Umr Qaid

‘Umr Qaid’ is a story written by an Urdu writer- Hajira Shakoor in the year 1950. On the surface the story seems to be about perils of social institutions like “dowry” and “casteism” but the writer manages to evoke sentiments beyond just anger and distress. It’s interesting to note that a Muslim woman in the 1950’s is writing about the experiences of a Hindu family and the interactions within it, using a male narrator and his perspective.

The story begins with the narrator going down his memory lane and reflecting on his relationship with his wife- Janaki. He narrates the incident of their marriage as one coming out from a Bollywood movie which is full of drama and tragedy. Janaki hailed from a poor family and was rejected at the wedding pyre as Janaki’s father- Masterji could not present the groom’s family with adequate dowry. In a heroic moment, the narrator decides to marry Janaki as he had a strong desire to “achieve something” in the field of ‘social reform’. Once married, the narrator claims to have put the fear of life in his wife by setting his expectations upfront with regard to her marital duties. He says that this action of his may have been responsible for replacing the emotion of love in his life with one of duty and submissiveness. The narrator describes his marriage of twenty odd years as an unexciting journey where he did not really know his fellow traveller (who was duty bound with no desires whatsoever). Janaki fulfils all her duties with servitude towards her husband’s family until she passes away with all her dreams and desires intact.

I feel that the story is extremely well written with many a subtleties adding to the beauty of the narrative and the text itself. The story is particularly interesting to me as I am so disconnected with the context described in the narrative. The protagonists of the story were able to enter the social contract of marriage out of duty, obligation and to follow a decree of the society; while marriage for me is an expression of choice, love and friendship. In addition to this, I feel that as the narration moves forward, complex layers are added to characters and the plot itself without explicitly mentioning the same. This ambiguity in the author’s style leaves a great room for interpretation and discussion of complex undertones of the plot and the story. For instance, phrases and sentences like “.... swagger of a national hero” or “…. No one would accuse us for having married for love” or “…Indian women do not have the power to think…” speaks volumes about the narrator without having to describe the protagonists using finer adjectives.

While the author leaves out the bigger details (like character descriptions of Janaki and the narrator), she does not fail to describe the small details in the setting of the story which adds a whole new dimension to the narrative. For instance, “…. I entered the bride’s dingy house. In the courtyard a light-bulb- for which a makeshift connection had been taken from somewhere- emitted a sickly light. A few shapeless bits of bunting hung desolately across, and an old record was playing. Those present were mostly silent…” This description takes me to the author’s setting without divorcing it from the story itself.

After an involved and intense discussion about the story with my group members, I came to realise that all our interpretations of the story were coloured by our contexts. Louise Rosenblatt’s ‘Transactional theory’ (1960) states that ‘literature’ can only be brought to life with different interpretations and experiences of the readers. This understanding of ‘literature’ definitely added to my experience with the story and the discussion with my group. Some of us were able to feel Janaki’s pain and state that many such self-sacrificing Janakis still existed while others thought that Janaki’s demeanour was a result of her subdued and traditional upbringing. While I personally remained quite detached from Janaki’s suffering, it was intriguing to note that some of my group members were able to connect with the story at various personal levels which definitely enhanced my literary experience with the group.

This is the first time I have actively engaged in a discussion around a story that I chose deliberately. In retrospect, it’s interesting that I chose a story that is so far away from my context.  However, the story throws out themes that I find exciting. For example, this story is about people from a different era and social institutions (marriage, respect for elders, social conformity etc.) that exist to date. I knew that I will be able to contribute to and engage in a discussion if the themes were of my interest. Through this story I also realised that I pay attention to the finer details that add to the setting of the plot which makes for an appealing backdrop against which the actors play their parts. And in this particular story, the author has done a great job of bringing her words to life especially with respect to the setting and the main plot itself.

From an education point of view, literary discussions seem to have an immense potential for children to be nuanced thinkers. These discussions could help build values of respect for another’s point of view, accommodating and re-evaluating your own point of view in light of a stronger argument and building perspective. The various skills that one would acquire would be a by-product of healthy discussions. Some of the skills that a child could acquire are- articulating and presenting your argument in a sensitive manner knowing that your group members disagree with you, gaining a better insight into the story as everyone may emphasize on different facets of the same story, listening to everyone’s point of view etc.

As I reflect on my experience, I wonder if it’s possible for a teacher/ facilitator to formalize “talk” and structure discussions for young children. I am perhaps moving in the direction of “methods” but I believe it to be an imperative question given the situation of the Indian classrooms.