Ismat Chughtai vs. The Crown: The Obscene Lechery of Chughtai’s ‘Lihaaf’
Nirupama Vaylay
Introduction
Ismat Chughtai retells a riveting composition in her memoir, Kaghazi Hai Pairahan, of her summons to appear at Lahore High Court for obscenity charges in her short story Lihaaf (The Quilt) and the ordeal that ensued. Infamously headlined “Ismat Chughtai vs. The Crown,” the trials were held twice, in 1944 and 1946, respectively. Chughtai portrays a stark, witty, and colloquial picture of the narrative with easy flamboyance and nonchalance at times, especially of her regard towards the courtroom drama.
The Political Context of Lihaaf and British Rule in India
It is an irrefutable fact that politics and political discourse of a period, more times than not, are directly proportional to incidents around socio-cultural nuances. The scenario of Lihaaf cannot be looked out of political context as the British were at threads for political survival. The anti-colonial nationalist sentiments were at their peak and ready to burst at any hint of revolutionary activity.
Lihaaf drew in outrage for its apparent hinting at homosexuality between two women. Although the relationship and the story could be looked at for its classist and casteist differences, a chance at pedophilia, and male homosexuality, it spiraled to the courtroom out of abhorrent rage over the ‘obscene lechery’ of female homosexuality.
The notoriety surrounding it forms a critical idea of the entanglement of law, British rule in India, and the impudent urge to penalize obscenity in literature. Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a British-made law that prohibits the production and dissemination of obscene materials across various mediums. It has later been attested with tests like Hicklin and Roth in judicial systems whose implementation and controversy lingers until the present day.
The Definition and Elusiveness of Obscenity in Literature
Eroticism has always been a part of Indian culture dating back to the ancient engravings, paintings, and literature that often had lavish displays of glory and grandeur. From the texts of Kamasutra and Anangarangah to the temples of Khajuraho and Virupaksha, ancient Indians dealt with sexuality and eroticism in a rather open fashion. Nonetheless, the definition of obscenity has always been afloat to change and challenge in parallel with a radar of criticism and scrutiny.
Obscenity could be an abstract, a quantifiable variant, or not. Obscenity exists in the minds of those who believe in it and is not a quality of a book or a picture. Perhaps, it could be in the eyes that behold and the perspective the mind forms. But such a view would only bind until so far, especially under the impertinent circumstances of the legal arena. Its legal framework has by far eluded any variable.
Chughtai and Manto’s Trials: Too Queer for Art?
Manto has been the first-ever literary author compelled to appear in front of a jury, in fact, for no less than six times. He accompanied Chughtai for a trail of his work Boo and its inter-caste and classist relationship dynamics. In a packed courtroom with a bemused audience, Chughtai showcased a strong defense for her freedom of speech despite being offered to be paid off to close the case innumerable times, even during courtroom proceedings.
Amidst the ongoing discussion of Chughtai’s trial, the defendant’s lawyer asked the witness to define obscene in Lihaaf. Upon the questioning, the witness boggled with a tentative conclusion and pointed at the words “collection of lovers,” making for no substantial evidence and a clear victory for Chughtai. The two words, combined or individually, do not hold any lewd meaning, certainly not if they were to put them in the context of heterosexuality or male homosexuality. The idea of women and their agency, especially of the subaltern characters that are otherwise unspeakable in the legal corpus, had not seen any light of representation. Lihaaf has pioneered the invisible and unimaginable body under the obscene gaze of law that was symbiotic with the socio-cultural climate of the time.
A Challenge to Standards of Respectability
The dissent to address the understanding and knowledge of queerness between an Islamic bourgeoisie woman and an oppressed woman was enough to cause legal and social distress. With no direct mention or implications in the narrative from an innocent child’s point of view, the lawyer won the case, basking in the invisibility and impossibility of queerness in the legal realm to their advantage. This speaks volumes about the independence of women’s agency and the fear of the possibility of queerness among them.
At a time when society subjugated different classes of women different standards of propriety, Lihaaf was prompted to question the parameters of respectability to not align with sexual identity and domestic relations. This was novel to the public and their national ideals of women.
Censorship and Transgression of Femininity
Lihaaf shunned the silence on women’s sexual needs in a society that treated them as objects and subservient creatures. Its blatant censorship only proves the space for, or lack thereof, female sexual content and its transgression of class boundaries. The attempts to censor Lihaaf ultimately serve the interest of patriarchal masculinism. There is room for transgressive masculinity while space for transgressive femininity, especially for middle-class women, remains limited. Lihaaf hints at Begum’s husband, Saheb, being occupied with a younger lot of men he has undertaken his wing, which, the narrative, implies his interest in them for more than platonic reasons. However, this implication towards male homosexuality has not been highlighted in any of the discussions surrounding the story. The ignorance of male homoeroticism justifies how transgressive femininity holds a lower ground, prone to malignant consequences, in both legal and social contexts.
Conclusion
The spectacle of the charges of Lihaaf, the unapologetic non-conformist that is Ismat Chughtai, left an unmatched impact on the literary landscape and the queer community. It pivots the discussion around definite possibilities out of the binary relations. It challenges the law and its loopholes tied to socio-cultural repressions, with the question very much open to conflict on what is obscenity and what is not. After decades of moving on, the legal confidence and rights of the queer community remain flimsy while the socio-cultural conscience of it is a tale of melancholy.
References
- Aftab, Aqdas (2019). The Sexual Subaltern in Court: The Queer and Inter-Caste Obscenities of Ismat Chugtai’s “Lihaaf” and Saadat Hasan Manto’s “Boo”. Law and Literature from the Global South Vol. 7 №1. Journal of Global Postcolonial Studies. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A626205755/AONE?u=anon~e5eef7a3&sid=googleScholar&xid=1eb84887
- Ayoub, Shaifta (2017). Flak and Censor: Ismat Chughtai’s ‘Lihaaf’, The Story on Trial. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318588108_Flak_and_Censor_Ismat_Chughtai's_'Lihaaf'_The_Story_on_Trial
- Bhagabati, Dikshit (2019). Obscene or Artistic? The Poetics and Politics of the Obscenity Law in Indian Art and Literature. 3 Indian Law Review 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2019.1600214
- Bhatia, Nandi (2020). Censorship, “Obscenity” and Courtroom Drama: Reading Ismat Chughtai’s “Lihaaf” and “The ‘Lihaaf’ Trial”. Law & Literature, DOI: 10.1080/1535685X.2020.1721197 https://doi.org/10.1080/1535685X.2020.1721197
- Chughtai, Ismat. M., Asaduddin (2002). Kaghazi Hai Pairahan. Indian Literature, Vol. 46, №4 (210). Sahitya Akademi.
- Chughtai, Ismat. M., Asaduddin. Lihaaf (The Quilt).Manohar Publishers, New Delhi.
