It's not okay until I say so, don't think I said yes because I didn't say no- Why parenthood ought to be like sexual consent

(Disclaimer: The following post applies only to situations where women undergo sterilisation or seek to terminate their pregnancy entirely out of choice and not to situations where women are forced or coerced into these decisions, as often occurs in cases of domestic abuse)

In the UK, if you want to have an abortion or a tubectomy (female sterilisation), your doctor will recommend that you go see a counsellor. The argument is that these processes are impossible and hard to reverse respectively and women seeking them should be sure of their decision. I fully agree that women should think about the decision very seriously and I have no objection to women being offered counselling, as long as they are not compelled to take the offer up because I believe that ultimately, women have absolute autonomy over their bodies and lives.

The other aspect is informed consent so that women understand the procedure, risks as well as potential consequences. While this is desirable for any medical intervention, in case of abortions and sterilisation it is sometimes taken too far. There was recently an uproar (definitely in my head!) about women in certain American states being forced to view an ultrasound image of the foetus and listen to its heartbeat before they can have their pregnancy terminated (See here). This is appalling to say the least. If women are forced to view images and sounds designed to guilt them into thinking of what they're giving up, I think it's only fair that pregnant women are forced to take stock of what they're getting themselves into and made to view images and sounds of mewling babies, misbehaving children and watch a movie about the perils and responsibilities of being a parent.

I wonder what would happen if pregnant women were given demos of the amount of physical pain they'd have to endure or shown films about parenthood gone bad- neglected, abused children, tired faces, sleepless nights and all the not- so- peachy parts about being a parent.

But they are not and never will because the assumption society operates on is that having children is a normal and it is abnormal to not want kids.

One of the many, many problems with the world we live in is that the two life-choices that ought to be made only, and I can't stress this point enough, ONLY, based on personal choice are often taken up by people because they are considered to be a human given, a natural next-step or the ultimate goal in life. The first is getting married. The second, having children. If you talk to a large enough number of people, read the news, and basically have your eyes and ears open when you're around some so-called-parents, it's not hard to conclude that many people who have kids do so without giving it any or at the very least, sufficient thought. This is because parenthood is seen as a fundamental duty and essential rite of passage for all and sundry, regardless of their skills, aptitude, attitudes etc. etc. etc. all of which, mind you, would be taken into account before you hire someone for a particular job. Parenthood is often touted as the toughest job in the world, a statement I can neither confirm nor deny. Is it just me who finds it utterly baffling that everyone is assumed to be fit and ready for it when they reach a certain age or stage of life (in most cases, soon after getting married)?

The argument that women who want to be sterilised ought to be offered counselling so that they can seriously consider their decision because the process is hard to reverse is trite and woefully incomplete, unless people who want to have children are also offered counselling to make sure that they're sure. Newsflash: having kids is irreversible too.

The way I see it, the consequences are far more dire if someone has a child and regrets the decision than if a woman gets sterilised and wants to have children later on. We all make decisions we regret and we often require a great deal of strength to deal with the consequences of those decisions. A woman who regrets her decision to get sterilised only to realise later in life that she wants to be a mother still has the option of becoming a parent through a reversal or through adoption. Yes, she may feel regret, guilt or other upsetting emotions but she will be taking responsibility for her actions, and this is how it should be. On the other hand, the only option facing a woman who gives birth to a child only to realise she doesn't want to be a mother is to give up the child or worse, to give up on the child. Regardless of what happens to the child as a result, this necessarily involves abdication of her responsibilities towards said child.

Society operates on confused, misguided morals if it is easier for someone to conclude that they don't want to be a parent after having a child that it is for someone to arrive at this decision beforehand. The cruel, unfortunate reality is that it is easier for a child to be born, only to be neglected, discarded or abused, than it is to prevent an unwanted birth.

And it must not be this way.

Parenthood, like sexual consent, ought to be an active decision rather than a passive process. It ought to be something you consciously agree to rather than something you go along with.

The fact that someone doesn't mind the idea of parenthood doesn't mean they want to be parents.

A 'not-unwanted' child is not the same as a child who is wanted.

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.

TOI really knows how to pick the right words

"SHIMLA: After Vidarbha farm widow Kalawati, it was the turn of Nand Lal, a poor driver, to hog the limelight, thanks to Congress general secretary secretary Rahul Gandhi who showed interest in his well-being."

-----------

Without elaborating on the specific nature and level(s) of my discomfort with the above-mentioned lines, I think there is something seriously wrong with the socio-political situation of a country where a newspaper article begins with these words.

All citizens are equal * (Conditions Apply)

(I noticed a draft of this post while labelling other posts. I had started writing it over a year ago. Recent events - involving Continental Airlines, APJ Abdul Kalam, a bunch of fools in the Indian Parliament, and a moronic blog entry on TOI - have prompted me to post it at the present time)

"...we have made many mistakes. But through all these missed opportunities and mistakes we have stoutly defended our freedom, democracy,the rule of law, liberty and equality for all citizens, and our proud civilisation and history"

P.Chidambaram in "Abject Poverty can be Eradicated": India of My Dreams.

Yes. India of your dreams is right. For if one were to actually check each of these with simple examples from daily life and reality, it ought to shock us back out of this grandiose delusion.

To save time and effort, and because the others were not what impelled me to write this post, I am going to leave them aside and focus on just one of these principles we have so "stoutly defended".

Equality for all citizens.

It is utter crap. And if we only look around, there are several examples to show that we are being lied to. To. Our. Faces.

If we were all, from A-Z, equal then I(we) wouldn't have to go the airport, for example, and read a big board that says "All persons are subject to strict security checking procedures except the following....

-The Prime Minister
-The President
-E T and C

I don't think there exists a rational explanation for why they should be exempt. On what grounds are they allowed to pass while others have to be checked and frisked?

I don't have a problem with being checked and frisked, really. The problem is the preferential treatment.

A big deal was made about Kalam being asked to go through a security check just like everyone else. Kalam being the unassuming man that he is, didn't act fussy, and co-operated. But the other ministers of India would have none of this and raised a hue and cry in the Rajya Sabha demanding that the airline apologise. The Minister for Aviation obliged, as did the airline.

Now I can think of two reasons why current MPs would get so flustered by an incident that concerns them not

1. They have fragile egos and their sense of importance and worth is governed by whether they are asked to pass through a metal detector or not. If someone who actually has some strength of character was "treated this way", what chance do they have to convince themselves that they are worth a dime?

2. They clearly want to waste time in the parliament discussing petty things like this (and what language people should talk in!), rather than discussing ways to deal with other problems that the nation is grappling with.

Rather than regarding it as an "insult to the nation" if politicians and former politicians are asked to undergo security checks, I think it will do us all a lot of good if they willingly participated. They are meant to be leaders right? Why don't they lead us through the metal detector as well then! Plus, if they do it, it might knock some sense into non-politicians who think they are VIPs because of how heavy their pockets are.

I don't think CA should have apologised. This reminds me of an incident at Bukhara, New Delhi where I overheard two foreigners request the waiter to make their kebabs less spicy. The waiter promptly told them that kebabs were spicy by nature, and would not be changed. I like the whole take-what-you-get-or-fuck-off attitude. If CA has certain security procedures to follow, it shouldn't have to apologise for them.

The guy on the TOI blog said the Kalam incident was like asking Hillary Clinton to go through a security check when she visits India. I don't think there is anything wrong with that either. It's a security check for god's sake! One should question their intentions when they vehemently oppose it, just because it causes one to wonder what they have to hide.

The last line of an article in TOI made me really angry- "There have been instances where Indian VIPs have been treated shabbily at foreign airports."

If going through security checks is "shabby treatment" then isn't it shameful and worrying that the GOI (meant to be by, of and for the people) is okay with every other citizen of India being subjected to it?

Another example, and I am sure everyone who has been through this experience will agree, is the fact that whenever a "VIP" passes by a certain area, or is about to, they have all these cops stopping regular traffic. It is the most absurd and revolting thing! To be in a car, waiting for some man/woman to drive past, and cooperate while you are effectively being told that he/she is more important than you are.

I mean, if the proud pricks have to be somewhere in such a hurry, and if they are so bloody important, they ought to have the brains enough to leave their homes a little sooner keeping in mind the time of day and traffic flow like the rest of us do.

Even if you leave aside the fact that it is absolutely shameful to pledge allegiance to principles of equality, liberty and justice for all and clearly give priority to some citizens over the others, it is a violation of democratic principles. Why should I wait for the other guy to pass? Because they tell me to. And because they will either shoot me or throw me in prison for trying to get onto a road that's supposedly meant for everyone and that the government maintains by fleecing people of their hard earned money.

It violates this alleged equality by adding a " * " and a small print.

* except for some, who are special.

Eye opening journalism

Watching the coverage of the flood in Bihar by CNN IBN tonight

Two moments I would like to highlight

1. They showed various statues of god, submerged in water and the correspondent’s voice rang forth “…even God cannot save them”

Hmmm…. even God cant save them. Even God can’t save us.

What does that tell you?

2. Last shot (in which the correspondent proudly says her name and the channel she works for) in this case was a picture of her sailing through the flood waters (for effect of course) while two poor elderly and frail looking male flood victims pushed the makeshift bamboo shoot boat she sat on.

I mean this doesn’t exactly paint the perfect picture of a concerned journalist trying to evoke sympathy in viewers while at the same time projecting an image of herself/ her channel as getting down and dirty by reporting from ground zero, does it?

On reservation- just a few points.

My views on reservations based on caste in educational institutions are quite clear. They're pointless. The downtrodden still remain downtrodden and the wealthy, greasy lalas derive all the benefits they can out of this whole thing. I mean the whole system has become a big fat joke, because a time will come when everyone will want to be included in the SC/ST/OBC category, and the "General" catgories will need reservation. It's quite a clear indication of things having gone awfully awry, when people start rioting to be included in a category of people who, as per their own claims, are a poor and oppressed lot.

As far as reservations in academics go, I don't think any reservations should be made at the University level. In fact, reservations should be made on economic grounds in primary and secondary educational institutions across India, so that the problem- which is basically a problem of unequal opportunity- is sorted out at the first rung of the ladder. Once an opportunity is given at the lower levels, the ball is in ability's court.

Recently, the much awaited question of reservation for women in Parliament has raised itself from the dead like a phoenix again. A bill that was shamefully torn to pieces in Parliament as slap on the face of democracy a decade ago, has once again become the top agenda of the Government- apart from the Nuclear Deal of course which is threatening to sink the mother ship.

Now the argument in favour of reservation of women in Parliament is as follows- because of patriarchal social structures and attitudes, women cannot contest and win elections without the crutches. It is sad, indeed it is. But it is also true. Women have neither money nor clout. "But they have principles, sensitivity, and sensibility-don't they?" Yes. Some, if not most, do.

But the sad fact is that even if some people in the history of the world may have won an election on principles and vision alone, it is not something that has happened often enough for us to internalise it as a modo de vida.

So coming back to the question of reserving seats for women in Parliament. My views are not well formed or coherent enough to be put down here. I do understand that the problem is too deep seated to be resolved easily. Women are systematically discriminated against where is comes to education, free thinking, liberation of mind and spirit, employment, and of course money - things that are all (in theory) part of the Successful Political Candidate Kit.

What I do not understand, is the hypocrisy and blindness of the Government when it comes to the question of reserving seats based on gender. They are okay with reserving seats based on caste, class and religion, but not gender.

Someone from the Government recently cited the example of what Sarojini Naidu had said in 1932, and actually hinted at it being an ideal we would be compromising on if we reserved seats for women in Parliament. Naidu had said that she dreamt of an India where special privileges were not given on the basis of caste, class, religion or gender.

Of course she did. So did hundreds of leaders then and so do hundreds of leaders now. All of us wish for an India where such privileges will not be necessitated by the social conditions that systematically oppress and suppress certain classes of persons. However, the dreams that our leaders had in those days have sadly not been our guiding forces in other matters. One look at the state of our nation today will tell you so.

She also dreamt of no reservations based on caste and class. Is that being followed? Do we not have reservations based on class and caste in all spheres of political, academic and social life? Kind sir who made the above mentioned statement, wake up and smell the rot. The ideals you remind us of have been compromised a long time ago.

Why are these reservations in place? Because the Government believes that special safeguards need to be given to certain groups of persons, who, because of the thousand year old history of India, have not been given an opportunity to rise. Why is this ideal of 'not giving special privileges' only being quoted when the question of reservation for women comes up? Does that not reflect a blindness on the part of the Government, to the fact that women are also one such group, and the most heterogeneous? Should gender not be considered an oppressed class in itself?

The dilly-dallying that is happening on the bill the second time around is on the question of reservation for OBC and other religious minorities, within the 33% reservation for women. All this is just a very cheap stunt on the part of the Government to postpone the passing of the bill in the next session. What annoys me about this entire situation is blatant hypocrisy and absence of credible arguments to support one's stand. As of this moment, there are no such safeguards for anyone from the OBC or religious minorities- male or female. Why rake this issue up when it comes to a question of reserving seats for women alone? Why has this wisdom not dawned on them for so many years? When the parliament deems fit, it shall make constitutional amendments to the existing laws to provide for quota for men and women from OBCs and religious minorities.

Whether or not there should be sub-quotas within quota is an issue that the parliamentarians can and should battle out on the floor of the Lok Sabha. Discrimination based on caste, class and religion affect men and women equally. However, gender based discrimination affects women alone, and it is this discrimination that the present bill seeks to tackle.

Principles of categorisation that we all acquire as children usually proceed from the super-ordinate to the sub-ordinate categories. SC/ST/OBC/Religious Minorities are sub-ordinate categories of oppressed persons within the much larger, super-ordinate category of "Women" .

Just to, you know, put things in perspective.

Caste cabaret

Now we all know that the Brahmins are supposed to be the purest of the pure, wisest of the wise, and religious-est of the religious among the Hindu community. Even among them, there is a particular sub caste - Chaturvedis- who are pretty much the creme de la creme of the Brahmin world.

The word means someone who is familiar with the four vedas. But I'll be damned if you can find more than 40% who even know the names of the four vedas. okay okay. 50%. But I can't loosen it further :-P

Anyway, a Chaturvedi usually only marries a Chaturvedi. Now it makes me wonder how long they can go on without running out of non family chaturvedis. Hence, the community is fairly incestual I would think. Or tending towards it.

They also don't eat onions and garlic. Those are evil things to be avoided by the pure bred and blooded. As someone recently mentioned, a possible reason is that they unearth baser passions. Ooh. Scary.

Have you formed a picture already? Of a boring person who prays a lot? Well baby, I have to say that you are in for a big surprise!

Recently, I had the good fortune of hearing about a particular Chaturvedi's son's wedding. The gentleman also happens to be an officer at a sufficiently high post in one of the Ministries of the Government of India, so I derive double joy from blabbering about him in this post

*evil grin*

At his son's wedding, he invited the entire clan and friends to a "mujraa night". Now this in itself sounded quite shady to me, but then I imagined some live Indian music to which a woman would do a little kathak performance, blended with drinks, and I was at peace with the idea.

Ah, but the evening turned out to be quite different indeed! In the words of my source...

"...It was more a cabaret than a mujraa. There was a DJ playing music, and then these women came out dresssed in the bare minimum required amount of clothes on their body. Some were fat, some were thin but all of them strutted about and danced provocatively. At one point they proceeded to turning their backs to the audience and started gyrating their hips. It was positively vulgar I tell you..!"

Needless to say, a good laugh was had by all.

Except the man's wife. Smt. Chaturvedi was voted as being the best of the dancing women by another male guest.

:-D

Now THATS a good one!

P.S. Rushdie Mian, could you make this incident a part of your next novel please?