Over the course of two short weeks and a few videos, Smriti Singh has experienced the full force of India-grade misogyny. The 26-year-old wife of Captain Anshuman Singh – who died in July 2023 in a fire accident in Siachen after rescuing three other colleagues – somehow went from being a “veernaari”, a heroine, to a scheming gold-digger.
Smriti first shot to virality on 7 July this year, when the Ministry of Defence tweeted a poignant video titled “Love at first sight…” The short video of Captain Singh’s mother and wife receiving the Kirti Chakra included an interview with Smriti, where she spoke movingly of the first flush of love, their eight-year-long distance relationship, and a marriage that lasted only five months before Captain Singh lost his life.
The day before she received the fateful news, Smriti said in the video while holding back tears, she and Anshuman had had a long conversation about the “next 50 years” of their life. By the early hours of 19 July 2023, he was gone. “Till date, I am unable to cope up… I’ve hoped that maybe this is not true,” she said, still clearly heartbroken and a little shocked. She ended the interview with a wonderfully wistful quotable quote: “I considered myself the top priority [for Anshuman]…turns out I’m just a little behind India.”
Thousands of comments accompanying that video lauded Smriti for being so composed, despite her obvious grief at losing a partner at such a young age. Some were tearful, some honoured her stoicism, yet others proffered help. Sadly, that’s how far the nation’s empathy could be stretched.
Within days, the National Commission for Women had to step in and call for the arrest of Ahmad K, a social media user who left a lewd comment on the video. This was one among several putrid comments, remarking on the young woman’s appearance. Meanwhile, Reshma Sebastian, a Kerala fashion influencer who bears a resemblance to Singh, was brutally bullied on Instagram and had to clarify that she was not the late captain’s wife. She also had to plead against her images being used to make insinuations against Smriti and spread misinformation about her.
But perhaps the statements made by her own in-laws, RP Singh and Manju Singh, dealt the hardest blow to Smriti. The tide began to turn somewhere around 9 July, when the late captain’s parents met Rahul Gandhi in Rae Bareli, followed by interviews with multiple media outlets. In these interviews, they criticised the Army’s “next of kin” policy and stated that even though they had lost their son, they did not “get anything”.
After sources in the Army clarified that the parents had actually received Rs 65 lakh – half of the Army Group Insurance Fund of Rs 1 crore, and nearly a third of the Rs 50 lakh aid announced by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath – the tenor of the interviews changed a little. They now accuse their daughter-in-law of disrespecting their late son, breaking all contact with them and changing her permanent address, and suggest that she is planning to “flee” the country with the Kirti Chakra.
Smriti Singh is no ‘gold digger’
I am not entirely sure why the elder Singhs have chosen to direct their ire so publicly at their young daughter-in-law. There is no doubt that their loss, as parents, is irredeemable. Even language fails at accurately capturing the pain of a bereaved parent, and the complex emotions that accompany such a loss can manifest in unexpected ways. The Singhs’ desire to maintain a connection to their son via their daughter-in-law is understandable on a human level.
But can the airing of what should have remained private discussions between a family, be put down to sorrow alone? And if the in-laws have been so forthcoming with their criticism in the media, isn’t there a possibility that they were doing the same – or worse – with her in private?
The fact that Smriti has not retaliated or aired her views on the subject has meant that Indian uncles and aunties have a field pass to skewer her. It’s given them a chance to click their tongues at “love marriage” and how scheming Indian bahus no longer “respect” their in-laws because they’re too educated and independent. In all of this, one thing is absolutely clear: Smriti is paying for the audacity of taking what she is legally entitled to – the compensation, the pension, the honour, the Kirti Chakra. And for this cardinal sin, she must be labelled a “gold digger”.
Even though she played no part in the Army’s NOK policy and has received the benefits in accordance with her late husband’s explicit wishes, in the narrow bylanes of the Indian internet, she has preyed upon her innocent in-laws. Her grief, her hopes and dreams, and her goals are somehow subservient to those of her in-laws.
But what are the goals of the in-laws? According to numerous interviews on record, RP Singh has made some remarkably offensive and outdated statements. In a YouTube interview with Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj, a prominent men’s rights activist, he put forth three choices to Smriti, including offering that she marry his younger son. None of these choices allow the young woman to do what she feels is right, which is presumably, not live with her in-laws, considering we are no longer in 1856.
Over and over again in that video, the father-in-law drove home the point that he was the mukhiya (head) of the household, that he had a responsibility toward Smriti, even though Smriti’s family categorically refused the offer to marry his younger son. He made a point about not even demanding dowry – a non-bailable offence in India – while also declaring that “contract marriage” is common among her community. He breathlessly insisted that the Singhs were willing to “pass on” the first child of the family to Smriti, though we were never told if this was something she had asked for.
Also read: I’m an Indian woman, I’m tired of outraging. Jharkhand tourist gangrape won’t change a thing
Her autonomy disrupts patriarchal order
So really, is the problem the NOK policy? Or is it that we’re still unable to digest that a woman, especially one who has lost her husband, can have complete autonomy over her life? That despite passionate proclamations from the Singhs, why is the support entirely conditional? What hinders our ability to understand that Smriti’s supposed decision to go “no contact” with her in-laws can be just as valid and carry the same weight as the lamentations of her in-laws?
The vitriol aimed at the young woman is a reflection of a more insidious problem: Her autonomy dysregulates a patriarchal order that underpins Indian society and sees women as the repository of familial honour. It forces women to play by the rules and heavily penalises those who don’t, often via a good old public shaming. Smriti’s refusal to play ‘the grieving widow’ to our exact specifications is a direct challenge to the power structures that benefit from women’s compliance.
Also read: I’m not happy defending Kangana Ranaut but I will—then I’ll move to fighting her on real things
Smriti Singh owes nothing to anybody
In a world that treats women’s boundaries as negotiable, Smriti Singh has firmly drawn hers. She has every right to lead the life she chooses, shorn of our collective expectations. She is under no obligation to be a model daughter-in-law, fading into the background on cue. She owes nothing to the rest of us, and likely has no use for our performative sympathy.
I wonder if the severe reactions Smriti has drawn would have been quite so potent had she not been an educated and articulate young woman with a mind of her own. What if she had appeared in public as a self-abnegating widow? What if she had chosen an ashram instead of Australia, and had countered the attacks on her with a demure bow of her head? Would the Indian public have been kinder to her then?
Unlikely. Just ask Nupur Talwar, mother of murdered teenager Aarushi Talwar, whose grief was deemed too little to be believable. Or Rhea Chakraborty, girlfriend of actor Sushant Singh who died by suicide, whose grief was considered too much to be authentic.
In the end, Smriti Singh’s greatest transgression is her refusal to be buried alive in the grave of self-abnegation that society has so thoughtfully prepared for her. Her silent defiance reminds us that a life of one’s choosing is one worth living. May her example inspire others, much to the horror of uncles and aunties all over India.
Karanjeet Kaur is a journalist, former editor of Arré, and a partner at TWO Design. She tweets @Kaju_Katri. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)