CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.
Literary and Cultural Writeups .
On the Impossibility of a Meeting between Lal
Ded and Sayyid Ali Hamadani
The persistent claim
that Lal Ded (Lalla, Lalleshvari) met Sayyid ʿAli Hamadani (Shah-i Hamadan) has
circulated widely in later Kashmiri devotional literature. Yet when the
question is examined through chronology, primary testimony and textual
transmission, the conclusion is unequivocal: no such meeting can be
historically sustained. The narrative belongs to retrospective syncretic memory
rather than to verifiable fourteenth-century history.
Chronological
Demonstration
Except for the statement of Azam Dedmari, most chroniclers rely upon approximations or
conjectural reconstructions when dating Lal Ded’s life. Dedmari alone provides
a categorical assertion: that Lal Ded passed away during the reign of Sultan
Shihab-ud-Din (r. 1355–1373 CE). This reign, therefore, furnishes the only firm
chronological bracket for her death. Even if one adopts the final year of the
Sultan’s rule—1373 CE—as the year of Lal Ded’s demise, the chronology itself
eliminates the possibility of any substantive encounter with Hamadānī. Around
1372–1373 CE, Hamadānī was not an established spiritual authority residing in
Kashmir. Rather, he was in a migratory phase with his companions amidst the
political upheavals of Central Asia. At precisely the moment when Hamadani had
not yet consolidated a presence in the Valley, Lal Ded, according to Dedmari’s
definitive statement, had already departed this world. Thus, even under the
most generous chronological assumption, the overlap between the two figures is
negligible to the point of impossibility. The dates indicate succession rather
than coexistence.
The argument is
further strengthened by the research of the late Professor Jaya Lal Kaul, who
documents Hamadānī’s substantive stay in Kashmir as extending approximately
from 1380 to 1384 CE. This chronology places his effective missionary and
institutional activity at least seven years after 1373—the outermost plausible
date of Lal Ded’s death. Professor Kaul’s dating decisively widens the temporal
gap, rendering any meeting historically untenable. Chronology here is not
merely suggestive; it is decisive.
Silence of Early and
Near-Contemporary Sources
The chronological
case is reinforced by the complete absence of corroboration in early materials.
The continuations of Rajatarangini—particularly those of Jonaraja and Srivara,
who document the political and religious developments of fourteenth-century
Kashmir record no encounter between Lal Ded and Hamadani. Given the
chroniclers’ attentiveness to prominent religious figures, this silence carries
evidential weight.
Persian sources
associated with Hamadani’s circle emphasise his scholarship, missionary work
and relations with rulers. They contain no reference to a dialogue with an
established Shaiva mystic. Considering the symbolic value such an encounter
would have held within Kubrawi historiography, its absence strongly suggests
that no such meeting was known to early transmitters.
The poetic corpus attributed to Lal Ded, which was transmitted orally for generations before compilation, contains no references to Hamadani or Kubrawi Sufi doctrinal vocabulary. Its metaphysical structure remains firmly rooted in Trika Śaivism and indigenous yogic praxis, without any demonstrable textual interface with Hamadānī’s theological framework. In historiographical method, the absence of evidence does not automatically constitute evidence of absence. However, when the purported event would have united two of the most influential spiritual figures of the century—figures whose lesser interactions were otherwise recorded—the silence becomes probative.
Retrospective
Syncretic Construction
The narrative of a
meeting emerges only in later devotional and syncretic traditions, where it
serves a reconciliatory purpose. As Kashmiri collective memory increasingly
articulated a vision of spiritual continuity between Śhaiva mysticism and Sufi
Islam, Lal Ded was retrospectively cast as a precursor figure, while Hamadānī
was portrayed as the institutional consolidator of Islam in the Valley. Such
harmonisation reflects an evolving communal imagination rather than
fourteenth-century historical fact. The motif of saintly encounter, common
across Islamic and Indic hagiographies, functions symbolically and
didactically, not historiographically.
So, when Dedmari’s categorical dating (death before or in 1373 CE) is read alongside Hamadānī’s migratory status in 1372–1373 CE, and further alongside Professor Kaul’s documentation of his effective residence in Kashmir from 1380 to 1384 CE, the chronological separation becomes decisive. This is also confirmed by many scholars from Tajikistan who have written about the travels of Mir Sayyid Ali Hamdani. This separation is reinforced by the silence of Sanskrit chronicles, early Persian Sufi materials and the internal theological coherence of Lal Ded’s Vaakhs. On strictly historical grounds: chronology, documentary silence and textual analysis—the conclusion is unavoidable: Lal Ded and Sayyid Ali Hamadani did not meet. The endurance of the narrative reflects not contemporaneous evidence but a later cultural aspiration to symbolise concord between Kashmir’s Shaiva and Sufi traditions.
Dr Shashi Shekhar Toshakhani also confirms this in his research-based write-ups and scholarly interpretations of the syntax, grammar, and language of Kashmiri poetry written around the 13th and 14th centuries in the Kashmir Valley. I remain beholden to him for many clarifications that I got after reading his write-ups. I also searched the subject in various Sanskrit and Persian texts and history books on the relevant period, apart from reading almost all available compilations of Lal-Vaakhs.
(Avtar Mota )
Using Suggi ( a widow from a family of barbers to Dogra Maharajas ) as protagonist, Padma Sachdev takes the reader on a trip through Jammu city right from her childhood days till sometime around 1994-95. In this journey, one visits Panjtirthi locality, where Padma spent her childhood after her family shifted from Purmandal. The reader comes across the steep foot paths (Dakkis) leading to the River Tawi. These paths would come live everyday early in the pre-dawn darkness as men and women went to the River Tawi for bathing. The reader visits the narrow lanes and clean mud houses with courtyards that were made dirt-free using cow dung spread. Wonderfully descriptive scenes have been created around Suggi’s house; tinkling of bells at the Mahalakshmi Temple of Pucca Danga, Jangam Babas at Peer Kho Temple on the Tawi bank, Daunthali Bazaar, Purani Mandi, Kachi Chhawani, Maniyaari shops, warm kitchens with timber burnt for cooking food, the smoked utensils, Chapatis, Daal, Karhi Chaawal, Kachaalu, home made mango pickle, morning Desi tea with sugar and a pinch of salt, Khameer, eating juicy Kimb( citrus fruit ), elders with Hookah, Pateesa, Darbar Move, walnut tree bark used as Daatun and many more easily identifiable lifestyle images of Jammu city’s past.
Every morning, the Gujjar women (with heavy silver anklets), living in hills adjoining the city, walk through steep paths (Dakkis in local parlance) to bring milk to the city. They sit and gossip in a confident and carefree manner with the Shah (shopkeeper). This scene is almost extinct now as milk is ferried to the city by male Gujjars in motor vehicles through roads that connect their houses with Jammu city. As you move through the pages, you find women in tight Churridaar Pyjamas (Suthhan) singing: ……..
‘Pal pal beyi jaana ho jindhe
Raati reyi jaana ho Jindhe’
(Love sit for a while over here too
Love stay for a night over here too.
Women prefer to sit in groups after they finish their work. While sitting, each woman is busy with some kind of work that could be knitting or needlework. Away from their mothers-in-law, young women giggle when a married girl joins to say:
“Breikurr gilli bii balley
Sas gareeban be larre “
(The Breikurr shrub burns even if it is wet,
And the mother-in-law quarrels even if she is poor.
After they finish the kitchen work, women busy themselves with the Charkha and keep singing in a low tone …
“Ladli na rakh baawala
Teri ladali de din thoday
Laadli me Iyaan rakhii ye
Jiyaan kaagdhe de vich sunna”
(Father, don’t pamper your daughter
She has a brief stay at your house
“I have kept my darling daughter
Like we keep precious gold inside paper.)
“Chambe diye daahladiye moiye bindh duaas ni ho
Kal unney aayii ponaa khirri khirri banii banii po”
(O You like a branch laden with Champa flowers, do not turn to sorrow,
Dress up and sit like a blooming flower, tomorrow he shall be arriving.)
Suggi is a witness to the painful events of 1947 and the arrival of refugees from Mirpur, Rajouri, Bhimber and other adjoining areas to Jammu city. Her memory is stored with many tragic events of 1947, when man turned beast. She also narrates with pride as to how some people still retained sanity when people behaved as lunatics. For her, Pakistan was created out of pain and suffering resulting from the killing of many innocent people across both sides of the border. She misses Sialkot, where some of her childhood friends and neighbours migrated. She is sympathetic to refugees who arrived from POK and also misses her Muslim neighbours who left for Pakistan. Unfortunately, Padma Sachdev also lost her father, Sanskrit scholar Professor Jai Dev Baru, in the communal frenzy of 1947.
Once
Suggi goes to the official residence of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad in Jammu, as
she is thrown out of her custodian accommodation by some
government officials. She motivates Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad to come to her house
in a jeep and make a spot decision. While Bakshi drives the jeep personally,
Suggi sits in the front seat smilingly. To the surprise of her foes, Bakshi
does justice in his own style to poor Suggi. He allots another custodian house
to her during this visit. People gather to see the Prime Minister coming to
meet a poor, destitute woman. While Bakshi delivers justice, a person amongst
the onlookers keeps singing:
“Bhaley bhaley ki sidhaa kardaa
Aey bakshi da dandaa “
“Who is there who has not been set right?
By Bakshi‘s handheld stick? “
Other characters of this novel that are worth mentioning are Nainto, Raano, Pant Ji, Soma Panditaayan, Sainti, Laajo and Shardul Singh ( servant from the Wazir family ). Shardul Singh is a liquor addict. Shardul Singh’s Sahib from the Wazir family is fond of Kalaaris made from milk, and he prefers to have them with his daily quota of liquor. With the Wazir family, Suggi goes on a pilgrimage to the Pashupati Nath Temple of Nepal.
Soma Panditaayan is her childhood friend. Her husband, Pandt Dev Datt, is a respected Brahmin who is always busy performing marriages, Mundans, Yagneopavit functions, Shradaas and other religious rituals for various families in Jammu city. Soma fondly calls him Pant Ji (Pandit Ji). Pant Ji never misses his early morning bath, even during the intense winter season, when he uses a Kangri to warm up his body. Without fail, Pant ji does his morning Thakurdwara (Pooja room or Thokur Kuth in Kashmiri) Pooja before starting his daily routine work. He must also have his glass of milk every day after his Thakurdwara Pooja. Soma puts three or four water-soaked almond kernels in this milk. Pandit Dev Datt is a Shaivite who worships Parthav Shiva with milk, water and Bheil p’atar. The husband and wife live a happy and contented life. Suggi is a frequent visitor to Pandit Dev Datt's house.
And then Suggi remembers how she would join Bhaakkaan singers from the adjoining hills of Jammu city who flocked to Amar Palace on Maharaja Hari Singh’s birthday. These women would squat in groups in the outer lawns for their day-long singing of Pahari songs. Gifts and food would be distributed to them by the members of the royal family. They sang many songs, like:
“Chan maahrra chadeyaa te pahaada aahli kingri
Sajne ki pyaar dena nath karey khingri
Milnaa zaroor meri jaan ho”
(My Moon-faced beloved has gone up a mountain top,
Keeping my nose ring aside,
I shall offer him my love
My love! I shall meet you for sure. )
How painful for Suggi to know that Maharaja was an exile who lived in Mumbai with his ADC, Capt Diwan singh and some trusted servants. The royal status ofthe Wazir and Katoch families of Jammu had also declined with the departure of Maharaja Hari Singh. Some person makes her believe that even during Maharaja’s rule, Dogras were poor and unemployed, as Maharaja Partap Singh and even Maharaja Hari Singh preferred outsiders to fill various posts in the administration. A woman quotes poet Dinu Bhai Pant to support this point of view.
“Lok mheene maardhey dogre da raaj ho
Dogre da bhaag dikho jurrdaa ni saag ho”
(People comment satirically that the Dogras rule the state
And look how unlucky Dogras can’t even afford green vegetables.
And Jammu kept changing. People who were satisfied with Daal, Chappati, Achaar, Lassi, Madra, Kachori, Annardaana, Rajmaah shifted to cold drinks, Lipton Tea, Chicken, Ice creams, sweets, kitty parties and LPG cylinders in their kitchens. With development and newer employment avenues, people from many towns start pouring in and settling in Jammu city. Jammu gets ample connectivity and expands in all directions. With new concrete residential buildings, newer colonies and people pouring in regularly, the city feels pressure on its resources. Suggi is privy to these rapid changes.
And then in 1990, Suggi witnessed once more something like the 1947 events. Terrorised by the armed militants, Kashmiri Pandits run for safety and arrive in Jammu city. They take shelter in temples, vacant semi-finished buildings, tents and anywhere and everywhere they find a cover for their hapless families. Young children, women and elders crowd in a single room, face many odds, and to survive, men from the community take up any offer of employment that comes their way. They live in hell but keep dreaming of the heaven they left behind.
The protagonist of the novel is amazed at the resilience of this community and feels that no curse is bigger than leaving one’s motherland.
Suggi tells Soma Panditayan:
“Look, Soma, women may pass time in banishment as they get busy with other household affairs, but men suffer too much while living in exile. These Pandits used to spread education all over. Now look at how these poor fellows do all types of odd jobs. I curse this government. Bring two families over here. Those two rooms have been locked since long time in our locality. I shall break open the locks. Let the two Pandit families stay over here . Bring Sarvanand Koul’s family here. If nothing is possible, I shall share one room in this custodian's house with that family. One room is sufficient for me.”
Unable to come to terms with rapid changes taking place around her, just before her death, Suggi tells Rano:
“This city does not reflect the Dogra culture anymore. People neither speak the Dogri language nor eat Dogra food. No one dresses like a Dogra anymore. The potter who made Suraahi-type pitchers is dead.No women wears a Suthan (a long but tight salwar worn by ladies). When parents do not speak Dogri, how can children speak Rano Ji? Dogras think that they have come from England. They feel proud in teaching English to their children as a language of communication within their families and homes.”
On her deathbed, Suggi tells Parsino, her daughter-in-law:
“Look, Parsino, this River Tawi is more sacred than Ganga or Yamuna. Let me have a bath in Tawi before I die. Can't Nathi (Parsino’s husband) carry me on his back? I want to see the hills of Mata Vaishno Devi. I shall send my Pranaams to Mata Rani. Parsino, listen carefully, Soma is my childhood friend. Respect her in my absence. During my death rituals, ensure that all women wear the Dogra dress. You should wear a Suthan. I shall be watching everything from the sky over your head. I may become a ghost if you do not act on my words.”
And inspite of her love for the Dogra culture and language, Suggi is open towards accepting changes that are sweeping her Jammu. In fact, she has learnt and adopted many things after her personal interaction with Punjabis, Mirpuris and Kashmiris living in Jammu city. She likes Kashmiri Kahwa tea and crisp Baakir-khaanis. She has a Kashmiri Raffal Dussa that she uses sparingly.
And Suggi watches as Jammu finally turns into a crucible of many cultures and civilisations.
(Avtar Mota)
Logos,
Watermarks, and Ownership: Using
Photographs Taken by Others
Of
late, one frequently encounters individuals and pages on social media platforms
placing their own logos and watermarks on photographs captured by others. This
practice has become so widespread that it is often treated as routine. Yet it
carries serious legal and ethical risks. Recent court decisions in the United
States have reaffirmed that a photograph is a work of art for the purposes
of copyright law, and that unauthorised branding, watermarking, or
alteration of such works may attract penalties. These rulings serve as an
important reminder: anyone handling photographs must exercise caution, as
seemingly casual acts can lead to unpleasant legal consequences.
This
growing trend, combined with limited public understanding of copyright
principles, has created an environment in which misuse of photographs is common
and accountability is often overlooked.
A Personal Encounter That Revealed a
Larger Issue
While
working on my book, I approached a close friend: the son of a reputed photographer,
to seek permission to use one of his father’s photographs taken sometime in
1965. The image was historically significant and directly relevant to the
subject of my research. Given our friendship and the academic nature of the
work, I assumed the request would be a formality. It was not. My friend
declined politely but firmly. He explained that the photograph remained the
property of his father’s estate and that permission could not be granted. What
followed was more revealing than the refusal itself. He shared a longstanding
concern: many individuals had been circulating his father’s photographs online
with their own logos, page names, or watermarks, often without
permission and sometimes without credit. In several cases, the original
attribution had been entirely removed. That conversation highlighted an issue
far broader than one denied request: it reflected a systemic misunderstanding
of photographic ownership.
The Persistent Myth That Old
Photographs Are “Free”
There
is a widespread belief that old photographs automatically become public
property. Images documenting history, public life, or taken decades ago are
often assumed to be free for use, particularly when the photographer is no
longer alive. This belief is incorrect. Under copyright law, a photograph is
protected from the moment it is created. The photographer is the
author and original owner of that work unless ownership has been lawfully
transferred through a contract, assignment, or work-for-hire arrangement. When
the photographer dies, those rights generally pass to heirs or a legal estate
and continue for many decades, depending on the jurisdiction. Neither age nor historical
importance extinguishes authorship.
Photography as Artistic and
Intellectual Property
Photography
is not a mere mechanical process. It involves creative judgment in framing,
lighting, timing, composition, and perspective. Courts across jurisdictions
have consistently recognized photography as artistic expression and
intellectual property. For the purposes of copyright, photography stands
alongside painting, writing, music, and sculpture. Legal protection extends not
only to commercial exploitation but to creative authorship itself. Accordingly,
unauthorized alteration or branding of photographs interferes with legally
protected artistic work.
Clarifying Roles: Owner and Handler
For
public understanding, it is helpful to clearly distinguish between two roles:
the owner and the handler. The photographer is the
original author and copyright owner of a photograph from the moment of
creation, unless those rights have been lawfully transferred. After the
photographer’s death, copyright typically vests in their heirs or estate. All
others who later use, manage, edit, archive, upload, publish, restore, or
circulate the photograph fall within the category of handlers. This
includes editors, publishers, archivists, page administrators, cultural
platforms, social-media managers, and researchers. A handler does not
acquire ownership merely by access, possession, or use. Importantly, a
handler has no legal right to place a logo, watermark, brand mark,
signature, or identifying insignia on a photograph unless expressly
permitted by the copyright owner through a valid license or written consent.
In the absence of any such permission, any addition may constitute unauthorised
modification of a copyrighted work and may expose the handler to legal
liability.
The Emotional Reality Behind
Ownership
For
families of photographers, photographs are not just images; they are legacies.
Many photographers invested years of work, often under difficult or dangerous
conditions, to document culture, society, and history. When their images
circulate under another name or logo, it feels like an erasure of both creative
labour and personal history. The frustration expressed by my friend arose from
repeatedly seeing his father’s work detached from its source and misrepresented
as belonging to others. This human dimension is often overlooked in online
discussions about image sharing.
Social Media and the Illusion of
Consent
Social
media has dramatically accelerated the circulation of images. A photograph
posted once can be downloaded, reposted, edited, and rebranded within minutes,
often losing attribution at the first step. This speed has created a dangerous
illusion: visibility is mistaken for permission. The reality is simple.
Uploading a photograph to social media does not place it in the public domain.
Platforms do not transfer ownership rights to users. Sharing does not
extinguish copyright.
Logos and Watermarks: A High-Risk
Practice
Placing
a personal or organisational watermark on a photograph taken by someone else is
one of the most legally hazardous practices in digital media. Copyright law
reserves the exclusive right to create derivative works to the copyright
owner. Unauthorised branding or watermarking may qualify as such a derivative
work. Courts have, in appropriate cases, treated this conduct as infringement
and imposed penalties. Even where no commercial intent exists, the act itself
can still carry legal consequences.
Ethical Harm Beyond Legal Risk
Beyond
legality lies ethics. A watermark signals authorship. When that signal is
false, it misleads audiences and undermines trust. In cultural and historical
contexts, this misrepresentation is particularly damaging. Once falsely branded
images circulate widely, correcting attribution becomes difficult, and original
creators gradually disappear from public memory.
Editing and Restoration Do Not
Create Ownership
Some
handlers argue that editing, colourisation, or restoration grants them ownership
rights. This is a misunderstanding. Editing does not negate the original
copyright. The underlying photograph remains protected. Without permission,
even significantly altered images may still infringe the original work.
Transformation is not ownership.
Why Permission Matters
The
refusal I encountered while working on my book was not unreasonable. Historical
importance and scholarly intent do not override ownership. Exceptions such as
fair use are limited and context-specific. Seeking permission is not a mere
courtesy; it is a recognition of creative rights.
Public Domain: A Narrow Legal
Category
Some
photographs are free to use, such as those whose copyrights have expired, those
explicitly released into the public domain, or certain government images.
However, these categories are narrower than commonly assumed. Public domain
status must be verified, not presumed.
Conclusiuon
To
avoid legal and ethical pitfalls, handlers need to observe a few basic
principles:
The
growing misuse of photographs reflects a deeper issue: convenience has
overtaken respect. Courts have reaffirmed what copyright law has long
recognised—photography is art, and artists retain rights. Preserving
history requires preserving authorship. Respecting ownership, permission, and
attribution is not optional; it is essential to ethical and lawful engagement
in the digital age.
(Avtar Mota)