Book Review: The Hidden History of Female Agency in the Sikh Empire

Priya Atwal’s regal history combines academic finesse with lucid prose to examine the role women played in the Sukerchakia dynasty.

Priya Atwal’s new book, Royals and Rebels, turns convention on its head.

In traditional accounts, Maharajah Ranjit Singh – the Sher-e-Punjab – was the “solitary genius” of the Sikh Empire, singularly responsible for its rise and whose death precipitated its inevitable demise. Atwal challenges this proposition by examining the role of ruling women and young princes of the Maharajah’s royal house in his dynastic project.

The Sikh Empire, which was founded in 1799, lasted a brief 50 years until its annexation by the British East India Company in 1849. Proclaiming himself the Maharajah of Punjab in 1801, the empire founded by Ranjit Singh also encompassed swathes of territory up to the Khyber Pass as well as Jammu and Kashmir. Its royal capital was situated in Lahore where the Samadhi of the first Maharajah towers, to this day.

Following Singh’s death in 1839, the empire’s final decade witnessed two disastrous wars against the British and the sporadic reigns of various successors, culminating in that of the boy-king, Duleep Singh, who was exiled to Britain.

Atwal’s scholarship is inspired by the feminist historiography of Ruby Lal, among others, whose exposition of gender relations in the context of the Mughal harem established a novel paradigm for the analysis of royal domestic power.

By dissecting British colonial sources and Punjabi chronicles, Atwal showcases the centrality of female agency to the expansion of Sikh sovereignty and how denial thereof contributed to the empire’s downfall. Her comparative regal history, which combines academic finesse with lucid prose, also enriches our understanding of what it meant to be an Indian king. Royals and Rebels is published by Hurst in the UK, and is forthcoming from HarperCollins in India.

To be a Sikh king

Atwal commences with a discussion of “Sikh kingship” as a moral ideal, providing a framework for comprehending the intellectual foundations of Ranjit Singh’s Sarkar-i-Khalsa (Government of the Khalsa). Biographers of the Maharajah have often questioned the compatibility between his monarchy and the egalitarian principles of Sikh governance in the post-Guru period.

Also read: Shaheed-E-Azam Udham Singh: Remembering an Indian Radical

Atwal suggests these criticisms are misplaced. Instead, she locates the Maharajah’s dynasticism within the tradition of “revisionist royalism” established by Guru Gobind Singh. The Tenth Guru had re-modelled the Mughal ideal of “sacred kingship” by infusing the responsibilities of regal authority with the spiritual equality of the Khalsa.

Priya Atwal
Royals and Rebels – The Rise and Fall of the Sikh Empire
Harper Collins India (2021)

This argument makes sense of seemingly paradoxical elements of the Maharajah’s rule. For instance, despite establishing his own personal dynastic hierarchy, the Maharajah refused to sit on the Mughal throne upon taking Lahore in 1799. He similarly rejected the minting of coins bearing his name. Instead, they featured images of the Sikh Gurus. In Atwal’s thesis, the Maharajah was embracing the Fifth Guru Arjan’s notion of Halemi Raj (modest and just regime) “on his own terms”.

New dynasty, new empire

Having explained the contours of this hybrid “royal culture”, Atwal segues into a rich analysis of how the Maharajah transformed his family’s misl holdings into the Sukerchakia dynasty. This is an essential element of her book. What has come to be known as the “Sikh Empire” was in fact the territory under the control of the Sukerchakia family, of which Ranjit Singh was a third-generation member.

In illustration of her work’s comparative pedigree, Atwal argues Ranjit Singh and his empire made this transition by engaging in a form of “dynastic colonialism”. This concept describes the processes through which a royal household comes to dominate land and spaces in material and cultural ways, which in turn advances political control by that family.

Marital alliances were “a central mechanism through which the Sukerchakias were able to build social and kinship connections, enabling the power of the misl to be embedded.” For instance, Ranjit Singh’s Mother, Raj Kaur, oversaw his first marriage to Mehtab Kaur of the Kanhaiya misl, and his second marriage to Mai Nakain of the Nakai misl – both of which encircled Lahore.

Elite Sikh women also had “relative independence” in military and administrative affairs. For example, Singh’s Mother-in-Law, Sada Kaur from the Kanhaiyas, was instrumental to his conquest of Lahore. Not only was her alliance militarily indispensable, but as narrated by the Maharajah’s court historian, Sohan Lal Suri, Sada Kaur then secured the peace by ensuring that Khalsa honour codes of territorial distribution were observed among misl competitors.

Overall, Ranjit Singh and his principal heirs – Kharak Singh and Nau Nihal Singh – entered at least 43 marriages between the years 1795 and 1842. These included marriages across class and caste lines, and in this respect, Atwal draws a comparison with the conduct of “protection” marriages by the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Together with the training and deployment of the princes as soldier-administrators (a policy she further compares with the Mughals), these strategic marital alliances enabled Ranjit Singh to break away from the Sikh sardar/misldar class and develop a “newer superior league of royalty”. What emerges from her analysis is a “connective” vision of Indian kingship.

Also read: Book Review: Discovering Nanak Singh, Rediscovering ‘Khooni Vaisakhi’

Another aspect of royal female agency is the role played by the Maharanis in maintaining their own havelis. Mai Nakain, for instance, took control of the Sheikhpura Fort, acting as a political proxy for the Maharajah. Showcasing the Durbar’s cultural power, she adorned her apartments with garden imagery and pious depictions of the Sikh Gurus. These symbolic representations exemplify the “continual balance of power with humility that characterised the Sukerchakia raj.”

Atwal brilliantly combines this cultural analysis with an intricate dissection of Orientalist gender stereotypes. As originally articulated by Rosalind O’Hanlon, these posit a dichotomy between the “martial masculinity” of independent warriorship and the more “feminised” arena of the court, occupied by “dandified men” and zenana-bound women. The Sukerchakia dynasty problematises this binary in several ways.

First, the Maharajah patronised Sikh courtly culture, which encompassed raising his sons as Kanwars (princes). Second, in 1839, Kharak Singh commissioned a Sanskrit astronomy manuscript – the Sarvasiddhantattvacudamani. This “cultural connoisseurship” also challenges the contemporary British depictions of him as an “imbecile” and the characterisation of Punjabi royals as “unrefined”. Third, royal women were involved in princely education and war. In 1816, Kharak Singh’s mother Mai Nakain took over his training for 18 months. Together they conquered Multan.

All the world’s a stage

A sizeable portion of the book dwells on the relationship between the Sikh Empire and the British East India Company. Atwal explores how Ranjit Singh used Anglo-Punjabi relations as an opportunity to advance his dynastic brand. Such insightful evaluation is made possible by her command of the primary source material.

An illustration of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Photo: Colonel James Skinner/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

To this end, Atwal surveys numerous diplomatic interactions between the parties. For instance, at the 1838 Lahore Durbar welcoming Lord Auckland to his kingdom, the Maharajah awarded the Governor-General an official Punjabi decorative order. This intimacy was to symbolise dynastic proximity.

At the same time, she notes that whilst many British sources foreground the Lahore Court’s cocktail-fuelled nautch (dance) parties – fuelling Orientalist narratives of Punjabi “decadence” – politically significant meetings were often held in the Maharajah’s gardens. Ranjit Singh’s fondness for horticultural pursuits is further evidence of his engagement with Indo-Persian artistic culture, an affection he shared in his decision to gift the Company’s Political Agent, Claude Martin Wade, a gardening text from his royal library. This is especially salient considering his illiteracy.

Also read: Time to Rescue South Asia’s Muslims and Sikhs from Divide-and-Rule Historiography

However, it should come as no surprise that it was in the realm of weddings that Ranjit Singh made his boldest efforts to enter a “transnational world of royalty”. We learn that the 1811 and 1837 weddings of his son, Kharak Singh, and grandson, Nau Nihal Singh, were occasions of “spectacular dynastic exhibition”. The use of royal symbolism throughout the lavish festivities, combined with invitations to British officials and local aristocracy, were geared towards cementing a new social hierarchy in the Punjab.

After the Lion

The latter sections of the book may be described as a historiographical rescue operation. The dominant view has been that the post-Ranjit Singh period was one of “weak characters”, “bitter divides” and “chaos”. According to Atwal, this narrative has gone unchallenged because of the greater prevalence of (biased) British sources.

For example, an enduring British motif proffered by the Company’s Ambassador, Alexander Burnes, is the notion that Kharak Singh was “of weak mind”. Atwal probes this claim by contrasting it with Punjabi contemporary accounts. She shows that the opinions of Company officials varied according to their strategic assessments. Essentially, those who favoured a more aggressive Company policy vis-à-vis the Sikh Empire were more inclined to perceive his lesser ability to govern.

Atwal also resurrects from obscurity the gendered tensions underpinning claims to legitimate authority. In November 1840, the senior-most wife of Kharak Singh, Maharani Chand Kaur, was traduced by competitor Sikh princes as a danger to the stability of the Lahore durbar. Her daughters-in-law were even poisoned to terminate their pregnancies, destroying their royal lineage. Court historian, Suri, strongly condemned this treatment as most “improper”. By illuminating the views of Punjabi chroniclers, Atwal adds the necessary context to holistically understand the “bitter divides”.

Maharani Chand Kaur. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Jindan Kaur

Most maligned in the colonial accounts has been the youngest wife of Ranjit Singh, Jindan Kaur, who became the Queen Regent in 1843. The principal allegation against her is that she was a “slave” to her “passions”, whose feminine unsuitability for rule was to blame for the undoing of the Sukerchakia dynasty in 1849.

Atwal’s defence against this libel is heroic. By 1843-44, the Khalsa Army had emerged as an independent power centre, whose relationship with the Lahore Durbar became increasingly fractious. A popular myth relates that following the Army’s assassination of her brother and vazir, Jawahir Singh, Jindan provoked a disastrous war with the Company in 1845-46, in the hope that the Army would be massacred.

It was in fact the Army that was agitating for a war both to rebuff British military provocations and in the hope that victory would create an opportunity to loot British-held territories as contemporary Punjabi sources demonstrate. Atwal strengthens this argument with evidence from the records of British intelligence, which showcase how self-interested Lahore officials also conspired against the Durbar by bribing Khalsa soldiers. Thus, the Maharani had no choice but to sanction the invasion of Company territory.

Also read: In Honouring Ranjit Singh, Pakistan Is Moving Beyond Conceptions of Muslim vs Sikh History

The final chapter further explores the political implications of gendered litanies against the Maharani. British frustrations at the Maharani’s refusal to make political compromises led to the emergence of a de-legitimising discourse about her “debauchery”. What is striking here is the extent to which it was these biases against female authority, as well as British self-interest, which drove the Company to exile the Maharani from Lahore in 1847, and thus led her in 1848 to secretly instigate an insurrection against the British in Multan.

Whilst that rebellion failed, the indefatigability of the ‘Rebel Queen’ reinforces the merits of Atwal’s thesis about the fundamental role played by women in the Sukerchakia dynasty.

Sapan Maini-Thompson is training to become a barrister in the UK. He tweets @SapanMaini.

Shaheed-E-Azam Udham Singh: Remembering an Indian Radical

On the 80th anniversary of his execution, Singh should be remembered not only as a martyr who avenged the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, but also as a universalist radical who championed cosmopolitan ideals of religious and class solidarity.

London: Eighty years after his execution on July 31, 1940, there is no trace that Udham Singh, a man who occupies an iconic status in the panoply of India’s shaheed, was ever hanged and buried in Pentonville Prison here in north London.

Perhaps this is symbolic. In a country still wrestling with the myths of the Empire’s civilising mission, rebellion is a truth best not remembered.

In India, of course, Udham Singh’s story is national folklore. To avenge the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919, Singh – the “patient assassin” – plotted for over twenty years and on March 13, 1940, he shot dead the former Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, Sir Michael O’Dwyer, at Caxton Hall.

Indeed, Singh has been sacralised as the holy custodian of Bharat’s national honour. In 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru saluted Singh as Shaheed-e-Azam, expressing gratitude for him having “kissed the noose so that we may be free.” Both before and after Independence, hero-worship has been fundamental to making and re-making the Indian nation. The rich calendar of Jayanti and Memorial Days immortalise the ethic of balidan or sacrifice in the psyche of the Indian public.

Rituals of remembrance are also a prime opportunity for the state to instrumentalise historical memory. By claiming the mantle of heroes, political legitimacy is won. As historian Irfan Habib puts it, from Sardar Patel to Ambedkar, and Subhas Chandra Bose to Bhagat Singh, “the RSS have been appropriating icons since forever”. No doubt, one goal of this revisionist project is to give a saffron hue to those who championed cosmopolitan emancipation.

Udham Singh’s memory is especially vulnerable to these depredations. In popular imagination, Singh is a zealous warrior of retribution, as opposed to an activist of philosophical conviction. On this Balidan Diwas, therefore, history compels us to remember Udham Singh as the universalist radical he truly was, rather than the nationalist idol today’s Sangh Parivar wishes him to be.

Udham Singh (second from the left) being taken from 10 Caxton Hall after the assassination of Michael O’Dwyer. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Udham Singh, the Ghadarite

Whilst his spirit of resistance was inspired by the atrocity at Jallianwala Bagh, Udham Singh’s political outlook was a long-term consequence of his engagement with the revolutionary politics of the Ghadar movement: a militant anti-colonial socialist organisation, operating predominantly from the Indian diaspora in the US.

Singh’s insurrectionary impulse was apparent from an early stage. After joining the Ghadar in 1924, he was first arrested in Amritsar in 1927 for attempting to smuggle weapons. Revealing his ideology to his captors, Singh was found with copies of the prohibited anti-British paper, Ghadar-di-Duri, and a collection of seditious poetry called Ghadar-di-Gunj (Echoes of Mutiny). According to the Indian Political Intelligence, “he had intended to murder Europeans who were ruling over India and…he fully sympathized with the Bolshevics [sic], as their object was to liberate India from foreign control”.

Also read: In Punjab, the Legacy of the Ghadar Movement Continues to Inspire the Fight for Justice

Thereafter, following his release from Multan gaol in October 1931, Singh soon departed India before reaching Britain in 1934 where he worked as a textile trader and carpenter. His revolutionary credentials brought him to the attention of the British authorities. Indeed, since 1936, Singh had been kept under surveillance by MI5, following a furtive escapade to Soviet Russia. With fortune favouring the brave, however, he astutely navigated interceptions at crucial junctures, episodically adopting new personae.

Yet he was not impregnable. For instance, in July 1939, the Metropolitan Police became aware that Singh had written to an Indian political organisation in London requesting an “Indian National Badge”. The missive was inscribed in Urdu with “Inquilab” (Revolution) and the name “Azad Singh”. Singh’s reputation as a dissident was further polished in August 1939 when, during his stay in Bournemouth, the Hampshire Police Constabulary described him as having “strong Communistic views”. Whilst notorious for his act of militancy, it is pertinent that Singh also participated in Indian community organising, including for a nascent trade union known as the Indian Workers Association.

Shrouded in mystery is whether Singh ever revealed to his contemporaries his plan to assassinate O’Dwyer. Of note was his proximity to Dr Diwan Singh and Shiv Singh Johal, who were respectively the President and General Secretary of the Khalsa Jatha Gurdwara in London’s Shepherd’s Bush. Both men were Akalis who had migrated to Britain after their own anti-colonial agitations across 1920s Punjab.

Indeed, following his arrest in 1940, Udham Singh entered into secretive correspondence with Johal, which testifies to their nexus of trust. These connections curiously reveal how, even in the diaspora, religious institutions functioned as covert hubs of Indian resistance and Sikh baradari.

The trial of Udham Singh

The clearest expression of Singh’s anti-imperial principles may be found in his final declaration at trial at London’s Old Bailey, on June 5, 1940. Although physically diminished by 42 days of hunger-strike and forced feeding, Singh was defiant. Reading from notes he prepared in Brixton Prison, Singh castigated the evils of Britain’s “so-called civilisation”.

The British, he exclaimed, had brought “slavery” and “filth” to India. It was Singh’s “duty”, therefore, to free his “native land…and drive you [sic] dirty dogs out”. Despite Justice Atkinson condescendingly reminding Singh that emergency laws would preclude publication of his “political speech”, he tenaciously persisted in condemning the Empire.

Indeed, prior to Singh’s trial, the British authorities had assiduously sought to control the media narrative by separating O’Dwyer’s killing from the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Sir Philip Vickery, from Indian Political Intelligence, sent a memo to his Director in Delhi, Denys Pilditch, expressing his determination to prevent Singh from making the court room a “platform for objectionable political propaganda”. The press was tightly muzzled.

Also read: Excerpt | The Man Who Told the World of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

A key theme in Singh’s critique was the dissonance between the proclaimed civility of Britain’s imperial mission and the violence of its governing practices. The “brutal and bloodthirsty” reality of British degeneracy, Singh opined, stood in hypocritical contrast to the lofty flight of Britain’s “so-called flag of democracy and Christianity”. Yet British violence, as Singh noted, was met with dastardly reward: “You people go to India and when you come back you are given prizes and put into the House of Commons, but when we come to England, we are put to death.”

Singh’s prison notes also reveal his creative dynamism. His papers are littered with poetic Urdu refrains, bemoaning God for the hardships which had befallen India, and expressing shame at the oppression “our guests have begun to exercise…over us.” As an onlooking bureaucrat from the India Office remarked, “national poetry” was an effective medium for “influencing the ignorant and semi-ignorant.”

In a stanza of a Gurmukhi poem dedicated to India’s martyrs, moreover, Singh wrote the names of various luminary freedom fighters, including Bhagat Singh, Batukeshwar Dutt, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai. We may infer that Singh saw himself as belonging to this revolutionary fold. In a reverie of dramatic irony – given Gandhi dismissed his travail as an “act of insanity” – Singh further proclaimed, “Long Live Mahatma Gandhi VIVA INDIA and Subhas Bose.” This latter juxtaposition is politically curious given Gandhiji’s and Netaji’s profound disagreements on the merits of violence.

Of all these individuals, however, it was Bhagat Singh whom Udham Singh most idealised – unsurprisingly so, given their extended friendship and imprisonment together during the 1920s. As Singh wrote in a letter, dated March 30, 1940, he hoped to be “married with execution” on the same date his glorious comrade had been hanged almost ten years prior in 1931.

Indeed, much like his idol, Udham Singh was radically committed to the solidarity of the international working class. At trial, he alluded to the idea that imperialism was a structure of domination, whose oppression also had a domestic face: “I have great sympathy with the workers of England. I am against the Imperialist Government.” This was personally salient given Singh himself was the low-caste son of a peasant farmer.

Presumably to eschew criticism that he was an inward-looking nationalist, he also boldly informed the court that he had “more English friends living in England than…in India.” Despite these connections, however, it was a Gurdwara in Stockton, California – an outspoken wing of the Ghadar party – that took the initiative in funding Singh’s legal defence.

Then, in summation – facing the judge, jury and press corps – Singh raised his right arm and thrice exhorted: “Inquilab Zindabad!” – a slogan popularised by Bhagat Singh, though coined by the Muslim communist, Maulana Hasrat Mohani.

Also read: Did the Victims of Jallianwala Bagh Deserve Pity – or Justice?

Udham Singh’s hybrid religious identity

Central to Singh’s liberationist political ideology was a syncretic approach to his religious identity. After assassinating O’Dwyer, Singh explained to the Divisional Detective Inspector John Swain that “when I was seven, I call myself Mohamed Singh. I like Mohamedan religion and I try to mix with Mohamedans”. It is impossible to verify Singh’s story about the childhood origin of his legendary alias. Nevertheless, his statement reveals his fondness for symbolism.

Thereafter, on March 16, 1940, Singh wrote to the investigating superintendent to request Indian clothing including a turban. This was despite Singh himself being a clean-shaven Sikh. In that letter, he was adamant that the authorities should preserve his given name as “Mohamed Singh Azad”, even urging critics of his chosen appellation to “go to hell”. Having deciphered his identity, the British did not oblige.

In a historically contested re-telling, the American scholar Farina Mir has further claimed that at trial, Singh swore his court oath upon the Heer-Ranjha – an 18th century Punjabi epic by Waris Shah – rather than the Holy Guru Granth Sahib. The significance of this claim being that Singh affirmed his moral integrity upon an emblem of Punjabi identity, rather than the sanctity of his personal faith.

Whatever the truth may be, we know that following the pronouncement of his death sentence, Singh requested the Chaplain of Pentonville Prison to source him a Gutka (Sikh Prayer Book). This would indicate his theistic inclinations.

Contrastingly, the historian Anita Anand contends Singh was, in fact, an atheist like his comrade Bhagat Singh. In addition to detailing Singh’s liberal lifestyle, she notes that in his correspondence with Shiv Singh Johal, in March 1940, Singh wrote: “I don’t want your Religious Books as I do not beleve [sic] them nor Mohamedenis.” These seemingly contradictory messages raise a host of questions about Singh’s personal spirituality. One possible interpretation is that Singh attached increasing weight to religious belief in the months preceding his death. At the very least, however, we may infer that Udham Singh was idiosyncratic in his piety.

Personal belief aside, Singh’s inclusive nomenclature underscored a political ideal. Though he does not appear to have signed any political or prison correspondence with the forename “Ram”, it is reported that in 1931 Udham Singh printed “Ram Mohamed Singh Azad” on the signboard of his painting shop in Amritsar. The traditional narrative dictates that Singh sought to emphasise the unity of the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities in the freedom struggle.

Also read: Apologies Cannot Eclipse Jallianwala Bagh

It is equally possible, however, that he aimed to construct a novel Punjabi identity altogether – a plural vision of Indian peoplehood animated by the spirit of azaadi. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that following his conviction, over half of the Indian signatures on Singh’s “Petition of Reprieve” were Muslim, with Punjabi Muslims constituting a plurality.

Remembering Singh as an Indian and Sikh Shaheed

Thus, it is through the prism of Punjabi solidarity that Singh’s memorialisation is best refracted. In September 1940, the Hindustan Ghadr published an editorial declaring that “The 31st July 1940 will ever be remembered in Indian history. On this day Comrade Udham Singh Ji achieved martyrdom.” The framing of Singh as an “Indian martyr” is significant insofar as it nationalises his popular memory.

This may be contrasted with the depiction of Singh as a “Sikh martyr” – decades later – in 1970s Punjab. Partly in a bid to bolster his image in factional struggles against the Akali Dal, the Chief Minister of the Punjab, Giani Zail Singh, petitioned Indira Gandhi to request Britain to return Singh’s remains. During the funeral procession through Chandigarh in August 1974, banners bore slogans such as “anakh da rakha: sahid udham singh amar rahe!” (“The Protector of Self-Respect: Long Live Shahid Udham Singh!”)

As the historian Louis Fenech has argued, this posthumous representation of Singh as the saviour of “Sikh self-respect” aimed to situate Singh within the historic genre of Sikh martyrology – a tradition which was reinvented by the advent of Sikh religious nationalism. Contemporary depictions of Singh as a bearded Khalsa Sikh, whilst historically unfounded, additionally constitute an example of what the scholar David Lowenthal described as “history co-opted by heritage”.

Nevertheless, it is critical to emphasise that hagiographical efforts (for example by Sikander Singh) to resurrect Singh as a Khalsa warrior did not always come at the expense of preserving his universal memory. As Fenech opines, Singh’s “mélange of names made the appropriation of his martyrdom by the state all the more likely.”

And so, together, a Brahmin Pandit, a Maulvi and a Sikh Granthi administered the final rites on August 2. Some of his ashes were then distributed to sacred sites associated with each faith. As socially poignant as this ceremony was, it was also a performance of national theatre to showcase the secular credentials of the ruling Congress Party.

Also read: Digging Up British Empire’s Bloody Legacy in India

Udham Singh and the contemporary Indian state

The history of Singh’s memorialisation is a source of tragic irony. Whereas the Indian Republic once recruited Udham Singh’s memory in the service of a multicultural project, the contemporary Indian state now besmirches as “Muslim appeasement” the paradigm in which his legacy rests. Is there still a place for Mohamed Singh Azad in today’s India?

With cynical poise, the BJP invites the Indian public to disremember the past and swear loyalty to the present. Indeed, what is memory if not a truce between the past and the present? But when the present wages war on the past, myth is the only victor. In the feuds to come, the Indian people must struggle to preserve the self-respect our Shaheed-E-Azam gave his life to protect.

Sapan Maini-Thompson is training to become a barrister in the UK. He tweets @SapanMaini.