In the first week of July, the country witnessed a martyred soldier’s young widow and mother receive the Kirti Chakra, India’s second-highest peacetime gallantry award, on his behalf. The grief enveloping the family was palpable even for those unrelated to them. But what followed the solemn moment of remembrance was a misogynistic slugfest, with the family accusing the wife of “walking away with their son’s money” and demanding changes to the Indian Army’s next of kin (NOK) policy. 

Captain Anshuman Singh died in a fire accident in July 2023 at the Siachen glacier, where he was posted as a medical officer. His wife Smriti Singh and mother Manju Singh received his Kirti Chakra from President Droupadi Murmu at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on July 5, 2024. Anshuman had listed Smriti as NOK in his will, as mandated by law, intending that his pension amount be disbursed to her in the event of his death. Anshuman’s parents have now alleged that Smriti moved out of their house with the award and “took away” all their son’s money. Smriti was also cyber harassed on social media by many people who painted her as a heartless daughter-in-law, the one who fled with the money to pursue her own happiness. 

When an officer enlists in the army, their next of kin will get the pension money after their death. In the case of a male officer, the next of kin is the wife, while other assets like the PF and insurance can be split up between the wife and his family as he specifies in his will. For a long time now, there has been discourse about how the NOK can leave parents with no financial aid, and many officers have been suggesting changes because while the wife may be able to move on, parents often cannot. Many say that a clear split up of the pension amount between the wife and the serviceman’s parents must be implemented to prevent disadvantage to either party. However, what transpired in the case of Smriti Singh should never have happened.

In an interview put out by the Defence Ministry on the day she received the Kirti Chakra, a teary-eyed Smriti recalled how she met with Anshuman in college and how they navigated eight years of long-distance romance before their marriage that unfortunately lasted only five months. Social media comments blamed her for giving “chirpy interviews about the pampering she received from Anshuman”. 

What emerges from this scrutiny of Smriti’s conduct is the sexist vilification of women who do not fit into the ‘ideal bahu’ prototype. Though sati has been long banned in our country, it appears that a widow must nonetheless internalise its spirit by surrendering her agency to the husband’s family for the rest of her life, if she wishes to have any acceptance. The entire discourse, which questions Smriti’s “legitimacy” in “enjoying her husband’s entitlements”, is reminiscent of the ‘gold digger’ narrative often used against women when they demand their lawful right to maintenance or alimony upon divorce.

Read: Maintenance is a woman's legal right in India, but accessing it is arduous

Recently, The Hindu quoted an Army source who clarified that it is only the pension of the martyr that goes to the wife and that other compensations have been divided equally between Smriti and Anshuman’s parents. Anshuman’s father Ravi Pratap Singh, an ex-serviceman and pensioner himself, described his son’s marriage as “a short one of five months without any kids,” adding that Smriti “may even get married again.”

Ravi and his wife think that it is unfair of Smriti to use the money their son left behind. All these allegations were made to fortify their claim that Smriti can only use their son’s pension amount if she stays back with the family. The concern here, sadly, seems to be about the money, which they insist must pass on to them. It is hard not to imagine if a man would have been put in the same spot, had his wife passed away, leaving some of her savings to him.

In any case of such a death, the parents invariably suffer trauma, and there is no denying that Anshuman’s parents are also in distress. But media attention on the issue has reduced it to a no-nuance spectacle that only spirals further downward with allegation after allegation. 

Ravi Pratap Singh recently accused Smriti of not loving their son and escaping to Australia with the money and the award. Before that, he suggested that she marry his younger son.

A significant chunk of reactions from Anshuman’s parents and others also shows how patriarchal societies consider women as a mere extension of men — wives, daughters, mothers, or sisters — disregarding their contribution in holding together a marriage and their legal right to compensation. Marriage may be a legal contract by definition, but the value of the emotional support a woman offers is often unaccounted for, just like her unpaid domestic labour.

And when the marriage ends, most families wash their hands of widows, especially if there are no kids. Children here symbolise a continuation of the man, and their families are quick to claim them, relegating the woman as a mere medium to facilitate birth. If the widow stays back, she must perform grief in ways that play to the ‘ideal widow’ stereotype, restricting her life and resources to the welfare of children and in-laws, irrespective of what she wants. 

Further, to make light of a grieving young widow’s marriage by terming it “short-lived with no kids”, just to prevent her from accessing her husband’s pension is quite cruel, considering the irreversible loss of intimacy and companionship that she has to cope with. 

Losing a loved one is never an easy experience and Anshuman’s family is also mourning his death. But to ascribe more value to their loss by vilifying his wife as a “gold digger” speaks of a deeper societal malaise, which sees women’s emotions as dispensable, especially when money comes into question.

Views expressed are the author's own.