Who killed Fatima Ali Jinnah?

Published: July 29, 2016
Email

Forty-nine years later we continue to wonder if the madar-e-millat’s life was ended prematurely. PHOTO: www.broadlandsarchives.com

Fatima Jinnah, the sister of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Pakistan’s first woman presidential candidate all the way back in the 60s, remains a mystery for the nation, both in her life and her death. Her portrayal in various biographies of Jinnah, as well as popular fiction, has either been ambivalent or even net negative. 

The recently released Indian novel, Jinnah often came to our house, portrays her as a spoilt child and an overall malignant influence on Jinnah, instrumental in turning him from a leading light of the Indian independence movement and ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to a dogged separatist and champion of the Muslim cause. She is further portrayed as a sister jealously guarding over her eldest brother like a hawk. Even otherwise she is portrayed as an ill-mannered and apathetic woman for whom the milk of human kindness is completely evaded. This is a shameful portrayal of a woman who was as resourceful and bright as her illustrious brother. It is a terrible reduction of the remarkable stateswoman and farsighted individual that Fatima Jinnah was in her own right.

Much of the negative portrayal of Fatima Jinnah stems from her rocky relationship with another extraordinary woman in Pakistan’s history, Begum Ra’ana Liaquat Ali Khan, the wife of Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan and the first woman to serve as the governor of a province in Pakistan. Their mutual antipathy was legendary. Ra’ana Liaquat Ali Khan and other women of the Muslim League often complained that Fatima Jinnah was too possessive of her brother and did not allow them access to him. But there may have been a political reason for it as well.

Fatima Jinnah was ramrod straight like her brother and her clash with Liaquat Ali Khan’s government came relatively early on, when her radio speech was censored on the government’s orders. As Jinnah’s confidante and the heir of his political ideology, of democratic republicanism, Fatima Jinnah was a fearless critic of the government to a point that the government viewed her as a bit of a liability. In reply to a letter by Z A Bokhari of Radio Pakistan about the incident, Fatima Jinnah wrote,

“It is also a matter of wonderment for me that the very sentences that you requested to omit from the speech were the ones which could not be broadcast due to the technical problem. It seems your transmitters are very obedient and submissive as they are always ready to create technical problems in order to facilitate you. The people who tried to create problems in my original speech, and stopped my voice from reaching the people, and tried to omit certain sentences of my speech, have in fact highlighted the importance (of these sentences) to the people. You mentioned in your letter that your regional stations reported about the flow of my speech. Had it been so, you would not have taken the trouble to apologise. As far as complaints by the people are concerned, it is your duty to satisfy them. Your explanation is neither satisfying, nor assuring. In such a case, an apology is merely a soft version of pleading guilty and admitting to one’s crime.”

Fatima Jinnah was almost always at odds with Pakistan’s rulers.

If Liaquat Ali Khan and his coterie were at the receiving end of her sharp tongue, she was particularly disillusioned by President Iskandar Mirza’s first republican government which lasted from 1956-1958. This is why when General Ayub Khan took over after Iskandar Mirza and abrogated the Constitution in 1958, Fatima Jinnah initially welcomed it, calling it a new era in Pakistan’s history.

Soon, however, she turned against the Ayub regime as well. She was particularly put off by the basic democracy experiment which took away adult franchise from the people of Pakistan. This was Ayub Khan’s ‘democracy’ suited to the ‘genius of the people’. As with Iskandar Mirza, Ayub Khan took a dim view of democratic politics and the will of the people. Instead, both these military men had wanted to shape a paternalistic state which would dictate policy top down. Fatima Jinnah was by training and inclination a democrat, even more staunchly so than her brother. She was to ask,

“What sort of democracy is that? One man’s democracy? Fifty persons’ democracy?”

Therefore, when the combined opposition approached her to become the presidential candidate against Ayub Khan in 1964-1965, she readily agreed. It must be remembered that her backers included people like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan and Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, all to be called traitors variously in our history. All of them had concluded that Fatima Jinnah, being Jinnah’s sister and his political heir, was the right person to deliver Pakistan from a military dominated national security state that it was becoming. People all over Pakistan, particularly in East Pakistan, rallied to her support, a poignant fact that must be underscored when people claim that Bangladesh was bound to leave the union. Had Fatima Jinnah been elected in on January 2, 1965, Pakistan’s history would have been very different. South Asia would have been spared two costly wars and a second partition. Pakistan would have made history. While Pakistan did elect Benazir Bhutto as the first prime minister in the Muslim world and therefore the head of government, Pakistan has never had a female president or head of state. Fatima Jinnah ran her campaign around one main issue – adult franchise for the people of Pakistan. 

I believe that Fatima Jinnah, had she been elected, would have presided over the making of Pakistan’s first truly democratic constitution, which would have included East Pakistan as well. One can only imagine what an extraordinary country we could have turned out to be. As it so happens the election was heavily rigged in favour of Pakistan’s Field Marshall president, who ran a dirty and shameful campaign.

A female dog was paraded in Gujranwala with a lantern hanging from its collar. The lantern was Fatima Jinnah’s election symbol. Fatima Jinnah herself was denounced as being backed by Indians and Americans. The support by Ghaffar Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgars, who had historically opposed partition of India, was provided as evidence of Indian backing. It just goes to show that even Jinnah’s sister was not immune from these base allegations that are commonplace in the verbal armoury of the so called Pakistani nationalist.

Time magazine reported on how Ayub Khan had become a headless chicken,

“Nonetheless, he is running scared, because candidate Jinnah has managed to focus every form of discontent in the country. To brake her bandwagon, he abruptly decreed that elections would be held January 2nd, instead of March, as originally scheduled. Explaining lamely that the situation is “a little tense,” the government also rescinded a law specifying that political rallies must be open to the public. At closed meetings with groups of electors, Ayub answered practical questions sensibly enough, but kept lashing out at the opposition with growing anger. Countering Miss Jinnah’s repeated charge that he had been unable to restrain the US from helping Pakistan’s No 1 adversary, India, Ayub’s campaign, in fact, was turning increasingly anti-American.”

In the aftermath of the 1965 war and especially with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s defection from the Ayub camp, the Ayub regime began tottering on the brink. Then in 1967, on July 9th, Fatima Jinnah was found dead in mysterious circumstances in her house. It was said that her dead body had deep cuts and wounds. Fatima Jinnah had only a day before her sudden death attended a wedding and was found in good spirits. It was not until a few years later that Ghulam Sarwar Malik filed an application under Section 176(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 calling for exhumation of Fatima Jinnah’s remains for post mortem.

Nothing came out of it predictably.

Forty-nine years later we continue to wonder if the madar-e-millat’s life was ended prematurely. The powers that we had seen, the hold she had on the people. Did they fear her leading a final movement against the Ayub regime? However you look at it, one thing is certain. The fate of a united Pakistan was sealed with her death.

Every year there is some mention of Fatima Jinnah on her birthday (July 31st) or her death anniversary (July 9th) but hardly any mention of how patchily we treated the founder’s sister. During her life, we censored her and tried to marginalise her. An election was stolen from her. Her book, My brother, was cruelly censored by Shariful Mujahid in the name of the “ideology of Pakistan”. Even small things like the affidavit that she signed declaring that her brother was a “Shia Khoja Mohammadan” were deliberately obscured. And in the end, she was probably murdered. That is the only plausible conclusion one can draw from the events surrounding her sudden death.

Pakistan is a poorer less hopeful place because of the way we treated the woman we pretended to call our mother.

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Yasser Latif Hamdani

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore and the author of the book Mr Jinnah: Myth and Reality. He tweets as @theRealYLH (twitter.com/therealylh)

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • C M Naim

    No doubt Miss Jinnah was very poorly treated by the very people who owed their entire careers to her brother. But then her stepping into politics was on the sole basis of being someone’s sister. She had no experience of governance, and the coterie of people around her was not particularly distinguished. As for the exposés by Mr Balouch that are referred to, I take them with a grain or two of salt, unless I’m willing to believe that the the final washing of Miss Jinnah’s body was done by a man named Kallu Ghussal. Dr. Mujahid, of course, was much less a scholar than a petty bureaucrat.Recommend

  • Anis-ur-Rehman

    It was the duty of the then government to investigate the matter as who killed mother of the nation.

    Since it was not investigated 49 years ago immediately after her death, I think it is impossible by now to investigate as who killed Madar-e-Millat and on whose behest, as no evidence will be found out by now.

    One can presume that after a lapse of 49 years even the actual murderer must have been killed or died long time back.

    However, if the sitting government wants to investigate Madar-e-Millat’s unnatural death, it can do so and this may take another 50 years to reach to a conclusion, or may be not, similar to the cases of Fatima Ali Jinnah’s properties lying pending in Sindh High Court, Karachi for ages.

    Recommend

  • imxohail

    What a daring article. Great job mate!Recommend

  • MJ

    From another article:

    On July 7, 1964, Miss Fatima Jinnah had attended a wedding ceremony and everyone witnessed that she was in sound health. However, on July 9, it was suddenly announced that she had passed away. During her funeral, no common man was allowed to go near her dead body. No one was allowed to see her face for the last time before she was buried. Those who tried to do so, were baton-charged and dealt with tear gas.

    There were rumors that the mother of the nation had visible marks of wounds on her body.

    Malik Ghulam Sarwar said further that he had concerns that Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah was murdered. Later, Hassan A. Shaikh and other respected individuals, too, expressed similar concerns. The matter has also been highlighted in newspapers. Some even wrote editorials on it.

    On August 2, 1971, a local Urdu newspaper published a news report which claimed that Miss Fatima Jinnah had been murdered. The report included interviews of the people who had given her the ghusl – ritualistic bath given to the dead before burial, as per Islamic tradition. In case of state personalities, people are hired to do the job.

    The news item quotes one of these hired men – Hidayat Ali aka Kallu Ghusl – as saying that the corpse of Miss Fatima Jinnah had visible wounds on it, and there was an opening in her stomach which oozed blood and other fluids. Her bloodstained clothes were also with him as evidence. However, he said, no one from the administration paid any attention to his requests of inquiry, nor was the matter ever made public. Other companions of Kallu Ghussaal, too, confirmed the reports.Recommend

  • Napier Mole

    The contents of the book referred may or may not be true, but it remains a fact that a Hall of Fame for our independence movement heroes remain curiously empty or atleast known. How many Pakistan, especially school children, know anything significant about Nishtar, Fazl e Haq, Nazimuddin, and others of this league.Recommend

  • Sajjad Ashraf

    From what I know from my sources of families close to the Quaid, the was very possessive of her brother, which necessarily created lots of problems with in the and beyond.Recommend

  • Huma Ch.

    And to date the democracy of the few 50s run in power. Whats the point of Pk if its a killer of its own creators. Sometimes I hate south asia- Indians killed Gandhi and Pk killed her. What is the future of these nations who’ve killed their mohsin?Recommend

  • Talha Rizvi

    Sir are you the Urdu scholar C.M naim? If yes then I’m a huge fan of your articles in Dawn.Recommend

  • Talha Rizvi

    Only someone like YLH could have written this article. Brilliant and brutally honest as usual.Recommend

  • Ali Vazir

    There is no doubt about it that Ayub organized the worst rigged elections, opening a dark chapter in the dark history of this very young nation.
    To make things worse, the main opponent was later found dead in mysterious circumstances with no investigations made about her mysterious death. Yes, we have had dark history. We cannot move forward unless investigate things in an honest manner, even if decades have passed. At least, we can demand that.Recommend

  • Jawad

    All this happened way before I was born, but through studies and keeping in view our recent 2 decades national behavior(since I have got into senses to understand whats what), what I can confirm is that we, as a nation dont respect or pay back to the people who did something for us a nation. And that applies to people belonging to all fields of life. demanding a trial for her death is probably way to late but what we can do is to retain what she or her brother wanted us to be as a nation. we owe these brother and sister everything we own in return of what they have left us withRecommend

  • An Indian

    “when General Ayub Khan took over after Iskandar Mirza and abrogated the Constitution in 1958, Fatima Jinnah initially welcomed it, calling it a new era in Pakistan’s history.”
    Some democrat indeed she was. I guess, one of a kind.Recommend

  • http://www.cidpusa.org/ Imran Khan

    Superb Journalism and seems like Ayub held the smoking gun.Its time to put the military back in their barracks.Recommend

  • Iftikhar Ali

    doubted am i about the sacred Harmony of PakistanRecommend

  • XeeChaun

    it
    was Khuram Dastgir’s father who paraded a female dog with lantern
    hanging from its collar. and he would ask the female dog “you will
    contest the election?”.
    His son is a minister today. RIPRecommend

  • http://oocities.com/mfidaca Mohammed Fida

    Miss Fatima Jinnah (Madar-e-Millat) by Mohammad Fida July 9,1988
    Rarely in the history of the sub-continent a lady statesperson and politician has been so praised and adored by the masses as Miss. Fatima Jinnah. She was the sister of the father of nation but that was not the only reason for her popularity as Quaid-i-Azam has had four brothers and three sisters besides her. In fact it was her own dedication and love the very cause that her brother was fighting for realizing the dream of the Indian Muslims.

    In the recently published book by the Quaid-i-Azam Academy Islamabad, “My Brother”, Fatima Jinnah did narrate the story of her brother’s last days while she was constantly besides him till his death. The personal services she rendered to the Father of the Nation did earn her a distinction yet it would not be out of reason that the Quaid himself opted for her assistance. As the accounts of the Quid’s last physician Dr. Illahi Bux confirm the Quaid was sick for long time since 1945 and as the last words of the last Viceroy of India Lord Mount batten state: “had he (Mount batten) known about the health of Mr. Jinnah and he (Quaid-i-Azam) will be passing away that soon, he would have delayed the partition of India, say for a year”, speak about the very role and character of Miss. Jinnah in keeping the personal secrets of the Father of Nations in tact to the last degree, in the mere interests of the Pakistan movement.

    Probably Quaid-i-Azam knew about the outcome of such at a situation that is why he entrusted his personal assistance and secretarial office to the person of Miss. Jinnah who happened to be of the equal strength and courage in doing her job and honestly she did wonder in her capacity as a sister, friend, companion, secretary and a nurse to the Quaid till his death. And to this effect she had to give up her professional practice of a Medical Doctor (Dentistry). On every occasion of the Quid’s engagements, official or private, she was always available to see the smooth executions of the affairs as per the satisfaction of the Quaid. Thus going through her biography one can see her constantly busy by the side of the Quaid while he would be conducting higher meetings, or laying in rest at Ziarat, or in the PAF Falcon on his last journey back to Karachi.

    After the death of the Quaid, she did prefer to retire to a private life but still was constantly watching the happenings over the national scene. Thus she intervened twice in the national politics. Firstly, in 1954 when the situation in East Pakistan was getting un-Pakistan like and secondly in 1964 when she was nominated by the combined opposition parties of Pakistan to run against the then President Ayub Khan. On that very occasion the country was under a controlled democracy wherein 80,000 member of the Electoral College were to vote for the President. Accordingly she knew the powers of such a government and the very dim chances of her winning but still she did prefer to come forward and extend an open challenge to the then dictatorial regime under its own defined bureaucratic rules. Miss Jinnah stood for the integrity and solidarity of the nation with and under the available rule of law prevailing in the then Pakistan. She voiced for the democracy for the people and by the people. In the end she did loose as it was expected of the then prevailing system but still she helped the masses to have faith in their own destinies and moral character to say ‘NO’ to any dictatorship.

    The 1965 elections under the B.D., system electrified the masses that were later to be exploited by the government with the emergence of defense situation at Runn of Kuch area bordering India and the September war. During all this time she remained silent and was watching developments accepting her defeat as a democratic process amid an undemocratic system was being made available. This was the proof of her being a gentle politician who would go to any extreme but within the available legal limits. A year later after the said election on 9 July 1966 miss Jinnah died while in sleep and was buried in the Mazare Quaid-i-Azam area besides Quaid-i-Millat Liaqat Ali Khan and Sardar Nishtar, two other trusted lieutenants of the Father of Nation.Recommend

  • Bootlick

    I can understand YLH’s one sided love for jinnah as he was after all, father of pakistan.
    But, what did fatima do besides being born to the same mother as jinnah?Recommend

  • sridhar

    Mohammad Fida wrote ( Lord Mount batten state: “had he (Mount batten) known about the health of Mr. Jinnah and he (Quaid-i-Azam) will be passing away that soon, he would have delayed the partition of India, say for a year”,…)
    Lord Mountbatten never said that.
    When he came to India as Governor General, his instructions from Clement Atlee, the then PM of England were “to oversee the transition of British India to independence no later than 1948. Mountbatten’s instructions emphasised a united India as a result of the transference of power but authorised him to adapt to a changing situation in order to get Britain out promptly with minimal reputational damage.”
    (source: Ziegler, Philip (1985). Mountbatten: The Official Biography. London: HarperCollins.page 59).
    It was not possible for Mountbatten to have avoided partition by delaying it. Many forces other than Jinnah were at work here. A Great Game was afoot where West was trying to stop fast expansion of Russia’s influence in the region. Pakistan was being envisaged as a bulwark against such an expansion, India having refused military bases to the West.Recommend

  • sridhar

    Pakistan’s defeat was not in the fact that Fatima Jinnah lost the “rigged” election and perhaps paid a heavy price for openly defying a military dictator but that the people of Pakistan did not come out in large numbers to support her and protest after the rigged elections.
    People of Pakistan have often favored dictators. They somehow imagine an “Ataturk like” figure coming and saving Pakistan! This has never happened and will never happen but the hope of such a figure emerging persists in the minds of people of Pakistan.
    Everytime a dicatator takes over in Pakistan, there is a celebration. This was last witnessed when Musharraf took over the country after ousting Nawaz Shrief and trashing the Constitution of Pakistan.Recommend

  • sridhar

    Well her brother Jinnah was no democrat either. He declared himself the Governor General of Pakistan in 1947 and assumed that unelected office, presiding over Cabinet meetings!Recommend

  • Nr Sheikh

    Very well said indeed.Recommend

  • Nr Sheikh
  • Nr Sheikh

    Very interesting & serious discussion on the final departure of Madar e Millat, seldom find such concern with dedication. I must appreciate it. From my childhood I heard that she was poisoned due to political reasons. In documentaries and paper or electronic media she looked as a very gentle, very graceful, silent diligent supporter of her brother, gracefully dressed on all occasions like an Angel. She always fascinated me.
    Few questions are disturbing me regarding Miss Jinnah’s death which any one of you may answer to ease my curiosity. On the death night or day….who were the house servants on duty and off duty? They must had been introgated, and is it possible that her family members were not informed , even to attend final rituals before tadfeen? What about family friends and their family members, what made them to zip their lips? And importantly media: Journalists, Editors & Photographers, Columnist, Teachers or Students those who had accompanied Quaid ….they had not sensed something is fishy fishy?
    Recommend

  • S.R.H. Hashmi

    The only time I came face to face with Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah was when working in an office in Saddar, I learnt she had come to a nearby shop. And being one of the few persons that I really respected, I rushed to get the sole autograph in my life. And I presented to her a scarp book and a pen and she gave me the autograph smiling, writing her full name, in a beautiful, firm writing. And much against warnings from my colleagues, who happened to be from the big province, she did not even tell me off for presenting a scrap book and not a proper autograph book. The only other person I would have liked to get an autograph of was Quaid-e-Azam himself but being resident in Lahore then, I did not get an opportunity.

    The writer says “Fatima Jinnah was almost always at odds with Pakistan’s rulers.” And considering the type of leadership we were ‘blessed with’ then, I must take it as a compliment to her. She would never compromise on principles, grasped the actual situation well, and made her comments without mincing her words.
    Being unlucky to lose Qaid-e-Azam so soon after the creation of Pakistan, Mohatarma Fatima Jinnah was the only hope and had Ayub Khan not rigged the 1965 elections so badly, the history of Pakistan would have been pleasantly different. The fact that the combined opposition chose her as the presidential candidate and persons as diverse as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan and Shaikh Mujibur Rahman had complete trust in her and saw her as the true heir of Quaid-e-Azam, just testifies to the writer’s claim that had 1965 election not been stolen by Ayub Khan, South Asia would have been spared two costly wars and our Eastern Wing would not have separated.

    It is indeed the greatest of our misfortunes that Ayub Khan who had flawed service record in the British army which would have barred his rise to senior rank like that of a General, became a Gerneral, A Commander-in-Chief, a president, and promoted himself to the rank of Field Marshal.

    And even when he was forced to relinquish power under public pressure, in order to punish the masses for being ‘ungrateful’ to him, Ayub imposed General Yahya Khan on the country, which proves that troubles do not come singly. Yahya Khan just completed the task of breaking up Pakistan and brought ultimate shame on the country by staging the largest surrender in the Muslim history and second only in world history. Ayub Khan also set the trends for military takeovers which never allowed democracy to firm up in Pakistan.

    And the real ‘credit’ for creating ethnic tensions in Karachi also goes to father-son team which punished Karachiites for supporting Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah and further marginalized the Urdu-speaking people through official and unofficial means, including pure terrorism through various ittehads (alliances) formed for the purpose. The fact that APMSO and MQM were not formed until a good three decades after the creation of Pakistan clearly meant that Urdu-speaking people were forced to organize themselves in order to be in a better position to face the onslaught.

    And had Mohtarma Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah not been robbed of the election victory, Pakistan and all, I repeat , all Pakistanis would have been better off today.

    I can’t say for sure whether Ayub Khan had a hand in Mohtarma’s death but he was mean and revengeful enough to do a thing like that and he sure maimed, if not quite killed Pakistan. After all, Liaquat Ali Khan was also murdered.

    Karachi.Recommend

  • Salim Alvi

    Who killed? It is the same Bedouin enslaving ideology called Islam which killed 2 Million Indians in 1947 and 3 Million in 1971, also killed Fatima.Recommend

  • bigsaf

    Did not realize it was that bad for her. Such a depressing history…Recommend

  • MJ

    Urdu speaking people who migrated from India and their offspring are traitors and RAW agents, Bengalis were traitors who hated Pakistan, Pashto speaking Pathans are enemies of the state in the form of Taliban, Baloch youth and thinkers are BLO separatists and traitors who work with RAW, Sindhi youth killed during Zia’s reign were Jeay Sindh activists and working to break the country. All leaders of Pushto, Baloch, Sindhi and Urdu speaking people who sincerely worked for Pakistan as well as their ancestors are traitors ….. Certain people are missing from this statement and narrative of the establishment … guess who has been left out?Recommend

  • Shahid Husain

    Mr Hamdani should please see Quaid-e-Azam’s nephew, Mr. Liaquat Merchant’s statement in The Dawn of !st Aug. 2003 categorically refuting any such notion. It reads in part:

    “The fact is that when Ms Fatima Jinnah did not wake up one morning in July 1967, the family was alerted and its four members and Lady Hidayatullah went to Mohatta Palace in Karachi where with the help of authorities entry was secured and Miss Fatima Jinnah was found lying on her bed covered by a sheet”, Mr Liaquat Merchant said.

    “There was no evidence of any physical violence or bleeding or blood stains of any kind, but there was some suspicion of foul play which remained a suspicion. Enquiries conducted by the then commissioner of Karachi and later by the West Pakistan home minister did not reveal anything new and it was presumed that she died a natural death, though suspicion of foul play continued in the minds of her admirers and emerged once again this year when the year of Ms Fatima Jinnah is being celebrated by the government.”

    Mr Merchant said several persons had claimed that by virtue of their very close association, they visited and saw Ms Fatima Jinnah on the day of her death, but the fact is that apart from the four close family members and Lady Hidayatullah there was no other person present when Ms Fatima Jinnah was found dead in her bedroom in Mohatta Palace in July 1967. Other friends and admirers arrived later. ————-Recommend

  • MUJAHID ESHAI

    I vividly recall Miss Jinnah’s campaign. I was part of it even though rather young. My maternal grandfather gave the welcome address at the mammoth public meeting in Liaqaut Bagh, RawalPindi. She was immensely popular with the masses and there was hardly any doubt that she would win. Wherever she went and wherever she spoke in her anglicised Urdu people listened to her, cheered her. Ayub Khan had the BD’s (Basic Democrats) under control. He rigged the election in West Pakistan through them. He was unable to do so in East Pakistan.
    As far as the Ghusl story is concerned. I have some doubts about the person who gave her the Ghusl. In accordance with the religious and social norms no male is allowed to perform the ceremony only females. So, if a male did do the ghusl, where were the great upholders of chaddar and chardewari?Recommend