The Lihaf and obscenity.

“Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity – these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them.”
- Mark Twain

Ideas are perceptions of intellectual capacities of the human mind. When these capacities realize the ability to analyze, they perceive the subject through a sieve of socio-psycho cultural backgrounds. Thus, we coin the term ‘obscenity’ depending on our sieve of perception.

‘Obscenity’ the word that has been made to sounds so charged with a crime, comes from a Latin origin ‘obscenus’ meaning “foul, repulsive, detestable”. In the legal context it is used to describe expressions that offend the prevalent or the existent so called sexual morality of the time. However, it is a subjective term depending on the subjective morals whose understanding varies from age to age or class to mass. It is important to note that the obscenity legislation exists since barely hundred years.

The law covering obscenity is dealt with in the India Penal Code of 1860. Interestingly, these laws are relics of the colonial period and fundamentally at variance with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.

One of the most controversial issues is balancing the need to protect society against the potential harm that may flow from obscene material, and the need to ensure respect for freedom of expression and to preserve a free flow of information and idea.

The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Expression in Article 19(1)(a) Freedom of expression means the freedom to express not only one’s own views but also the views of others and, by any means, including printing. The second clause however also makes clear that the State may impose reasonable restriction in the interest of public decency and morality. The culminative effect of these provisions seems to sustain the legality of any act of the State which lawfully restrains the publication of 'obscene' material in India. The crucial question is, 'what is obscenity?’

‘Obscenity’ has a social, religious, aesthetic, and literatural aspect. In the social aspect, if the universal values governing any said society are offended in any way by means of an expression (art, literature, etc.), it is termed as obscene. This mostly deals with obscenity associated with sex. In the religious context however an act of blasphemy is also considered obscene. Aesthetically speaking obscenity can mean anything that has been created to arouse or corrupt the spectator’s emotions. However, this explanation itself involves multiple factors. No context of the creation will solely have the elements external to the spectator. It is a compound of external elements of the object of art and the perceiver’s sieve of thoughts, beliefs, attitude, values, culture, interest, his mood at the moment and his overall personality. Obscenity arises when these two sets of elements do not belong to the same universe of thoughts and feelings and hence conflict on co-existing.

Lihaf – the story in controversy :

Ismat Chugtai, wrote a brialliantly conceived short story Lihaf meaning ‘Quilt’. A child narrator describes in simple understanding of what she makes out of a relationship she sees between her aunt (Begum Jaan) and her personal maid (Rabbo). Ismat, a notorius child, is left with her aunt while her mother is on a visit to Agra for a few days. Begum Jaan, a beautiful young woman married to a Nawab Sahib, who is much older to her, but is known to be a pious man. ‘No prostitute or street woman had ever been seen in his house. He had gone on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca himself, and helped many others to perform this holy service.’
The Nawab however left the new bride in the house with the furniture, and did not allow her to visit other people while himself nurturing a unique hobby, he loved to have young fair faced boys (students) around him, with slim waists and he bore all their expenses. Begum Jaan was heartbroken and depressed.

The lonely Begum Jaan’s life came back to colour with Rabbo’s new therapy of massage to cure her permanent itch.

‘The massage of mysterious oils brought back the flush of life to her.’

Ismat for hours used to observe Rabbo massaging Begum Jaan and closely watched the hands that moved on various parts of her body. At times she wondered how could one like to be massaged all through the day and sometimes throughout the night wouldn’t it eventually crush all bones?

‘I used to watch those hands, intent on seeing where they were and what they were doing.’

Rabbo and Begum Jaan shared a bed and Ismat slept in the same room. At night when she woke up at times, to be horrified when she used to see the quilt on Begum Jaan’s bed taking different shapes.

'Begum Jaan’s lihaf was rocking as though an elephant was caught in it.'

But the next morning she had forgotten about it like a night mare.

Once Rabbo had to go to visit her son which dispirited Begum Jaan like never before. She had tried to settle Rabbo’s son, he even worked for the Nawab Sahib for a while but had fled and never come back even to see his mother. No one had known the reason. Rabbo once had to go to see him, and for a few days she did not return. Between this period Begum Jaan lay demoralized, without eating. Ismat who offered to scratch Begum Jaan, later regretted and feared even stepping into Begum Jaan’s room, as she became more demanding.

‘I began to weep inwardly. She hugged and squeezed me like a plaything.The warmth of her body drove me to distraction…she was like one possessed.’

‘And here I was more scared of Begum Jaan, than of all loafers in the world.’

Begum Jaan had begun to shower lot of affection on Ismat, and an unpleased Rabbo remarked, “Unripe mangoes are sour, Begum Jaan.”

The next encounter with the elephant in the lihaf was even more intense.

‘The elephant rose, agitated. It seemed to be sitting on its legs. I heard noises, slop, slop-as if someone were eating something with great relish. Suddenly I understood the whole affair. Begum Jaan hadn’t eaten anything that day and Rabbo had always been a greedy glutton. Surely something delicious was being gulped down under the lihaf.’

The lihaf had begun taking shapes even in the child’s mind, and she began getting restless. As she switched on the light, the elephant under the lihaf turned a violent sommersault and collapsed, but a corner of the lihaf was lifted by a foot and Ismat was shocked to see what was happening below the lihaf.

‘Allah! I dived for my bed.’

The story that made Chugtai famous all over, was culled from her experiences and the people she observed. Lihaf, was charged with obscenity in 1944, under the Indian Penal Code. Lihaf had been published around 1941, and the censors took note of it only after it was reprinted in ‘Chotein’ later.

Lihaf was charged for obscenity, as it spoke about homosexual relationships between Begum Jaan, a Muslim woman married to a high class Nawab family, and her maid. Even liberal-thinkers at the time, who could accept interclass relationships, could not tolerate the theme of same-sex love. Neither could the authorities. Taking these charges with an uncommon spirit of courage and humour, Ismat ventured to Lahore for the trial. The charges had been brought against Shahid Ahmed Dehlavi, the publisher and surprisingly also the calligrapher who had copied the manuscript.

In the court Ismat affirmed that when she had written the story she did not know what words she could use for the things she had witnessed, and thus there were no risqué words and that she had no intentions to be vulgar, “It was merely a child’s description of some which she cannot fully understand. It was based on my own experience as a child. I knew no more at that time than the child knew. My lawyer argued that the story could be understood only by those who already had some knowledge.”

Ismat Chugtai was acquitted as the witness could not prove the obscenity charges in her story. Below is an account of her court trial as described by her.

There was a big crowd in the court. Several people had advised us to offer our apologies to the judge, even offering to pay the fines on our behalf. The proceedings had lost some of their verve, the witnesses who were called in to prove that “Lihaf” was obscene were beginning to lose their never in the face of our lawyer’s cross-examination. No word capable of inviting condemnation could be found.

After a great deal of search a gentleman said, “The sentence - she was collecting ashiqs (lovers) is obscene.”

“Which word is obscene,” the lawyer asked “Collecting,” or “ashiqs”?

“The word ‘ashiqs’” the witness replied somewhat hesitantly.

“My Lord the word ashiqs has been used by greatest poets. This word has been guven a sacred place by the devout.”

“But it’s highly improper for girls to collect ashiqs isn’t it?” the witness proclaimed.

“Why?”

“Because…because…this is improper for respectable girls.”

“But not improper for girls who are not respectable?”

“Uh…uh…no”

“My client has mentioned perhaps girls who are not respectable. And as you say, sir,

non-respectable girls may collect ashiqs.”

“Yes, it’s not obscene to mention them, but for an educated woman from a respectable family to write about these girls merits condemnation!”

The witness thundered.

“So go right ahead and condemn as much as you like but does it merit legal action?”
The case crumbled.

Even though Chughtai won the case, Lihaf remains open to criticism from the religious groups as well as the not-so religious groups. The issue of obscenity in Lihaf is the expression of same-sex love, by an educated Muslim woman coming from a respectable family background. But Chugtai’s does a wonderful job, leaving the reader with marvel.

The strength of Chugtai’s writing is her unbiased descriptive of a much taboo issue in a nations like India and Pakistan, that too not when people dare to make a ‘Fire’ or a ‘Girlfriend’ but nearly half a century ago even when love marriage or even inter caste marriage would qualify excommunication. Ismat’s story is a mere documentation of what was seen, which was a mirror image of what was perceived by the child narrator…no opinions, no fabrications, no hyperbole but just a pure outright report of what takes place. It is like an innocent reflection in the water of the moon.

Section 292., Indian Penal Code states,
2*[(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

3*[(2)] Whoever-

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, reduces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed,

As the IPC says that content is to be regarded as obscene if it tends to deprave or corrupt persons however Ismat’s narrative as an objective reader would perceive is not in any form provocative, catering to any crass entertainment, or insulting, exploiting, objectifying the female form.

The argument again boils down to the reader’s perception of the text, and the connect of the elements of the story, the storyteller and the reader. This definitely brings out the difference between how the child perceived the events and how a reader interpreted it.

Another important thing in the story is that neither Begum Jaan nor Rabbo seem to be homosexuals. Their relationship begins because of the absence of a healthy sexual relationships with their husbands. Chughtai has also mentioned about the basic human instinct of sex and how necessary is its fulfillment to mortals especially after they have entered the thrall of sex. It is almost a fatal whirlpool.

She describes Begum Jaan’s advances towards her in the absence of Rabbo. However we can use the word ‘advances’ as we can sum up the event, unlike the little Ismat who simply describes them as physical actions and nothing else.

‘She hugged and squeezed me like a plaything. The warmth of her body drove me to distraction…she was like one possessed.’

Ismat’s writing is beautiful blend of observation, perception and an objective narration.
“It was merely a child’s description of some which she cannot fully understand.” Ismat.
The witness in Chugtai’s trial has condemned her for writing about not-so respectable girls in the society; the account of the trial we get to read is suggestive of the witness’ perception of women, status and same sex relationships.

A very important aspect of the story which is remains neglected throughout most literature available on Chughtai’s Lihaf, is the Nawab Sahib’s subtly touched sexual orientation. He didn’t seem to enjoy company of women not even his beautiful and attractive wife, but kept himself surrounded by young, fair faced men.

‘she felt she was rolling on a bed of live coals as she saw the boys in their translucent kurtas, their well-formed legs in tight fitting churidars, their willowy wiast…’

The fact that no questions about these acts of Nawab Sahib came up in the trial, nor any words such as ‘condemnation’ were used for describing the Nawab’s hobby of enjoying the company of young and handsome men, explains the societal expectations from men and women.

Homosexuality is an offence in India as well as Pakistan. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, says, ‘whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term (which shall not be less than two years nor more than 10 years), and shall also be liable to a fine.’ Sadly, this law that was adopted from the British constitution has already been repelled from it, but we still retain it.

And this in a way has enforced the conceptualization of even the mention of homosexuality to be obscene.

Another interesting observation in the story that leaves scope to delve more into intricacies of what Ismat really wishes to speak is, the mention of Rabbo’s son who worked with Nawab Sahib ‘and received many gifts of clothes from him’ fled and never came back even to meet his mother, ‘and no one knew why…’ Linking this to earlier mentions of Nawab Sahib’s hobbies, it leads the reader to faintly infer the reason for his fleeing. It could either be his disapproval of the Nawab’s mysterious ways to pleasure or chances of him discovering about his mother’s closeness with Begum Jaan or none of these two.

Coming back to the trial, Chughtai’s lawyer had argued the case on the point that only people who had the knowledge of homosexuality, could only understand it. This seemed a witty point of escape to win the case, but the core issue of whether her work was obscene remained untouched. The society did not witness a perspective change to homosexuality, desires of women, expression in literature, and these remained stagnant. However in today’s times we have become more liberal about the term ‘obscene’.

Lihaf to be a subtle conveyer of the social system, the sham and duplicity of the high society and the urban class. It speaks about the innocence of the child narrator, and the trial brings out how adults add judgments, prejudices and opinions.

‘ Suddenly I understood the whole affair. Begum Jaan hadn’t eaten anything that day and Rabbo had always been a greedy glutton.’

Ismat had a passion for freedom which comes through her writing and leaves no means to term her work obscene.

“Purdah had already been imposed on me, but my tongue was an unsheathed sword. No one could restrain it,” - Ismat Chughtai