to please their husbands and indulge in such luxury while at home. Sheherbano can barely be called a housewife because she is never seen as part of the house but only occupies the confined space of a single room in her married house. She either listens to ghazals or compares herself to her caged bird but she too never steps into the role of a domesticated female figure. For her, even life before marriage was quite similar because of the numerous male servants present in her father’s house. She never really encountered the need to perform any duties; the only time she is asked to make tea is by Nasir in his new apartment. That too is merely a way of adding to the romance aspect of the couple and we only see Sheherbano leave for the kitchen but never see her working there.

Even the middle class working woman found in Shireen remains constantly busy with her job. In the various times that she visits Nasir’s house, she demands tea saying “Chai tou pilao” and we see Nasir’s friend taking up the task. The only time that she offers to serve Nasir, he mocks her saying “Miss aap ne home-economics parhi hai….mere khyaal hai madam aap sahafat he karein kyun k ye choole haandi ka kaam aap ko zaib nahi leta.” In doing so, he completely defines her through her profession leaving no place for her to function in the private space of the home. His words also make the viewer compare her to Sheherbano who is not a working woman but had the ability to please Nasir with good tea.

In the lower class, Singhar is someone who one would assume has to manage all the domestic affairs herself and even requests her husband to stay for food before his travel. But for much of the drama, she is identified as the mother rather than the domesticated wife. For her, the son becomes a means of empowering her and giving her some negotiating power with her husband saying, “Apne baitay ko apna naam tou do”. And because the drama largely gives her a storyline through her child, we never see her doing the household chores like a wife. The only woman who craves to fall in that role is Ameer-un-Nissa who says, “Hum se bartan dhulwa lo. Hum se kapre dhulwa lo”. She in fact remains puzzled that she is being offered such luxury like jewellery, clothes and music playing classes. She constantly asks Khanum, “Tum hum se kaam kyun nahi leti” because for her that is the assigned role for women and that is only how she can earn money.

Thus, the drama seems to sideline this aspect of women’s role to highlight more pressing concerns. The male dominance and power is critiqued to a great extent that in doing so the conventional role of women is left forgotten. After the drama of the 90’s, the post 9/11 drama seems to bring back the idea of the domesticated female figure seen in Humsafar and praises women specifically for this role.

Marriage of love or reason?

Gulbahar’s marriage to Lal Hussain Shah was a marriage of reason of sorts and love wasn’t the primary basis of marriage. Gulbahar acquired status and respect through this marriage, apart from the right to ‘Saieen’s jageer’ through their son Guddu. Economics does play a role in the marriage because at the brothel Gulbahar had to auction herself to earn money but as Saieen’s wife she had to just doll up ,sit at home and wait for him to grace her with his presence. But the primary purpose of her marriage to the feudal was to quench her thirst for respect as reflected by Gulbahar’s very famous dialogue “agar izzat ki bhooki na hoti tou nai karti ye shaadi, paisa tou meray paas bhi bohot tha”. Moreover, because of her marriage with the influential and revered Lal Shah Hussain she easily got rid of her past and her affiliation with her old friends because they knew she dared not mess with such an influential man’s wife(  with an exception of Dilber).On the other hand, Gulbahar was Lal Hussian Shah’s secret wife who very few people knew about so that his reputation could be protected. He was scared that people would question his character therefore he robbed her of her basic right of acceptance and identification as his wife in society. Even though he bestowed upon her a lot of love and respect but she wasn’t encouraged to pursue her talent of singing and had to give it up to keep her husband’s ‘izzat’. Thus as much as dalogues like “mein tou aap ki mureed hoon” and “ mein petal thi aap ne sona bana dia” suggest that Lal Hussain Shah and Gulbahar make this unacceptable marriage possible because they are truly,madly, deeply in love-they are not, their ‘nikkanama’ is an actual contract!

The Power Dynamics in Chand Grehan

This drama was aired in 90’s; however, it still holds great relevance to today’s power dynamics that prevail in Pakistan. The ‘Power Triangle’ exerts all the power over every class in the society and their influence shapes the politics and economy of Pakistan. The drama very amazingly defines how the feudal, the media (Press) and bureaucracy carry out malpractices in order to maintain power and achieve their illegal aims. The feudal, Laal Hussain Shah, has the greatest power as he has all the resources and political power to manipulate the other two but at the same his survival is impossible without the help of press and bureaucracy. The feudal is a man with whom great power and influence resides as Laal Hussain in the drama says “hum maalik hain iss zameen ke, humare hokum ke baghair chirya paani nahin peeti. Similarly, this triangle together is able to control other institutions like judiciary, police and etc.

The dynamics of Laal Hussain Shah’s power could be examined through the fact that despite having lost the elections, he was still able to admonish both a sitting bureaucrat and the owner of the newspaper the agency. Moreover, the strength of bureaucracy and media could not be undermined as they are the ones who are the actual information provider to the public. They also have contacts with other institutions. If needed, they can easily turn the power politics upside for the feudal through this influence. This drama in actual is trying to critique the power dynamics that goes on in the Pakistani society and is still very much present. The manipulation of different institutions to get maximum gains and wealth at the expense of the lower classes of the society actually defines the situation of Pakistan. Therefore, it will not be wrong to say that this power triangle is still a very integral part of today’s society and is here to stay. The power of feudals might have deteriorated a bit but their influence over any political party cannot be ignored hence, these three bodies rule the politics and economy of Pakistan.

Gul Bahar

I want to talk about how Gul bahar's life never gets better for her even after getting married. She has been in the profession of prostitution since the beginning of her life and it is Shah Jee who takes her out of the viscous cycle that she has become a part of. Initially she is lucky in the sense that her friend is still in that profession but she finally gets an opportunity to get out of it by virtue of marriage. She finally gets settled and gives birth to a son with Shah jee.

However, her past does not leave her alone and one of her employees comes back to her and starts to blackmail her and ends up publishing scandals about her life in the newspaper. Gul Bahar's life takes a turn once again. The miseries of the past that she let go of after years of marriage come back to her sending her into feelings of self hatred once again. She starts saying stuff like : "isse ziada tou wahan paisa tha mere paas" and "itna bura tou wahan bi nai hota jahan insaan apna jism bhechta hai."

Her self evaluation of self and the body shows how in our society this profession is seen in an extremely negaive light and those people that even try to come out of it have a stigma attached to them for the rest of their lives. Shah jee too starts to distance himself from her by staying at the other house and barely visiting Gul Bahar. And it is these circumstances that make Gul Bahar leave her son and her husband when she goes away towards the end of the drama. It shows us how even though she was not involved in the most respectable of professions she cannot bear the fact that her husbands stops respecting her even after he had accepted her for what she was. 

Let Heera Mandi breathe.

While a number of ethical, moral, ritual, cultural practices are highly criticized and frowned upon in Chand Garehan, there are a number of instances upon which the implicit critique is not justified. This is particularly true when the hotel owner who runs a human trafficking side business is seen as formalizing his unlawful acts under the institution of filmmaking; a very typical and unjustified dogma in our society already. The problem however is that while this possible issue is highlighted it juxtaposes no other image and dimension of the film industry hence showcasing a reductionist image of it. As Said states that dramas play a much more perpetuating role than one foresees and shapes the public opinion in a crucial capacity hence every major comment the drama makes is of great importance. This is very true for Chand Garehen because it was aired at a time when only one TV channel was to cater all of the audiences’ needs. Rather than altering the idea that was held by the majority and channeling it to the right direction, as it does with majority of the issues being tackled, this drama merely reinforced the stigma with the film industry.

Secondly, the end that Gul Bahar comes to also proposes a problematic implication. The underlying idea is that motherhood and independence stemming from working in the showbiz industry do not go together. This again mimics a widely held belief of the incapability of women’s effectiveness in the domestic sphere when they are entertainers or ‘gana bajane wali auratain’. The ending note that Gul Bahar does not even fight her right of getting Guddu back speaks a lot on the subject. How she realizes her agency through singing eventually also is a comment on how someone who gets associated with that class and profession keeps returning to it- another stereotype. Chand garehan must be credited with taking a number of bold steps, but just as much as the feudal landscape was in need of a breather, so was heera mandi in its own right. 

Women and Their Sense of Self

Like every other drama, women, or the role of women in society is very important, and contributes considerably to the narrative of the drama. Chand Grehen while focusing on feudal life and the game of tug of war between power, money and politics too revolves around the role of women.

            According to my interpretation of things, the greater the power the man has, the greater will be his influence on the woman, and the greater will be the dependency of the woman on the man. A prime example of this is Gulbahar begum, who despite being self-sufficient when it came to money, found herself completely devoid and deprived of izzat, and felt that it could be given to her through someone like Lal Hussain Shah. In fact she completely erases her own self identity when she says that she is not Gulbahar but the wife of Lal Hussain Shah. Furthermore, despite having everything that she needed for an independent life, she says; “Meri tou mitti hi manhoos hai.” Women could not degrade themselves more than that. And what is even more appalling is that Lal Hussain Shah never intercedes or corrects her or consoles her. It is as if he agrees with her, and is turn doing a great favor upon her by keeping a roof over her head which she could have done for herself with ease. However, it is this search for izzat which brings Gulbahar to this point of dependency. She just could not realize or comprehend that her izzat, her self- identity and her freedom are in fact taken away from her after marrying Lal Hussain Shah. And it is only later when she realizes this and pays the price of redeeming her freedom and sense of self at the cost of her son. If we look into it deeper, her ‘self’ was obviously a part of her son. And when she lets go of her son, she lets go of a part of her ‘self’; something irredeemable.  

            Another example would be of Singhaar. She is the mother of the son of Jahania, and hence is elevated to a higher level, yet she does not even acknowledge and claim the place that a mother deserves. Instead, the only thing she too wants is izzat. And izzat can apparently be provided by powerful or wealthy men.

            These women fail at forming their self-identity and keeping their ‘selves’ intact. They are vulnerable and allow themselves to be pulled into the delusion that izzat is something external which needs to be obtained through a particular individual.  

            Sheherbano on the other hand, is one exemplary example of the kind of woman who knows that her sense of self is what will provide her with the sense of respect that Gulbahar and Singhaar are looking for. Not only does she not feel dependent on Nasir, but she does not allow herself to be dependent or needy of Amjad either. For her, a man is not someone who is supposed to rescue her and preserve or grant her a sense of self respect or izzat. What we learn from Sheherbano is that izzat comes from within, and neither can anyone provide you with it in the first place, and nor can anyone take it away from you unless you allow them.
I could not help but relate Sheherbano to Jane Eyre, and how both do what they are told, especially when it comes to the orders of Mrs. Reed and how Sheherbano obeys Lal Hussain Shah, but there are certain limits that no one is allowed to cross, and hence no one is allowed to try to merge their sense of self with the sense of self of the two women mentioned. In other words, Sheherbano is the woman who would fall in the “Female (1920-1960)” phase as stated by Showalter in “Toward a Feminist Poetics”. Whereas Gulbahar and Singhaar somewhat fall in the “Female (1840-1880)” phase where their sense of self relies on the external models; imitating male ways of looking at the world and imitating what is laid down by the male.

Gulbahar's language and mobility

Gulbahar aka Gullo Rani is a complex character, that fluctuates most evidently when in the public and private sphere. As discussed in class, Gulbahar undergoes social mobility through her marriage to Wadera Lal Hussain Shah. However, this mobility is strangely restricted within the boundaries of the home provided to her by Shah ji. Here her language is that of utmost repspect and humbleness as she refers to herself as transitioning from 'peetal' to 'sona'. Within these boundaries her language is refined and cultured as she frequently refers to him as her savior, giving her a life of 'izzat' which she doesn’t deserve. Hence, within her private sphere Gulbahar's language enables us to see how her social mobility is structured. She may be the feudal lords wife and that places her amongst the upper class but her position is very much restricted and almost prison like in those walls.

On the other hand when in the private her class ascendancy is perhaps more visible since it is here we actually see the perks of her being married to wadera Lal Hussain. However, her language takes a complete reversal in the public. More specifically when she visits Heera Mandi to meet the pimp, her language very conveniently interchanges words such as 'apkay' for 'teray'. The respect and humbleness is all lost, yet it is here that she is able to exert herself as someone from the upper class as she refers to herself by saying, 'Mein Gulbahar nahi shah ji ki biwi hoon'. In this way even though her language reverts to her original self, she still derives her social standing through her relationship to Shah ji.

Hence, even though she may have achieved social mobility, her language of humility restricts her from being vocal of her sentiments in the home provided by her savior. However, it is only in public that her new position manifests itself as in the private she is mostly restricted to being Shah ji's subordinate.        

The Question of Identity: GulBahar Beghum

Kaisay aaye ho?

Haq-e-shara kay saath aaye hoon, bhaag kay nahin aaye.

Ye tum mujhe haq-e-shara, kyun sunnati rehti ho, kya vehm ho gya hai tumhain?

Zururat parti hai na tou kehna parta hai.

Izzat daitay hain wo bhi shartoon par, ghabratay ho, dhabha hoon main? gandi nali ki badbo hoon? Kya hoon main?

Aap nay jo daira meray gird khainja tha na, main us say kabhi nahin nikli.

Aap nay Gulbahar Beghum ko itna chota kyun samjha hai.

   For GulBahar the struggle for identity is a constant one. Not only do we see her identity continuously oscillating between “Shah Jee Ki Beghum”, Gulbahar and Khanum’s “Gullu Rani” rather through the figure (and language) of GulBahar we see the shift from a subaltern figure, one who was a part of khanum’s circle to Lal Hussain Shah’s wife and then her reversion to the bourgeoisie status. In the dialogue above as well as GulBahar’s later conversations with Lal Hussain Shah what is really interesting is, the constant allusion to the nikkah wherein GulBahar says “Haq-e-shara kay saath aaye hoon, bhaag kay nahin aaye.” And when he tells her that she should have called instead of coming she says “Mera nikah phone par nahin hua tha”. From the reference to haq-e-shara in the same conversation she complains of Lal Shah’s attitude, with the focus on “dhabha hoon main? gandi nail ki badbo hoon main? Kya hoon main?”  Now what this conversation tells the audience is the inability of nikkah and haq-e-shara to provide GulBahar with the holistic sense of respect and izzat that comes with the “Shijra-e-nasab”. Consequently the sense of identity that GulBahar derives from the connection to Shah Jee is inadequate which is why she constantly yearns for izzat “Jo bohat mehengi hoti hai” and refers to her past, that of a courtesan “Is say behtar tou wo Shah Jee thay jo tamashbeen ban kar aaya kartay thay”; and “maine apna sab kuch aap par waar diya”, the implication being that an identity of the courtesan had been forgone for the “naam ki izzat” which came with the marriage.

    However even then GulBahar is never really allowed to forgo the ascribed identity of a courtesan as she is not Lal Hussain Shah’s “social partner”. As a result GulBahar is disillusioned, when she refers to her body as “Khali pinjira hai jis main roh mar choki hai,”  but then she envisions the status of a mother to Lal Shah’s son would provide her with a new identity, an idea which Khanum mocks saying “Lo dekho ye ab tak maa bani bethi hai”. Thus GulBahar is a character who tries to evade a past identity yet realizes that any such effort is futile and so she wills that “Main apni haqiqat kay saath rehnay ki koshish karon gi”. GulBahar’s identity then is fluid; it transcends class associations and throughout the drama undergoes a continual deconstruction and a subsequent reconstruction.

"Dilbar, Dilbar, urf Dilbar jaani"

While the feudal-bureaucracy-media triangle dominates the power structure and social framework of ‘Chand Grahan’, complexity is added to the existent status quo through the depiction of Heera Mandi, and ideas of prostitution, mauseeqi and the film business. While these forces are relegated to the background since they constitute a threat to a carefully planned construction of ‘national morality’ upheld by the oligarchal triangle, they manage to surface, and hold enough strength to destabilize meticulous alliances and political ties. The prime example of such influence is embodied by Dilbar, who operates on the ‘outside’, acting as the impetus behind the successful functionality of the underground Heera Mandi business, but also becomes the evil manipulator who wrecks the feudal lord’s marriage, and risks the overturning of his entire public image and reputation.

Dilbar (whose very NAME warrants an eyebrow raise; it’s safe to assume he wasn’t born with such a name, and this is a self-granted title he’s given to himself on account of his long association with the Heera Mandi community. He tells Gulbahar, “Main hoon tumhara Dilbar, Dilbar, urf Dilbar jaani”, that's Dilbar for you) is a wanderer with no tilos; he shifts from Khanum’s darbar, Gulbahar’s abode and the filmmaker’s office, consequently becoming the thread that ties these three worlds together. He is absolutely unappealing, and he’s probably intended to be as repulsive as possible, since this serves to reinforce his personality as a sub-human, thug-like figure representing the scum of society. Gulbahar’s interactions with him constantly refer to his monstrosity and bestiality, calling him a “shaitaan”, “kameena” and “janwar”. Animal imagery works like a crescendo; Dilbar moves from being “Khanum ka paaltoo kutta” to a “saanp”, jis ko sirf “dassna” aata hai. From a Biblical context, the image of the snake is not coincidental at all; Gulbahar and Lal Hussain Shah’s marriage falls apart because of this poisonous snake, and this clearly resonates Adam and Eve’s fall from innocence to a world of knowledge, sin and corruption.

The value of “paisa” for Dilbar is also interesting; he seems to have enough money to entertain himself, but uses the avengement of his failed purchase of Gulbahar as a way to destabilize existent socio-political standards. Dilbar’s infatuation with Gulbahar is a sport to him; the awareness of losing his precious investment to the omnipotent feudal lord becomes a conflict of deflated male ego and class inferiority. His re-entry into Gulbahar’s life serves a dual purpose – not only does it pave the way for the decay  of the already questionable husband-wife relationship of Mr and Mrs. Lal Hussain Shah, it also becomes symbolic of the way Gulbahar’s present and future is constantly determined and shaped by her past association with mauseeqi and the Heera Mandi. Marriage for her is supposed to be sanctifying; she constantly alludes to the honour her husband has bestowed upon someone who deserves to be his “paaon ki mitti”. She tells Dilbar constantly, “Wo Gulbahar mar chuki hai, main Lal Hussain Shah ki biwi hoon”, and boosts her husband's male ego by telling him, "Aap ki hansti bari hai, main to aap ki mureed bhi bannay kay qaabil nahin hoon". The rigid divide she has drawn between her courtesan-self and her honourable wife-self is shattered and blurred as Dilbar starts calling and visiting her. He becomes a physical reminder of the part of her she wants to leave behind, and his threat to expose Lal Hussain Shah’s association with this tawaaif, a reality consciously kept incognito, becomes a political tool strong enough to ruin the feudal lord’s reputation and ruin his marriage.

Dilbar, with his Heera Mandi inspired language dripping with sexual innuendos (“Zara jalwa to dekha, ghungroo na sahi, paaon to hain teray paas. Gulbahar begum, aaj meri khaatir thora saa gungunaa do” – after which he literally showers money on Gulbahar), has no real power over characters falling outside the class structure like Ameer-un-Nisa, but his influence on the feudal-bureaucracy-media triangle is particularly threatening, consequently becoming a broader comment on the danger of mixing these two worlds together. They must always operate in isolation of each other, or away from the scrutiny of the public eye. However, it is very important how ‘Chand Grahan’ uses Dilbar as a tool to reinforce the power of the triangle. Lal Hussain Shah loses the pleasure of Gulbahar’s company, but is still able to retain control of his son Guddoo, and even win elections at the end, which shows how the power of the oligarchy is here to stay, no matter what threats come its way.

Izzat.

Izzat is the name of the game in this drama for many of the characters and I have chosen to focus on three of them. Gulbahar spends the whole drama trying to find izzat for herself, Jahaniah Shah is unable to unable to reconcile the blow the loss in the elections brought to the family’s izzat and Babar Sahib knows his izzat is linked to his job which is temporary.

When talking about izzat, Gulbahar is the first character that deserves the spotlight, for she was someone who knew how society looked upon someone in her proffesion and marrying Lal Hussain Shah helped her escape the stigma of that proffesion. However, while she believed she was living an acceptable life now, society still did not give her the respect she hoped for. Her past still haunted her; Guddu was teased about his mother being a “gaanay gaanay waali” and upon Dilbar’s return, she wa sucked into the same life again. Even when she visits Lal Hussain in his house, he is dismissive of her and tells her to leave soon which hurts for, for she would do so much for him and here the person who gave her the izzat she was proud of, was putting her in her place. So, the marriage that was her salvation failed and she never got the izzat that she so strongly desired.

To a feudal like Jahaniah, izzat meant everything. Lal Hussain Shah was a mature politician however, Jahaniah was young and impulsive and the defeat hurt his ego. And the actions he took to get the lost izzat back, just brought him down further and he was left being a convicted felon. In this quest to find izzat, he endangered everything Lal Hussain Shah stood for as well.

Babar Sahib is the bureaucrat whose, power and izzat is all but dependant on his job. We see how easily he can be disposed of when he is very simply transferred at the end of the drama. However, Babar Sahib knows how the system works which is why he wants to cement his place in society before he loses the perks of his position. And his son, Amjad becomes his stepping stone to achieve this. And his desire to cement his izzat is so strong that even after his first marriage fails, Amjad’s second marriage is also based on the riches and social standing the brides’ family has.

In a society where class, land, social standing and power define the life a person leads, izzat becomes a very important factor and the characters are left striving to attain it. 

Last blogpost: Language of subjugation in “Chand Grehan”

“Bakrey ki maa aakhir kab tak khair manaey gi”

      Such is the only comfort that Dilbar can provide to Gulbahar at a time when she is emotionally and psychologically troubled due to her sons kidnapping.  Dilbar and  Khanum arrive with a goat to sacrifice in order to cast away the“buree nazar” that is believed to  have led to Gulbahar’s misfortune. And we all know that it is just a façade that is pulled up to bring her back on good terms with Khanum which certainly does not happen. Coming from Dilbar’s mouth these words  “bakray ki maa aakhir kab tak khair manaey gi” don’t strike us as odd for he can be best described as an evil opportunist whose acts are underpinned by his self interest . But what I find really interesting is how well the idiom articulates the femalesituation throughout the drama as goats at the mercy of the male figures – Lal Hussain Shah, Jahaniah Shah, Dilbar and Babur, each of whose interactions with the women are aimed at subjugating, domesticating  and informing their existence in the drama. Language then is central in creating a national narrative of a woman which constitutes passive sufferance and compliance as opposed to the narrative of her male counterpart.

         Although Shireen through her language  rebels against the male dominance when she says “mera raasta raat sey guzarta hua subha ko jaata hai”, her attempts to be a social and political activist is  determined by Babur who has her released from jail.  The drama portrays a very ambiguous end for her and in some way she can be likened to Sheena from ‘Dhoop Kinarey ‘in her  pursuit of a  professional life. But this is implicit and the form of the drama then seems to be hesitant or lingering onto the conservative side  when it does not  clearly specify what kind of female independence is being portrayed (if at all). To my mind then, Sheena’s rather unclear end speaks to the inadequacy of language to express anything that goes against a pre-set notion of femininity in a post Zia time period in Pakistan. As for Gulbahar, what we continuously see is language working in a cyclical fashion, probing her to embrace her past as a courtesan. Gulbahar’s struggle to escape her former identity in hope of a new identity as Lal Hussain Shah’s wife transforms her language into a language of self condemnation.  We see this denial and hatred for the self in the way she calls herself as “makhmal mein pewand” , “paaon ki jooti” and that “lakri mein naqs hota hai tau deemak lagtee hai. Gulbahar’s language conveys the inevitability of the past infiltrating the present, causing the character to always be worried by this fear of the unknown. Gulbahar continues to correct the language spoken by other people when she says “mein Gulbahar naheen hoon, mein Shah jee ki bee wee hoon”, almost as if saying it would be a stamp of approval! However, much to her disappointment the language used by people around her fails to situate her within the national framework. When she unexpectedly shows up at Lal Hussain Shah’s house, the munshi does not know how to inform who has arrived and therefore he says “woh aye hain”. Here we see the language of the “OTHER” being used, reinforcing the obscurity of “who am I? and  where do I belong?” in Gulbahar’s narrative. It then allows the men to easily dominate her existence.  Interestingly, Gulbahar’s  language also embodies a certain fluidity as it moves across social hierarchy. While in the presence of Lal Hussain Shah, her language is influenced by decorum,  with Khanum it degenerates into a kind of language that I would then call the “bazaari lehja” where there is no hesitation when referring to others as “tu” and “teraa” . 

      In  Ameer un nisa's case, we witness a failure of language that allows others to take undue advantage of her. The only language that she knows is one  that corresponds to her homeland and the displacement inherent within her; “ hum ko samundar paar jaana hai”. Her silence after being raped then becomes a language in itself that conveys how not all nuances of human behaviour can be voiced, rape being one of them.  Moreover the concept of izzat that characters like Sheherbano and Gulbahar continue to raise through their conversations brings to question “what is izzat” in the broader language of the drama?  For Sheherbano, izzat is something valuable yet comes at the cost of sacrificing ones happiness. For Gulbahar, izzat is tied to the idea of marriage but even this “naam ki izzat” comes at the price of accepting your own inferior position in marriage. In each of these cases then,  women are no less than the “bakri” that is always anxious of when it might have its throat cut by the knife of its owner. The metaphor brings forth the dichotomy of dominance and subservience and is a strong example of  how language continues to marginalize the female in “Chand Grehan”.

Women and Identity in Chand Grehan

In Chand Grehan especially with respect to women we see that identity is extremely important and very contextual. In fact we can see that all the women in the drama are engaged in a struggle between competing identities, the culmination of which is that each is forced to choose one identity at the expense of another.

For example, Sheher Bano’s biggest dilemma is her inability to conform to her class. Her association with and love for Nasir, a middle class journalist, helps her to see the world from a different perspective. Thus, she contends with the feudalistic views of her father in several ways and is constantly reproached by him in words such as “yeh middle class soch tum ne uss se seekhi hai.” At first Sheher Bano gives in to the pressure of her feudalistic background by marrying Amjad, a marriage arranged by her father in order to make a political alliance with the bureaucrat Babar Sahab. Later, when questioned by Amjad in a fit of rage that why she did not refuse to marry him at the time of their nikah, Sheher Bano replies that it was a moment of weakness for her and she was suffering for it ever since.  Here we see that Sheher Bano acknowledges giving in to the pressure of the wishes of her feudalistic father and sees it as her weakness. As the play progresses we see that her mindset is increasingly being inclined towards the middle class identity that she admires and wants. When Gul Bahar’s son is kidnapped, Sheher Bano says that she is ready to give up her claims of inheritance in order to get him back. In the end, when Sheher Bano marries Nasir we see her making an explicit choice where she clearly chooses the middle class identity over the aristocratic, feudalistic one.

Next we have the example of Gul Bahar, whose dilemma is between her identity as a “kothi wali” and “Laal Hussain Shah’s bivi”. In the first half of the drama she openly negates her association with the kothi and lives in perpetual fear of this ghost rising from her past. She associates herself with Laal Hussain so that she may get izzat, but soon realizes that she is not really getting  the izzat that she expected from the identity of being Laal Hussain’s bivi. She says to Sheher Bano,

“Iss tarhan tu udher bhi nahin hotaa jahan din raat insaan biktaa hai.”

In the end we see Gul Bahar leaving Laal Hussain and choosing her other identity.

Similarly with Shireen, she makes a choice to go along with Nasir and her other journalist colleagues, in search of truth, rather than to conform to her identity as Babar Sahab’s wife’s niece.

The most blatant expression for this identity struggle the drama shows in the character of Ameer un Nisa, when Khanum changes her name to Meera once she starts working at the kothi and Ameer un Nisa replies,

“Lekin hum apnay liye tu Ameer un Nisa hain naa.”

And from this we can say that Chand Grehan shows how important a person’s identity is and that realizing this people consciously shape their identity according to their own idea of self and according to what they wish to be. Moreover, since identity is shaped consciously in accordance with people’s wishes and sense of self, it is naturally very contextual. In other words, while Gul Bahar can be the most popular kothi wali, she can also be Laal Hussain’s wife.

Week 11: Of Nasir, His gang and Civil Society

          Working in close relationship with but at the same time trying to oppose the feudal-bureaucracy-media triad is Nasir and his posse. Their role could be seen as being emblematic of a ‘liberal’ civil society. Though it is believed civil society is not sanctioned by state’s instruments therefore Nasir and Shireen being journalists technically could be constituted to be a part of civil society. However, Nasir’s constant emphasis on active citizenship and empowerment of youth could possibly be decoded as functioning of a distorted form of civil society. Kamal saahab wants Nasir to go abroad in search of a better life, but Nasir wants to stay in the country and help the population even at the cost of his life (earlier on he is attacked by thugs).

           However, this version of civil society could be interpreted in terms of theories of Partha Chaterjee and Akbar Zaidi who see it as a means through which elite are able maintain their dominance and promote their lifestyle. They are concerned with issues regarding modernity, such as literacy, better health facilities and so forth (although these issues are not explicitly mentioned in the drama but there are subtle suggestions towards the importance of education).  The first main hurdle in categorizing Nasir as an elite is that he is depicted or spoken of as an “aam aadmi”, and Shehrbano is classified as “middle class” for wanting to marry him. But, just taking the essence of the theory is it true that Nasir’s quest to help the populace seems superficial at time because he is not really empathetic towards subaltern figures.

          In the scene where Ameer un Nissa’s husband seeks the help of Nasir and his gang to find his wife, he clearly states “nahi saab ek dum bhook nahi hai”, “bilkul nahi khaye ga”  but they constantly impose their opinion over him “pehle khana kha lo humare saath” and literally bully him into eating chat with them. This also shows the type of language barrier between them.

           Moreover, in the scene where Shireen tells Nasir and the gang about Jahanian Shah murdering two men it evokes no feelings of sympathy for the men called. No one is even cared about their family. It is Laal Hussain Shah who reaches out to the families to pacify them so that they can take the case back. But Nasir as a member of civil society seems not at all concerned with the lives of men murder. It is a mere news item and that to which is trivialized by talking about having “chai” first then looking in to the news.

           There hypocrisy becomes most poignant especially when the two kidnappings are juxtaposed to one another. Jahanian Shah kidnapping his step brother for stake in property is seen as “important” news (Nasir says to Kamal, yeh news “buhat important hai”). However, when a member of Shireen’s family is kidnapped, Babar sahib, she protests saying, “lekin sir yeh kahan ki sahafat hai ke kisi ki musibhat ko cash kiya jaye.” So basically, it was fine if it involves someone they are least bit concerned with but as soon as family is involved it becomes a matter of “private” concern.

           Not only this but it is their patronage and connections which bails them out when they are jailed (on a false charge). So Nasir may be “middle class” but it is his father’s connections with police which allow him to get a bail. But using connections and family source is okay as long as it is benefitting them. They did not challenge the police on this.

           Nasir and his posse still continue to endeavour to solve some of the societal problems. But Kamaal sahib is quite apt when he says,“Nasir tum taqreer ke siwa aur kuch nahi kar sakte, kisi masle ka koi hal tumhare paas nahi hai.” 

Women and resistance in Urdu Dramas

From the three dramas that we have watched so far, I feel it would be interesting to look at a cross comparison of how women are portrayed in each of them, especially because the depiction varies so greatly from one to the other. Female representation in general would be quite vast a topic, therefore what I think would be useful to discuss here is how the female protagonists understand, co-opt or resist societal norms 

and pressures in each of these.

In my interpretation, women in Dhoop Kinaray are depicted to have some level of power over their own lives, and ability to resist societal pressures. Where Zoya does not have to deal with societal pressures such as marriage etc, and it is interesting to note that this drama shows that as a possibility, Dr. Sheena has to make the hard choice to either remain lonely or commit to an already married man, and she chooses the former, even though the choice is hard, yet it is available to her.

Then we have Chand Grehn, which shows a series of females in a completely different set-up, where larger societal forces figure largely in the lives of all the individuals shown. It may be argued that women are to a very large extent shown as oppressed outcomes of the rigidly patriarchal structure, so for example Sheherbano has to get married in accordance with her father’s will. However I feel that despite this, the fact that women are shown to be individuals, even if they are oppressed in their own unique ways, and that they bargain or resist patriarchal structures is significant.

Here is where I feel Humsafar is problematic, because not only is no choice given to the female protagonist, her leaving the house and her coming back are all dictated by external forces, first by the ‘evil conspiracy’ and then by what is thought to be ‘right’ for her to do. Moreover the female who does exhibit some form of resistance to the system, is scorned. What seems to me as being exalted then is this intensified sense of the victimized helpless female, and of sacrifice on her part to uphold societal norms, which is then virtuous as well. The fact that this is a modern day drama then, which depicts a woman in a domestic setting to be even more powerless than a female depicted a few decades ago within a feudal setting, is then great cause for concern. 

Late Post: Madame Defarge

Madame Defarge’s involvement in the revolution was essential to the novel. Her role as an (if not the) organizer of the revolution was of great consequence. However, her reasons were of a deeply personal nature rather than of a higher nationalistic cause. She is then the initiator of revolution not because of her belief but her ability to mobilize and lead the people.

There is no doubt that Madame Defarge had devoted her life to the revolution. When told that they might not be alive to see triumph she maintains a somewhat optimistic view claiming victory will come none-the-less (“we shall have helped it… nothing that we do, is done in vain”). This might lead one to believe that her reasons were altruistic, considering her own lack of impoverished state.

It is not until the third book that the reader finds out her motive for participating in the revolution, but from the very beginning it is evident from her devotion to the cause that there seems to be a personal attachment. Her constant knitting and “watchful eye that seldom seemed to look at anything” only prove her entire life is dedicated to the cause, leaving no room for error (…she did not often make mistakes against herself in any of the reckonings over which she presided).

When Lucie implored Madame Defarge to help her husband she replied that she has no reason to do so when her people have suffered the same way at the hands of the aristocracy (“… All our lives we have seen our sister-women suffer, in themselves and their children, poverty, nakedness, hunger, thirst, sickness…and neglect of all kinds?... Is it likely that the trouble of one wife and mother would be much to us now?”). While she did want to see the fall of aristocracy it is the Evremondes in particular she wanted retribution from. Here we see how strongly she felt about getting revenge. For her, revenge was not simply punishment for the perpetrator of crime but his entire family (“but, the Evremonde people are to be exterminated, and the wife and child must follow the husband and father”). To a certain extent, despite having been able to run away and not coming under direct harm, she herself felt like a victim. She even visits Lucie and her daughter to see the sufferings of the “Evremondes” first hand.

Education in Chand Grahan

“Mai tu samjhi thi ke taleem ne mujhe aik aam insaan bana diya hai liken mai tu bhool hi gayi thi ke mai aik buhat baray jagirdaar ki beti hun”.

This line in particular stood out for me as I started watching the drama. For me what it represents is the difference of what ‘being educated’ means in Pakistan then vs now.

What seems like a simple line carries a powerful meaning. The context within which it has been spoken makes it a powerful line. Shaharbano, the speaker, is the daughter of an influential feudal lord and politician due to which she has both wealth and power backing her. Along with a strong background she was also educated which back then was a huge deal considering that education was inaccessible to many so we can safely assume that both these factors should have made her arrogant and superior to others. However, for her to say that education has liberated her and has made her ‘ordinary’ is what makes this line really stand out. Here, education has had the ‘right effect’ as it has made Shaharbano realize that a person’s worth is not measured by how much power and wealth he possesses and that these things mean nothing. In this way, the drama through this line illustrates what ‘being educated’ really means that it rids you from superficial concept like claiming to be ‘aik baray jagirdaar ki beti” and instead makes you humble and down to earth and propels you towards more meaningful quests.

This is in sharp contrast to how ‘being educated’ is portrayed in contemporary dramas. In Humsafar for example education was a license for most of the characters to be extremely full of themselves. Being educated in contemporary dramas is depicted as a privilege through which people automatically not only become superior to others but also hold the license to ‘rule’ over the uneducated masses. Sara, Fareeda, Ashar etc are all shown as highly educated yet these are the very people who fail to act in accordance with their education. This holds true for other contemporary dramas as well for instance, Daam, Shehr-e-Zaat, Mohabbat Subh ka Sitara etc. where it is the educated class that desperately attempts to accumulate power and wealth instead of realizing that these things are only superficial.

Therefore, being educated meant two very different things at the time of Chand Grahan and that of Humsafar. 

Modernity in Chand Grehan

The dynamics of Shireen’s relationship with all her male counterparts are very different as compared to other female characters. The element of modernity in her character is highlighted in each of her of interactions. When she quits her job after Nasir’s resignation, she is able to justify it on ethical grounds. Nasir argues with her that she shouldn’t have done it because of him but she stands firm on her ground claiming that she has much of a ‘zameer’ as he does.

“Jo tum kuch kero toh theek hai, hum kuch karein toh luxury hai”

Her next interesting relationship is with Amjad. How comfortably she is able to visit a male friend’s place in 1990’s is what Pakistani dramas will not be able to portray today without the stain of immorality. Humsafar’s Sara is a similar character to Shireen but what’s interesting to note here is that Sara’s fierce ungoverned independence was depicted under a negative spotlight as opposed to Shireen’s ungoverned independence which is shown to be acceptable  in our society. Although this drama was shot right after Zia’s regime but it is as if the consequences are hitting us today in the 21^st century.