Devi in a black dress

He held up the comic book to show us the cover. It had a slim, attractive woman with flowing dark hair, wearing what he perhaps rightfully described as a ‘Catwoman’ costume- a body-hugging leotard made out of either leather, rubber, vinyl or some combination of these (I can barely recognise fabric if I touch it with my fingers so my inability to make definitive remarks about the material of the afore-mentioned leotard based on a drawing is hardly surprising). The comic book, or graphic novel if you prefer, in question was Devi by Virgin Comics and the speaker proceeded to remark that he didn’t really like devi (Hindu goddess), being depicted in a Catwoman-esque fashion. By contrast, he was a huge fan of Amar Chitra Katha, which dutifully depicts goddesses wearing the kind of apsara-like attire Sridevi wore in songs that invariably involved coloured powder, earthenware and more often than not, Jeetendra. The expressions of the two versions of devi are also remarkably different. The traditional devi looks benign, with flour-white cheeks like Madhubala, a bindi, and a slight smile. The new one by contrast has a much leaner face, more athletic body, no jewellery or adornment and usually has a more intimidating expression. Catwoman-devi makes no attempt to hide her anger where as apsara-devis ride ferocious beasts while retaining their Mona Lisa smiles. All the aggression is projected onto the lion she is sitting on you see.

The speaker’s distaste for the Catwoman-devi got me thinking about whether his opinion was a fleeting manifestation of a more widely held attitude towards women and sexuality in Indian society and culture. Before you accuse me of reading too much into his remark, allow me to add two further points. First, the same speaker had previously made an admittedly sexist comment about how certain comic books were ‘girly’ because of their preference for floral patterns, pinkish hues and whatever else he associated with feminine tastes. By contrast, he felt some other comics were more suitable for ‘boys’ because of their dark colours and depictions of weapons and war. Second, before he came to Devi by Virgin Comics, he had expressed appreciation for the art in new-age Indian comics that had transformed ancient myths and stories like the Mahabharata and Ramayana to make them more relatable to readers today by using imagery similar to Tron, X-Men and such like. This led me to believe that his dislike for the new-age devi stemmed not from a general aversion to new-age animation but from something else entirely. To put it simply, he didn’t seem to mind Ram being depicted as a chiselled, muscular fellow with flowing tresses, black pants, no shirt and no jewellery.

The old devis of Amar Chitra Katha with their soft features, rounded figures and benign expressions represent a quality of nurturance and are more maternal than the lithe-bodied, scowl-faced devi in the black dress who represents a destructive, aggressive force to be reckoned with rather than someone whose lap a child would want to rest its head on.

Aggression and sexuality are inextricably related in the traditional Indian mindset, so any attempt to analyse attitudes to female aggression without looking at attitudes to female sexuality, or vice versa, will be incomplete. Textual tradition in India has for centuries warned against the raging, devouring, all consuming nature of female sexuality which must constantly be kept in check lest it swallows you whole in your sleep. Let us consider a few examples from that oft-quoted encyclopaedia of misogyny- the Laws of Manu.

"It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger."

-----

"Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.

…..He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit."

It is easy to see how there is no room for a version of female sexuality that is not simultaneously monstrous and ‘out to get you’. It is in this confined space that sexuality and aggression cannot be accommodated as independent entities and must be clubbed together to squeeze in.

Sudhir Kakar has explored sexuality and the Indian psyche extensively and suggests that the idealisation of women’s maternal roles in society is an effort to guard against the terrorising force of female sexuality. While it is the sort of hypothesis that cannot be verified by empirical methods, it remains a plausible explanation for the dominant attitude towards women. Women must be controlled and as far as possible, kept indoors lest they go on some sort of rampage. Culture and tradition become the tools to oppress, prevent, prohibit.

Why am I talking about idealisation of maternal roles in a post that started by discussing comic books? It is because the relationship that best characterises that between devotees and goddesses is a maternal one. Goddesses are referred to by maternal names such as ‘mata’, they are bowed to and revered, we ask that they watch over us and give us boons when we’ve been good (and sometimes even when we’ve not been all that nice, because let’s face it, a mother’s love is unconditional, no?)

A maternal looking, nurturing manifestation of devi is easier to accept than an aggressive one. Mums should look like mums after all. I know that my grandmother admonished my aunt for still wearing ‘salwar kameez’ after having children (because salwars can reveal the shape of a woman’s legs) and she ‘should wear saris’ because she’s ‘a mother now!’. I have seen a male acquaintance grimace when his mother came to a party dressed in a miniskirt, while his girlfriend’s outfit was not dissimilar. I read about hundreds of ‘traditional’ Indians who expressed shock and horror when Mallaika Arora posed for a magazine cover clad only in a bed sheet, holding her infant son. The same Indians probably had no difficulty ogling at her bikini-clad body in an item number. The crux is that people don’t want the women they fantasise about to look like mothers and don’t want their mothers to look like women they fantasise about.

The problem of course is that respect gradually comes to be reserved for women who conform to culturally-dictated roles- get married as soon as they’re old enough, stay at home, look after families, keep their eyes lowered and their heads covered and never, EVER retaliate when their husbands beat them to a pulp. A good wife (synonymous with a good woman) is one who puts up with rather than puts up a fight. A goddess who is a mother-substitute cannot look like Catwoman because Catwoman is sexy, single and knows how to kick some ass.

The distinction between the desirable and the domesticated manifests itself in other ways. In their book, ‘Half the sky’, Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn observe that forced prostitution is disproportionately high in the most sexually conservative societies, including the Indian subcontinent. According to them, the reason for this is an underlying social contract in which men find satisfaction for their sexual frustration in brothels so that good, upper-middle class women can keep their virtue.

The confused morals and hypocritical attitudes to sexuality in Indian society are hardly secret but they continue to baffle. Take clothing for example. Much thought is given to the attire of women and girls who are sexually assaulted. Public figures have previously made embarrassingly ridiculous remarks about how girls should or should not dress or behave if they don’t ‘want’ to be victimised. Such attitudes- hideously off the mark as they are since women and girls continue to be sexually assaulted the world over regardless of whether they wear skirts, saris, burqas or bikinis- are not surprising in a climate where women must conform to traditional gender roles which often include a sartorial component- to be regarded in high esteem.

Devi, in a holistic sense of the term, represents the feminine aspect of the holy trinity- creator, preserver and destroyer. However, prescribed social norms tend to be in the arena of creation and preservation only. In the dominant socio-cultural paradigm that idealises maternal roles and elevates women to the status of goddesses purely to serve a patriarchal agenda, the destructive force of women has had to fall by the wayside.

It is not hard to see how the divine powers that society and culture bestow on women become the vehicles of oppression. ‘Because you hold the key to the family's honour, who else should be punished for bringing shame upon the family name?’ ‘You can’t leave your husband! After all, it is up to you to keep the family together!’ ‘You're a woman, blessed with huge reservoirs of tolerance and forgiveness… you should understand and forgive.’

No thank you I say! You are highly mistaken sirs and madams! I don't hold the key to anyone's honour but my own, and I'll fight to the death to defend it. I don't have the power to hold families together because I don't live in denial of the simple fact that family's are made of more than one person, each responsible for their actions. Let them shoulder that responsibility- I am done carrying it for them. And I certainly don't have an endless capacity to forgive or understand- it does not extend beyond the boundaries of rationality.

Unless I can claim all aspects- creation, preservation and destruction- of the holy trinity and until I can damn well take as much as I give, I'd much rather be a happy human being than an acquiescing goddess.

I guess the new-age devi, for me, represents a bit of the woman who's done being nice and that's why I think it's a good thing. Also, maybe if more devis dressed like Catwoman- or wore jeans, skirts and dresses for that matter- respect for women in the real world will not be rationed out depending on how they are attired. I don't know what Virgin Comics intended, but the way I see it, closing the gap between the physical appearance of devis and that of women in the real world seems like a good thing.

To be human is to...err...umm…what?

What characteristics does someone need to possess in order to be regarded a human being? Are there any necessary and sufficient conditions, apart from those that can be discerned with the help of electron microscopes and other equipment, for humanness?

Just for the record, I don’t think there are. I haven’t been able to come up with even one.

I don’t think the matter of how we define 'human' has been given as much consideration as it should have. It’s a pity really, given that we're always throwing the word around in various forms. Human rights, for example. Or an act being ‘inhuman’. What does the latter mean?

Attempts at using psychological characteristics such as empathy to identify human beings fall flat on its face. Take psychopaths for instance. Research suggests that psychopaths lack, among other things, the ability to empathise- to gauge and understand emotions in another person or in themselves. Jon Ronson in his book- The Psychopath Test- explores the idea of psychopathy and is surprised at discovering that psychopathy as a trait is present in people who don't go on to commit heinous crimes or become serial killers. High ranking corporate executives may get high scores on a standardised instrument designed to assess and diagnose psychopathy. Yet we do not incarcerate such persons in prisons or asylums for the criminally insane. The fact is that in the business world it may be a highly prized quality to not be fazed by or affected by other people's emotions. As I write this, Devil Wears Prada is on in the background on television, and Meryl Streep comes to mind easily as an example of what I'm talking about. Context is everything, really.

Alternatively, any skill - such as communication or the use of complex tools- cannot be the defining feature. There are many who for medical reasons cannot perform these tasks. To suggest that they’re not human beings is preposterous. Wikipedia suggests that higher level thought processes such as abstract reasoning and rationality define a ‘person’. (Un)fortunately, I’ve come across many creatures belonging to the human species as defined by biology {‘Animalia’ kingdom, ‘Chordata’ phylum, ‘Mammalia’ class, ‘Primate’ order, ‘Hominidae’ family, ‘Hominini’ tribe and ‘Homo’ genus} who have not (at least in my presence) actually demonstrated the capacity for logic and reason.

Similarly, aptitude and intelligence tests often assess the capacity for abstract reasoning. While there are several diagnostic terms used to indicate a low-score on these dimensions, ‘inhuman’ is not one of them. So you see, the system, flimsy as it was to begin with, breaks down once again.

People who do horrible things to other people are often referred to by names of life forms we regard as lying at the lowest rungs of species classification- rats, fungi, parasites, cockroach and the like. The tendency to describe acts that we find vile as ‘inhuman’, or referring to people whose actions we find despicable with words that refer to species other than human beings, stems from a desire to dissociate ourselves from them- I am a human being and I am not like this person. Ergo, this person cannot be a human being. What this indicates is an effort towards creating homogeneity within the species. The obliteration of difference.

Obliteration of difference lies at the heart of all discriminatory attitudes - racism, homophobia, or Nazi eugenics. The problem is the assumption of a 'natural order of things' or how something ought to be. The moment one assumes a natural order, the unnatural is born. Abnormal, insane, inhuman are negations. Their existence depends on the existence of something that is not them. It doesn’t matter whether the assumed natural order in question is heterosexuality, patriarchy, or caring for fellow beings. What is the difference, really, between someone who thinks a pedophile is an animal and someone who deems the transvestite a beast? The line, if there is one, is very thin indeed.

With the obliteration of difference comes the obliteration of otherness. Psychoanalytic theory would regard this as the fundamental me/not me dilemma. Transition from a symbiotic relationship with the caregiver to an independent sense of self comes with a painful acknowledgement of caregiver as different from oneself. Freudians would regard this as the crux of the oedipal conflict. I'm not a Freudian, at least not completely, but I do buy the idea that to recognise the independent existence of a love-object with whom we would much rather be, and for a while were, fused is not always peachy.

Sorry about the brief psychoanalytic detour without prior notification, but it felt necessary.

The recognition of others as independent beings comes as a shock in infancy and childhood and is apparently not that easy to accept in adulthood either. Trace the course of human history, from the Pharoahs to the Nazis, to the uproar about drawings of Mohammad, or bikinis with images of Lakshmi and Saraswati and you'll agree.

Diversity of race, gender, sexuality, culture, or religion is generally more easily accepted than diversity of actions. The fact is that if you claim to acknowledge- and even appreciate- diversity, you really should accept all forms of it. You can't own the good bits without also owning the ugly. It's kind of a package deal.

Another causal factor that leads many of us to distinguish ourselves from those whose actions we find abominable is a refusal to accept that the human species is as much a rotting mass of depravity as it is a sea of spirituality, goodness and whatnot.

The problem with such a stance is that the species/title/diagnosis that is given to individuals whose actions we find abhorrent then becomes the cause or explanation for their behaviour. Consider the much debated insanity plea. That someone can get away with murder because they were diagnosed with schizophrenia seems preposterous to me. Insanity is an idea that is at best ambiguous and at worst, absurd. Schizophrenia is basically a diagnostic term that applies to a range of symptoms, none of which include the predisposition to commit murder. Consider the fact that illnesses traditionally used most often in the insanity pleas tend to be schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and there is no evidence to indicate that being diagnosed with either necessarily precludes an awareness of actions and/or intentions. My difficulty with the insanity plea is that it is almost impossible to establish with conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone’s actions were the direct result of a ‘mental illness’. Criminality and insanity are two separate issues serving separate purposes for society.

The treatment of people in mental asylums continues to be largely deplorable in several countries. Sending someone to a high security psychiatric ward instead of jail is not necessarily more merciful. If they are to be imprisoned, it might as well be in a prison. (For a more detailed discussion on similar themes, interested readers are advised to procure Thomas Szasz’s essays on Ideology and Insanity- highly recommended!) Incidentally, Anders Breivik’s lawyer believes that Breivik (the man responsible for the recent attacks in Oslo) is insane, though it is not clear whether he will plead insanity.

Ascribing ‘inhuman’ qualities to an act stands for the sort of determinism that obliterates free will. To determine that someone murdered under the influence of a psychotic or manic episode is akin to saying that the illness caused the crime, and if the illness is treated the crime will not be committed.

When we describe a pedophile or mass murderer as an animal or a beast because his/her behaviour doesn't fit with our concept of what constitutes a human being, we are in effect suggesting that his/her non-humanness is responsible for his/her having committed the said abhorrent act. And when the act is motivated by anything other than choice- in this case allegedly non-human characteristics- what can we/ society really do with that? If someone's behaviour is caused by an inherent bestiality, then should they be subjected to the laws designed to govern human behaviour? Would you incarcerate a dog for biting off a woman’s arm? Would that be right?

(For the record, I take the position that it would not. It’s not okay to judge an animal by human standards- not least because our standards may be rather low and animals are better than that- whether it’s shooting a tiger that started preying on villagers when forests began shrinking or calling for the death of a killer whale that shook its trainer to death.)

Is it not true that one can be held accountable for one’s actions only if one is seen to be making a choice?

Is the idea that those who commit acts we find repugnant are fundamentally different to us really more palatable than the idea that it is our choices that separate us from them?

It doesn’t please me in the slightest to believe that rapists, murderers, child molesters, wife beaters are inhuman, bestial, degenerates. I’d much rather believe that I have my own reasons for making the choices I make and acting the way I do, and that those reasons are not motivated by my mere belongingness to a certain species classification.

If I pick fleas off a stray dog or buy a starving child some food I’m as human as I would be if I chose not to do these things. Someone who kills a hundred people in cold blood is as human as someone who chooses not to commit such an act.

My actions don't make me human or inhuman.

They merely determine what kind of human being I am.

The Sickness of the State

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or any other classification system(s) for mental illness ought to consider a category for 'disorders of the State or government' for tyrannical regimes and so-called 'democracies' that oppress and harass people on a frequent basis.

I suspect the presentation will be an amalgamation of narcissistic & obsessive- compulsive personality disorder, delusional disorder, and paranoid disorder NOS (not otherwise specified).

Consider the following clinical features listed in DSM IV TR in relation to the arbitrary and authoritarian censorship practices of the Indian government

Narcissistic personality disorder:

- 'Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)' We all know that the power of the state far exceeds its merit.

- 'Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.' Manifested as the illegitimate exercise of authority.

- 'Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.' Suppresses freedom of speech and expression allegedly to safeguard the interests of the 'nation' where nation = sarkar.

- 'Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes' reflected in the fact that the government assumes the ability and right to decide what is right or wrong for millions of people.

Obsessive compulsive personality disorder:

- 'A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency...', "control" being the operative word.

Delusional disorder

- 'Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions... Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible.

Specifically, to be a "delusion," a belief must be sustained despite what almost everyone else believes, and not be one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture'*

* Such as the general public who may not share the government's belief that certain blogs are offensive, or that FTV corrupts the moral fabric of Indian society.

As for paranoid disorder NOS- consider the following diagnostic criteria specified by ICD-10 for paranoid personality disorder (four out of seven are relevant)

- 'Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs

- tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;

- tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude

- preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large'

I rest my case.

Na sahi wasl to hasrat hi sahi

A few mornings ago I was reading an article about one of those assistance dogs that do such amazing things. After sufficient ooh-ing and wow-ing I remarked that I should become a dog trainer. Seconds later I added that I would be a terrible dog trainer because I wouldn't be able to discipline the dog and would pretty much let it do whatever the hell it wanted. A digression here to inform readers that while friends and even colleagues know that I have the ability to be scarily strict and no-nonsense type, it is limited to members of the human species. With animals I melt like a slab of butter when Jerry soothes his burning bum on it (The fact that I couldn't think of a metaphor better than one involving Tom & Jerry is testimony to my borderline crazy adoration of animals).

So yeah, when I said I wouldn't last three days in a job as a dog trainer, my partner said "You should be a dog spoiler instead"

Friends, nomads and countrymen! The moment comes but rarely in history when you realise what your true calling is. That morning when my beloved told me what I should be, dear lectores, was one such moment.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is such a thing as a dog-spoiler. It got me thinking about additional employment opportunities that haven't yet seen the light of day, but which I would gladly apply for and probably never leave unless forced to do so.

Dog spoiler

Duties could include showing unabashed affection towards the dog, feeding, grooming and playing with it, defending its right to do almost anything, letting it sleep on £5000 mattresses, oh what the heck! letting it sleep on my head if it wants to, talking to it about existence, and receiving gyaan (pearls of wisdom) from it. The only problem is dogs are so easy going and unpretentious that they wouldn't care about many of these services. A cat would, but I don't want to be a cat spoiler. Yes, I like some animals more than others. I like all animals more than humans.

Culturally and intellectually engaged alter-ego of a rich person

A rich man, or woman, wants to keep abreast with the best of literature, poetry and music but doesn't have the time to indulge these cultural pursuits. He/she would pay me to read great books and poetry, attend lectures and talks on a variety of interesting subjects, and listen to beautiful music. I would then take out an hour or two each day to succinctly summarise the plot, philosophy, underlying themes, meanings- both apparent and symbolic, and essence of those books, talks, poems and songs for the benefit of my employer. This combines several of my favourite activities with another- teaching. Hmmm...maybe this could include a travel component also. Since I am making it up as I go along, it shall.

Feedback- giver

Based on comments by recipients and my own gut instinct, I believe I would make a good feedback-er. Good feedback should be useful. Something that the feedback-ee should be able to do something with. Comments like "This was awful" are pointless. So is being too nice. I am not in favour of sugar coated critique. I dislike sugar. Especially when it coats things. Apart from those German mini-doughnut type things, which I could quite easily do with right about now.

Firer

Not guns, though we can come to that later perhaps. I mean the kind person who gets to say "You're fired!". Inspired by cinema, I think companies should outsource firing people. These are tough times, and everyone knows that letting a faithful employee go isn't easy. I would like to be the one who takes that burden of duty off them. Outsource the hatred directed towards the messenger! What a great idea! I will happily take on the part of said messenger. I'm actually surprised this isn't already a bonafide source of income.

Defender of personal autonomy and human rights

In a society afflicted with "fear of offending" I can be hired to tell people off if they interfere with my prospective employer's personal freedom on ridiculous grounds including appeals to religion, class, caste, or the wider social community ("Log kya kahenge"). To tell someone to %$@* off and take their personal opinion with them would feel so much better if it were part of my job description. For two reasons. First, I'd get paid for it. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there would be no dithering or discomfort about meddling in the private affairs of another person. The (somewhat overbearing) presence of my nose and foot in matters concerning a third party would be legitimised by my employment contract.

Before signing anything, I would master some form of deadly combat like Krav Maga to be better equipped to do my job and deal with...ahem....impediments effectively.

Food taster (Vegetarian :-p)

The job title is self explanatory. A dream job list that doesn't involve delicious food is proof that the person making the list is either sadly misinformed about the pleasures of existence, or keeled over in the middle of the exercise, thereby leaving the list incomplete.

Of the above-mentioned, I believe the professional firer, feedback-giver and alter-ego are real possibilities. Do millionaires with no time on their hands read this blog?

One lives in eternal hope, doesn't one?