On being 'good enough'

"When I was eleven, my sister bought our father a "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mug; and, frankly, the man coasted until the day he died."

- Sheldon Cooper (The Big Bang Theory)

Donald Winnicott (Yeah, I did just abruptly go from Sheldon Cooper to Winnicott) said and did a lot of useful things. Among these were his detailed postulations on motherhood and what a child needs in order to develop a healthy sense of integration and be initialised into the larger world with a sufficient degree of mastery, self-worth and confidence. Even better was the fact that Winnicott's ideas developed from earlier psychoanalytic thought that emphasised the role played by the mother/ primary caregiver (though the primary caregiver bit was only added as an afterthought) to such an extent as to frighten prospective mothers into believing that every problem faced by their offspring in adulthood could potentially be traced back to something they did or did not do as mothers of young children. Winnicott's theories offered mothers a necessary breather by dis-idealising (un-idealising?) motherhood ("It's only too easy to idealise a mother's job. We know well that every job has its frustrations and its boring routines and its times of being the last thing anyone would choose to do. Well, why shouldn't the care of babies and children be thought of that way too?"), advancing the idea that a parent who has fears and frustrations is preferable to one who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent ("I would rather be the child of a mother who has all the inner conflicts of the human being than be mothered by someone for whom all is easy and smooth, who knows all the answers, and is a stranger to doubt") and forwarding the notion that one did not need to be perfect, but just 'good enough'. 

I find myself remembering Winnicott's 'Good enough mother' on the eve of the American version of 'Mother's Day'. My Facebook feed is already filled with posts about mothers, honouring mothers in general and our mothers in particular, doing something 'special' for them on this day et cetera, et cetera. While I personally don't participate in these 'Hallmark Holidays' or 'Symbolic' days, I'm quite happy to leave each to their own. 

Having said that, one of the themes that social networking sites throw up near such holidays are posts about having "The best mom in the world", "The world's greatest dad" or "The best husband/wife ever". These make my face automatically twist into an expression combining bemusement with just a trace of annoyance...and let me tell you why. 

Because it's not a contest. There are no awards or prizes and there shouldn't be because there is no gold standard against which one's prowess as a parent or partner can or should be measured. Motherhood, fatherhood, indeed all relationships are extremely complex, highly diverse, subjective processes. They can mean vastly different things to different people so even if it were a contest, what scale or measure does one use to assess a parent or partner's greatness? This becomes particularly tricky when you consider things like liberties and privileges. For example, how do you compare a woman in South East Asia who works as a labourer for 60 hours a week and feeds her child one meal a day with a well-to-do mother who feeds her children organic, homegrown stuff three times a day? How does one judge a father who works evenings and nights to support his children but in doing so, misses all their school plays? The problem with superlatives like 'best' is there can only be one. 

Since 'best' and 'greatest' are superlatives, they are essentially based on comparisons. Who are people using as comparatives? If someone has only been married once and states that their husband/wife is the "best husband/wife ever", the sheer inaccuracy of the statement irks me. Only someone who has been married more than once can make a comparison of their various partners and arrive at some conclusions on which one is (or was!) 'better' (though in the absence of damning evidence or facts, even this comparison would be unfair based on the point previously mentioned). How do you know that your husband/wife is the best husband/wife ever? And more importantly, why does he/she need to be the best? 

Society and culture bombard us with messages about what it means to be a "good mother", "a good wife", "a real man" et cetera and these have done more harm than good because people ruin their identities and lives, and often the lives of others, in trying to subscribe to these imaginary, impossible standards. They tell us that parenthood and relationships exist in a world of absolutes (where there is an absolute good, an absolute bad is implied).  In such a world, comparatives and superlatives about motherhood (and any other -hoods and -ships) can make people feel guilty or stressed about "not being a good mother", let alone not being "the best". 

I JUST googled the words "Am I a..." and- I KID YOU NOT- the first two autocomplete hits were "Am I a bad mother" and "Am I a good mom". Incidentally, these were followed by "Am I a psychopath" and "Am I sociopath". Interesting, and slightly disturbing. I don't think these ideas emerge out of a vacuum. There are mothers out there who are wondering whether they are 'good' or 'bad' because there is some standard in their mind they are trying to live up to or worried about falling short of. 

There is no universal definition of a good mother/husband/wife/father. No boxes people can check to ensure that they have met the requisite criteria with merit or distinction that puts them in the 99.99th percentile and therefore makes them the 'best'. What is out there is a world of real relationships, diverse collections of people with different identities and backgrounds, and people you care for and who need you to be there for them in a manner that is unique to your relationship with them. 

Why must we use inaccurate superlatives to describe our loved ones when accurate adjectives would suffice? 

"You are funny" or "You are caring" means a lot more to me than "You're the best partner/daughter/sister ever" because a. I know the latter is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty and b. I believe that when someone close to me tells me specific things about me that they cherish, they speak from experience within our relationship rather than a comparison with someone else or some imagined standard. 

Some might say that it's just a sentiment or a figure of speech and that I'm being too literal and over-thinking this. Well, so be it. 

I do like to think about the words we choose to use. 

I would much rather be a sincere 'good enough' for my loved ones than an inaccurate and impossible 'best'. 

Clean ≠ Fair

It is either my good fortune or bad that I am not exposed to Indian advertisements on a regular basis any longer. Recently, a friend posted a link to this article about a new feminine hygiene/ beauty product that appears to have hit the Indian markets- Clean and Dry.

While I agree with many of the points made by Pal (the author)- namely the objectification of women and the locating of their self-worth entirely in how their physical self is perceived by others- I’d like to offer my own thoughts on the product and the ad which I believe are quite distinct from one another (a distinction not clearly apparent in the above mentioned article). I believe that the advertisement is not only a failure as far as feminism is concerned but also as far as good advertising is concerned.

The ad

The advertisement is awful and misogynistic on several accounts. Firstly, let’s take the song. The ad opens with a wistful female voice singing ‘Kho Gaye Hum Kahan…’ Only problem is, the 'hum' (i.e. the duo) do not appear lost in the slightest. The woman is in grief. The man clearly is not.

This line could potentially also apply to any domestic difficulty from infidelity to divorce to bankruptcy. I'm sure a coffee company could recycle the same song and make an ad opening with the same sequence as this one ending in the couple being all happy and content because they changed their brand of coffee. So for me, apart from the fact that the ad depicts the woman (and only the woman) fretting over/ mourning a loss that later turns out to be related to her partner's sexual interest in her, the song in the ad is abrupt, unclear and well, pointless.

The final line of the song is 'Jaana na, hai taazgi yahan' (roughly translated as 'Don't go, here be freshness!) which plays soon after the woman throws the man's keys down her shorts. Is she inviting him to have sex or begging him to stay because she has now 'fixed the problem'?

The man is depicted as being either totally oblivious of his partner’s anguish or totally unconcerned by her distress. Both are fairly undesirable stances. He’s shown to be reading the paper –a somewhat intellectual activity (depending on which paper one reads of course) and carrying on with his life while she ponders over what is lost in their relationship. This suggests that her self-worth begins and ends with how often she and her partner have sex while his sense of self is undisturbed by this aspect of their relationship.

Anatomical ambiguity

My main critique of Pal's article is the failure to distinguish between various components of female genitalia and the use of the word ‘vagina’ by the author when this ad seems to refer to an larger area. I'd like to stress that I am not defending the ad or its ambiguity but only pointing out an anatomical-linguistic inaccuracy that reduces the clarity of what is being communicated. The vagina is not the most visible part of the genitals so it’s more likely that the focus of beautification is on external genitalia. Cosmetic surgery to make the genitals 'look nicer' is increasingly becoming popular in the west and almost always or majorly involves a reconstruction, realignment etc. of the vulva or labia.

Beauty vs. Hygiene

It is very interesting that the ad for the intimate wash is drastically different in its content from an ad for a cream version of the same brand/ product.

Here’s the ad for the wash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tx9vVVMWw0

And here’s the ad for the cream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRg8XvmzHA

I’m going to bullet-point the major points of departure between the two commercials

- The former has beautification as it’s core benefit while the latter emphasises hygiene (with the almost too professional looking doctor as the main protagonist).

- In the former, the woman’s unhappiness is relational. I.e. it is not limited to how she feels about herself but rather how her partner responds to/ feels about her. In the latter there is no mention of a relationship/ partner/ sexual desirability as the doctor speaks to an animated version of a female patient about discomfort, problems and infections in the genital region. This suggests a more internal sense of comfort/ happiness with one’s body and how one feels about oneself rather than approval from one’s partner in the form of a willingness to engage in coitus.

- The latter makes direct references to possible infections and problems women may experience which is totally absent in the former, giving viewers misguided impressions about the cause of the woman’s dissatisfaction with her genitals and contributing to a negative perception of female genitalia in general.

- There is no silly song or wistful longing in the latter as there is in the former

All of the above make the former misogynistic and offensive and the latter more acceptable.

(On a side note, it is also interesting that the woman in the former appears more ‘modern’/’western’ – clad in shorts- as compared to both the doctor and the animated woman in the latter – wearing saris and salwar-kameez respectively. I may be hypothesising here, but it may reflect the assumption that ‘traditionally’ attired women are more concerned with practical/health issues than sex. The eternal mother/whore dichotomy in traditional Indian psyche. Not entirely implausible, given the appalling views recently expressed regarding the attire and habits of female rape victims).

The existence of an inoffensive ad for a similar product makes it easier for me to isolate the product from the ad and criticise only the advertisement.

The distinction between beauty and hygiene/medical reasons is quite an important one – whether it’s in the field of everyday products or surgery.

I think in general, if there is a new over the counter cream for genital infections/ discomfort, and it is advertised as such, it is a good rather than a bad thing if it allows women to get access to effective medication for non-serious conditions.

The biggest problem with the first ad therefore is its emphasis on ‘fairness’ and a complete lack of any hygiene related advantages to using the product. The unfortunate truth is that the existence of a product that promises to make the nether regions ‘fairer’ doesn’t surprise me. Why would it? It seems like a natural progression after Fair & Lovely (for the face) and Fairglow soap (for the body). Though it is utterly deplorable, I’m not going offer a detailed critique of the fairness bias in Indian – particularly North Indian- society or the fact that in almost all advertising campaigns pertaining to ‘fairness’ products a woman’s physical appearance determines her competence, employability, confidence et cetera, et cetera. I’m in general agreement with feminist writers about the points they make regarding the objectification of women in Indian advertising.

‘Beautification’ of female genitalia and violence against women: related but distinct

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (Those who don’t know what this is can read about it here) is beautification of female genitalia at its worst, performed on girls as young as a year old in several countries, majority of which are in Africa. It is torture and abuse practiced on the pretext of ‘religious custom/ duty’ and/or making the woman’s genitalia more pleasing- visually and sexually- for males.

I attended a seminar on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in which an FGM nurse specialist was talking about how, in her perception, FGM was also on a continuum of prejudiced, gender discriminatory and archaic patriarchal attitudes, and adult women who opted for cosmetic surgery on their genitals or even piercings etc. in the genitals were willing participants and perpetuators of these attitudes. I haven’t formulated my thoughts coherently on where I stand with regards to such a comparison, but I can try to see the point she’s trying to make.

One of the readers of Pal’s article commented that in a free market people should be permitted to advertise whatever they want while another commented that women who get drawn into the pull of these skin-lightening products based on advertising and marketing don’t deserve much sympathy. On the other hand one could argue that societal attitudes and prejudices are so deeply ingrained and social pressures so high that women who rebel and don’t conform risk ridicule/ disparagement/ isolation and in many cases, let’s be honest, torture/ abuse and even death.

Women who opt for cosmetic surgery to make their genitals more ‘aesthetically pleasing’ may or may not be doing so under pressure to conform. Aggressive advertising by the beauty and cosmetic surgery market probably does have a negative impact on how female (and male consumers) evaluate their own self-esteem and self-worth but the fact of the matter is that women are free to pierce their clitoris and consent to a doctor taking a knife to their genitals should they be so inclined.

The increasing popularity of cosmetic surgery is not something to celebrate because it indicates that we are tumbling down a path of insecurity and unhappiness with our physical selves and moving from an internal to an external locus of evaluation that, especially for women, begins and ends with how they look.

For many, FGM may lie on the same continuum as cosmetic surgery but while the former is criminally abusive the latter is merely tragic. To put things simply, preventing women from opting for genital reconstruction for aesthetic reasons is not the way to tackle FGM. Similarly, it is tragically true that the objectification of women occurs at varying levels and degrees. While all of its forms, levels and degrees are unacceptable, all of them are not the same as rape and violent sexual assault. There is a distinction between social attitudes that contribute to violence against women and girls and acts of violence. Tackling both is essential if we are to create a world in which women and girls can live free from fear of violence but the distinction between the two must not be lost.

A critique of one argument against the niqab

A BBC article reads - 'The niqab, says leading feminist philosopher Elizabeth Badinter "is totally contrary to the three principles of the French Republic". Those principles - liberty, equality, fraternity - can be seen written or carved on the front of every French town hall. By hiding your face, Mrs Badinter explains as she sips a small black coffee in her elegant apartment in Paris, you breach the principle of equality". She who hides her face is in a position superior to mine," she says. "She sees me but she refuses to reciprocate."'

There was an article in the Times recently that expressed a similar grievance. The author, Alice Thomson, complains about how while watching her offspring playing in Hyde Park with that of a veiled woman, she felt uncomfortable because she couldn't see the other woman's face. This, if the sentiment expressed in the article was anything to go by, caused much tumult in the world of the former. In the absence of non verbal facial cues, she found herself grappling in vacuum in order to understand how the other was responding to her. Was she friend or foe? Was she smiling under the veil or scowling? The title of the article - You are cutting me off as well as you- made me want assume the role of the veiled lady and say, "Okay. So what if I am?"

Both Badinter and Thomson allude to an alleged social inequality and disequilirbrium that emerges when one party is veiled and the other is not. I find this line of argument bizarre. Even if one forgets momentarily that while espousing principles of equality and whatnot, these women are suggesting that others change the way they dress because it causes the subjects some social discomfort, the point they are making seems petty to say the least.

If Badinter has a problem with the lack of reciprocity in the whole she-can-see-me-but-I-can't-see-her predicament, the issue is clearly her own. What startles me if the fact that she is regarded as a champion for women's rights. Feminism involves, among other things, empowerment of women so that they develop a sense of personal agency. Her first solution to this made-up problem however seems to involve changing the other rather than self, thereby turning the locus of control outward. What is her real problem? Is it that she can't see the other? Or that the other can see her? If it's is the latter, rather than asking others to disrobe, she should put in place structures that make her only as visible as she wants to be. If it is the former, then it is not worth wasting time over.

This scenario is a bit like wishing chlorophyll wasn't green. You can either moan about it, move on, or try to change it from green to purple. The last option is not really an option due to its impossibility, which in turn is due to the fact that it is not within your realm of control. Similarly, how someone else dresses is not something you can control. The only option available is to ban women from covering their faces, but mind you, it is definitely not one that can be exercised while hiding behind the equality banner.

The BBC reporter points out the contrast in Badinter's verbal commitment to equality while sitting in her elegant flat sipping tea. The suggestion that equality will be restored if the veiled women drop their veils, so that everyone would be equally visible, reeks of an unquestioned sense of superiority. Her argument assumes that to see and be seen is something desirable, and the social norm that one ought to aspire towards. Would it not be equally equal, if everyone wore a veil? The question of relative superiority or power would not arise, everyone would be equally (in)visible, and this alleged advantage of the veiled that is the cause of much distress would be obliterated. Thomson also moans along similar lines when she calls the burqa "a passive- aggressive statement, a rejection of the community. The person wearing it is signalling that either she or her family wants her to remain apart from society"

So now we're going to have a problem with people exercising their right to remain apart from whoever the hell they want?

The other pertinent question to consider, and one that is an exercise more appropriate for Thomson, is this- What is it that makes the reaction of a stranger mean so much? I personally couldn't care less if I couldn't read the expression of a stranger in a park. The fact that Thomson does speaks volumes about her. Reading her article, especially the title, I wonder if she would be satisfied with uncovered faces that displayed unsociable expressions.

She writes, "From her eyes I couldn’t tell whether she was frowning in disgust at my bare legs or smiling as our children squealed." Firstly, the fact that Thomson's first thought was the possibility of her bare legs being disgusting leads me wonder if she is projecting her own moral anxiety about exposed skin onto someone else. Secondly, even if the burka-ed woman had been visibly disgusted at Thomson's bare legs, something tells me Thomson wouldn't have been content just knowing that.

So what, dear Alice, is your real problem?

The 'cutting off' can't just be a matter of not-knowing what the other is thinking/feeling, since we can't say we are socially connected to someone who openly communicates an unfriendly attitude towards us. The accusation in the title- "You are cutting me off"- seems more like a disguised plea- "I want you to like me"

My "mirroring" other- A book

"The act is 'simple, determinate, universal' but his self wishes to be complex, indeterminate, and unique. The act is 'what can be said of it' but he must never be what can be said of him. He must remain ungraspable, elusive, transcendent"

That is R.D. Laing commenting on Hegel's notion of action in "The Divided Self".

Reminds me of what a professor said to me three years ago- "I can't quite grasp what you're about. It is almost like even in telling me everything, you are concealing something. The only thing I have ever received from you is the sense that I can never really receive the real you"

Genuinely pleased at the accuracy of his interpretation of the countertransference, I smiled and said, "You're right"

"If you were a cat, I would feed you GoCat" *

Easily one of the nicest, non-corny things anyone ever said to me.

* What was actually said was "अगर तुम बिल्ली होती तो मैं तुम्हे 'GoCat' खिलाता"

On marriage

Beyond thyself shalt thou build. But first of all must thou be built thyself, rectangular in body and soul...

...Not only onward shalt thou propagate thyself, but upward! For that purpose may the garden of marriage help thee!

...Marriage: so call I the will of the twain to create the one that is more than those who created it.

...The reverence for one another, as those exercising such a will, call I marriage.


...Far from me also be the God who limpeth thither to bless what he hath not matched!

- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

The Epidemic of Botched Plastic Surgery

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/congresswoman_says_botched?utm_source=a-section

Que divertido ! B-)

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.

Psychosis of a "crazier" kind

“I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking this question,” she said. “And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, ‘Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for Me and you need to share with all these people...you need to witness to them’.”

Carrie Prejean in a radio interview on her opposing same sex marriages.

More here

What I don't fully understand is, how come these people get invited to talk shows and such, while people who think aliens are using their bodies to wage war against insects have to languish in mental asylums?

A man who keep surpassing himself in the ability to say the most dangerous and obnoxious things

From here

'How could Indira Gandhi's grandson pose a danger to the country, the Sena chief asked. "If what he said poses danger to the country then arrest 80 crore Hindus under NSA," he added.'

Question: What is worse, more damaging and more anger arousing than Varun Gandhi's recent views and "alleged" remarks that got him booked under the NSA?

Answer: A crazed old fascist hoping to speak on behalf of 80 crore Hindus of this country, and suggesting that they might endorse those (or similar) views.

I don't know what it is about people assuming the right to represent and speak on behalf of others. It just pisses me off. Whether it is Manmohan Singh telling George Bush that the people of India love him, or whether it is Thackeray going off on his grotesque religious tangents again.

"When you realise you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible"

(Said a funny man to an annoying yet endearing-in-some-way woman in a feature film I happened to watch today)

Multi-isms of my motherland

"India also has philosophical and aesthetic traditions that are truly majestic in their scope and depth. These range from Vedanta's unifying existentialism to Ghalib's playful symbolism, from Bhagavad Gita's enlightened pragmatism to Gandhi's unflinching pacifism, from Khajuraho's informed hedonism to Kathakali's narrative corporealism, from Buddha's contemplative realism to Tagore's spiritual lyricism, from Nanak's divine eclecticism to Nehru's sophesticated secularism, and from Kabir's poetic mysticism to Rushdie's sardonic surrealism"

- Dr. Salman Akhtar,

Gifted writer and poet, exceptional orator.

Also, a psychoanalyst and psychiatrist.

in 'Freud Along the Ganges- Psychoanalytic Reflections on the People and Culture of India'

Of chapatis, chauvinism and other words beginning with the same letters that I would rather not mention

Our society is composed of arrogant fools whose self confidence is derived more from their social status and nawabi than their actual worth.

A conversation that ensued at the dinner table with the family was what started off my thoughts on the subject that ended with the above conclusion.

We eat rotis here, in this part of the world. And at the dinner table usually indicate when we reach the last one so that the woman who is making them in the kitchen doesn't stack them up unnecessarily for them to become stale the next day.

A visiting relative, after indicating his saturation point as far as rotis were concerned, commented on how someone he knew (lets call him Snoot) went to dinner to someone else's home and was very offended when asked to tell how many rotis were needed at the table.

The next day, this personification of arrogance made the most rude and hurtful remark to the woman of the house.

He asked her if her husband was earning well and received his pay checks on time, because "tumhare ghar mein toh gin kar roti banti hai" (in your home, you have to count the rotis before you make them)

Of course, I do not think there is anything wrong at all in finding out beforehand, so that one doesn't waste any food, or effort in making rotis that aren't going to be consumed during the same meal. Others on the table also agreed, but El Padre said that while he didn't think it was wrong, he understood the perspective of the gentleman described above. He said that in north India, it isn't considered socially appropriate to ask how many rotis one will have.

Why?

His logic is that if you ask someone if they will have more rotis, they will not say no even if they wanted more.

Now, I think it all depends on the manner in which the question is asked.

Asking someone, "aap roti toh nahi lenge na" (you wont have any more will you?) isnt right, as one doesn't find it comfortable to respond to a negative assumption with an affirmation.

Asking someone "aap roti toh aur lenge" (you will have one more, wont you) is fine, as it assumes that the person will, establishes that you will very much like him to have more, and are only asking to confirm so that you don't burden him with the already prepared roti if he doesn't want one.

Clearly, the Snoot wasn't making his sick and despicable remark because he felt pressured to say no when he wanted to say yes. He clearly thought it was beneath him to mention that he wanted to have 2-3-4 or 18 more rotis, because it was beneath him to have to answer a question of this nature. Nawabs probably didn't do that. The idea being that your social status is determined by the fact that you can afford to waste a few rotis and allow the food to spill over even if it isnt required, because you are well off enough to be able to spare a few extra grains of wheat.

What a shame. And what a sad person he is, if he has to prove his superiority in this manner- by downgrading the status of another. Of course, without giving sufficient regard to the fact that this man may have been an acquaintance of my visiting relative, I made my views about his behaviour quite clear.

Also, how come no one objects to this when one is paying for the rotis out of their own pockets at a restaurant? Do we not indicate to the waiter, whether more bread is needed? Or do we, Mr Snoot, wait for him to bring a basketful before us, and charge us for it?

So is it a question of disregard for an other's effort and money, whereas one holds one's own dear?

I am puzzled by how one's ego can be deflated by this most simple and non controversial question. How is it that one can feel offended when asked about one's dietary requirements?

All this is also, in my humble opinion, related in a subtle way to patriarchal values and customs.

How?

You think the women who cook for themselves and are last to eat keep going, without deciding in advance about which will be the last roti?

Men who take offence to such trivial things, are those men, who in a patriarchal set up, eat first, and feel rather king-like when the women serve them*. They probably feel that they needn't worry about these petty things, because even if the rotis are extra and piling up, the women who eat after they are done will happily consume them.

Like nawabs, whose slaves would take of the remains after they are done.

(*Seriously. Such men make me sick. They wouldn't even lift a finger to pick a slice of cucumber off the salad plate and expect their wives, daughters and daughter in laws to scurry about, fussing over them.)

La madre amable :-P

Comfort: It would really make me so happy if you have kids

Holy Cow: I see!

Comfort: Because I know you will make a wonderful mother

Holy Cow: Yeah. Maybe, by not giving birth to the kids, I am already being a good mother by shielding them from the suffering called existence.

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.

No promises broken, no justice denied; He never promised us anything, so we can't say that He Lied

"I find this whole idea of having been "wronged" in some way (with respect to life) quite futile, and that is the very idea that this whole talk of fairness vs. unfairness (of life) brings with it. Your life has not been given to you to be peachy. No one is obligated to make you happy. Creation is a chance occurence. That's it. It's like saying "It's not fair that the sky is blue" . The sky doesn't give a damn and doesn't have any obligation to. So the question of "justice not being done" doesn't arise."

This was some Gyaan (words of wisdom) that the Holy Cow baanto-ed (distributed) to a friend recently.

She does that a lot.

That too, free of charge.

Advertisement: Sunrise Banquet Hall- Price includes flowers, mishri and two cups of coffee

Some of the family,including parents, just returned from a ten day vacation in Uttaranchal (Yes, I know they have changed it to Uttarakhand but I think that name is terrible compared to the beautiful and calm sounding Uttaranchal so I shall stick to it). The first thing they say to me as I breeze in from work is "We found the perfect place to get married. We think you should get married in Dehradun"

To say I was anything less than aghast would be an understatement. But I managed to retain composure and said "Oh?"

The story is as follows. Mother and aunt wanted to use the bathroom so they all had to stop on the way down from XYZ to Delhi. They saw this nice looking place and went in. My uncle went in also. Feeling bad about entering a place just to use the conveniences*, he thought he would strike up a conversation with the man at the reception, pretending to be an interested customer.

The place was "Sunrise Banquet Hall" that they rent out for weddings at Rs. 50,000/- (only) and if you get them to do the catering its half the price. It was apparently quite huge, had 13 A/C rooms and in case there were more guests who were close enough to stay over, there were dorms in which beds could be laid out.

Details such as the following were also discussed

1. What the menu would be like. The guy went on to say how you could choose any four starters and any four desserts etc.

2. What would the cost of renting the place include. It would include, apparently, the hall, decorations, 400 chairs, flowers, and also the mishri and rosewater that they sprinkle on the guests when they walk in.

3. At the time of the actual ceremony (he assumed it would be a Hindu one) they would serve 2 cups of coffee to everyone present, at no extra charge. (I think this is poignant, as I have thoroughly enjoyed having coffee while watching my cousin brother's and my close friend's wedding. It wakes you up and you feel like a very important guest at the premiere of a movie)

4. Breakfast, which would be composed of Jalebi, Kachoris etc. would be served to all guests who had the strength, and willingness to stay over night.

Now, I really don't know how long my mother and aunt were gone, but my uncle had even managed to bargain and get the guy to reduce the price! Yes, very enterprising and all.

Naturally, the obvious question, and one that was running parallel-y in my mind, was voiced by that gentleman first.

"Toh sir, shaadi kab ki hai?" (So, when is the wedding)

(Here, I might have struck a pose with arms folded across chest as if to say "Yeah, when is the wedding anyway?"

My uncle: Socha toh hai August September mein kisi time.

I think, for readers who know me not, it would be appropriate to mention here that this post is meant to be funny both in its content, as well as in the contextual setting. The latter of course being that I of course had no plans of getting married in August/ September and this uncle of mine (despite the fact that I do like him a lot) has no idea whatsoever about this particular aspect of my life and existence.

Eventually the ladies emerged, and my uncle left it at "We'll let you know after seeing a few more places"

They tell me all I needed to do was find the groom

*Personally, I don't know why he felt so terrible. I have done this for two whole years at the University Library. That is, going in just to use the bathroom because it was the cleanest one around. I mean, why pretend? Did I feel sheepish the first 4-5 times? Yes, I did a little. By the 5th-6th time, I had gotten over the sheepishness as well.

Apparently, according to TQ, I also started recommending it to others who were distraught at the restroom situation on campus. She says I was only too glad to offer advice - "Oh, you should go to the Central Reference Library! It's quite nice!"

The Glamour Doll of the Indian Government

Ms. Renuka Chowdhury is the minister of state for women and child development, Government of India

And I would like to say a few things about her.

Recently there was an Indo-Africa forum summit organised by the Ministry of External Affairs, which I had the good fortune of attending. In an interactive session held at Taj Mansingh hotel, she was the chief guest or some such fluff.

So she arrived, with an inch thick layer of make up on her face, smiling at everyone as if she were Angelina Jolie attending the Academy Awards Ceremony. She had to deliver the inaugural address in which all she did was praise the UPA, praise Sonia Gandhi, praise Manmohan singh, and of course, play her trump card for women's empowerment- Pratibha Patil. (Most of her sentences had the following words in varying combinations - my government; the present government; our great leader Sonia Gandhi; the stable force behind all change Sonia Gandhi; Sonia; Gandhi; UPA Chairperson)

There was no substance whatsoever in what she said. She just kept acting all heroine-ish and talking in a sultry voice and throwing her head back and laughing in an attempt at sexiness. Like a vamp.

She came across as the kind of woman who would sleep around to get what she wants.

It was quite disgusting to see her behave the way she was, and I basically wanted to throw up.

Then, her over-stressed and over-worked junior from the Department (a word here on the horribly tyrannical power hierarchy within ministries. I mean, the Personal Secretary to the Personal secretary to the Under Secretary lives in absolute terror of the Personal Secretary who is terrorised by the Under Secretary who fears the Joint Secretary who has sleepless nights because of the Secretary who gets flustered and flaps his/her wings like a Duck caught in tar at the thought of the Minister) gave a presentation on the work of the WCD dept. in which they spoke of all their schemes etc without saying a word about how successful / unsuccessful they have been.

And then when the African parliamentarians were asking really important and good questions to her, she gave generic answers like "he he, actually it has taken so long for the men to wake up and listen to us"

One excitingly intelligent lady from Sudan pointed out to Renuka that even though women had their own ministry within the Govt., it would be better to have women ministers in more departments. She also bluntly stated that, and I quote "...Madam, you may be a minister of your department, but you still have to beg the finance minister for funds"

Rather than answering the question as another intelligent woman would have, and trying to understand what the lady was saying, darling Renuka said "...My dear, we don't ask the Finance Minister, we order him. And he jolly well listen to us. Ha ha"

I mean, what was that, really?

When another African parliamentarian told her that she had seen a lot of Indian women sit on the ground rather than on chairs and beds etc, Renuka said the most outrageous thing

"...that's a cultural practice. It should be separated from a social or gender issue. We Indians like to sit on the floor. Even when I go to my village I sit on the floor. Its a healthy yogic posture (!!!) No woman is denied the right to sit on the chair or bed"

Utter crap. I was in villages of Rajasthan early this year, and several women said they were not supposed to sit on the charpoy, because that was a privilege afforded only to the men. Moreover, many women who were seated, actually stood up when men walked past because they couldn't be seen sitting when the men were standing.

Anyway, she kept evading the core issues with answers of this kind. It was despicable

To top it all, when she was asked about the women scavenging on the streets along with their children, she said it was "an organised crime" in India and "he he, you know we Indians are also have a lot of mischief"

Then she mentioned that Rural Employment Guarantee scheme (which btw, is not being implemented the way it should) as a solution to the problem of people living on the streets in the cities, and said "so we are trying to tell them that you know you can work if you really want. So there really is no reason for you to sit on the road expecting to be fed and taken care of "

What the hell is she talking about anyway? If a million homeless women turned up at her doorstep tomorrow, asking for work, even under the NREGA, is she going to give them a job??

The Integrated Child Development Scheme includes creches for children whose mothers are working. At these creches Midday meals are provided. There has been talk recently about the quality of these midday meals being quite poor, and not very nutritious. You know what Renuka's bright idea was? To include biscuits to make the meal more nutritious.

My mother and I, and several others I am sure, provide nutrition in the form of biscuits to children on a daily basis at traffic lights. Is it wrong for us to expect that the provisions made by the Central Government for the same will go beyond just biscuits then?

She finished by saying the Africans should definitely "go shopping because its great"

We tolerate the caste system and use chunks of Mars as paper-weights

"...The world has become a small place, in which cooperation is feasible and necessary. We are willing to cooperate not only to use the resources of our planet, but those of other planets also which are now being reached"
.......
"...(India) has been tolerant to different religious concepts, and to the caste system"

Union Home Minister Shri Shivraj Patil
'Acceptance of Anekantvada' in "India of my dreams"

Om Madan Prakash Narayan Shivpuri

Conversation between TQ and Holy Cow (A classic example of the randomness that the two of them are capable of)

TQ- So, who killed Ms. McKenzie? (Asking about a mystery novel she was reading)

Holy Cow- Umm.....Om Shivpuri (Keen to jump at a chance to create tumult and confusion)

TQ-Who the hell is Om Shivpuri

Holy Cow- He is the guy in Gumnaam. The one who ends up being the murderer...no?

TQ- Hain?

Holy Cow- Arre, the fellow in Gumnaam yaar! Don’t you remember Om Shivpuri?

TQ- There is no one by that name!

Holy Cow- Of course there is! Okay, he may not be the guy in Gumnaam, but I know there is someone by that name from old Bollywood.

TQ- This guy is someone else. Om Shivpuri is that guy is Karz

Holy Cow- Which guy in Karz?

TQ- The villain. Sir Judah.

Holy Cow- (Laughing at the name)- Who is Sir Judah?

TQ- That guy at the end. The one who cant speak and communicates only in sign language

Holy Cow- What does he look like? I don’t think he is the same guy from Gumnaam. Because he is not ringing a bell at all! And I have seen Karz twice! The Om Shivpuri I am talking about is a mustachioed man.

TQ- Sir Judah also had a moustache. And he was bald

Holy Cow- He was bald but he had a moustache? How vague is that!

TQ- Why? Chacha Chaudhury is bald and has a moustache!

Holy Cow- Yeah, but he wears a turban so it doesn’t count. Coz we can’t see it.

TQ- I think the guy you mean is some Prakash. Om Prakash!

Holy Cow- Oh yeah!! It could be Om Prakash!

TQ- I don’t know, Om Shivpuri is not having the “aha” quality to the name.

Holy Cow- Oh ho, there is an Om Shivpuri for sure.

TQ- You know, now that you have said the name sp much, it is starting to ring a bell. Though I am also getting a hint of Narayan

Holy Cow- maybe his name was Narayan Om Prakash

TQ- Now we are just going to Kaashi- Mathura! Who is that guy who gets mimicked a lot?

Holy Cow- Oh right. He is Om Prakash. Back to square one. Tell me what this Sir Judah looks like.

TQ- He doesn’t have many teeth

Holy Cow- He doesn’t have many teeth?? That’s what you’re giving me to work with? He doesn’t have many teeth??

TQ- (Laughing uncontrollably now) yeah!

Holy Cow- So we have a bald, fat, tooth less, mustachioed man who cant speak.

TQ- Who was the guy who played Mogambo ?

Holy Cow- Amrish puri

TQ- Oh yeah. His elder brother I think is Om Shivpuri.

Holy Cow- Hmmm.... Is Sir Judah the same as the guy who comes as the rich father in most Bmitabh Bachchan movies?

TQ- No no. Sir Judah doesn’t come as father figure. He only comes as a villain.

Holy Cow- Then who is that guy!?!

TQ- Okay. The guy who gets mimicked is Om Prakash for sure right! So he is in the clear.

Holy Cow- yeah. I don’t know why I am sure that the Gumnaam guy is Om Shivpuri . Though this Sir Judah is boggling the mind.

TQ- Don’t you remember him, he was being massaged by naked women in his little pool in his room. Like a buffalo.

Holy Cow- So now we have a bald mustachioed buffalo without many teeth being massaged by naked women??

Holy Cow- Was Sir Judah fat in absolute terms or relative?

TQ- Absolute

Holy Cow- My gumnaam guy was not fat. And in his defense, he didn’t have any hair loss issues either!

TQ- I know. I have established the chronology of events. Gumnaam was much older than Karz. So maybe the Gumnaam guy was young, had hair and teeth and was thinner. And then when he did Karz, he had lost his hair, gained weight and lost his teeth.

Holy Cow- Ha ha, Isn’t one supposed to become frail and thin when one is old?

TQ- he wasn’t that old ..that he was wasting away! Okay, Google for three things. Gumnaam cast, Karz cast and Om Shivpuri.

Meanwhile....TQ had asked her brother who apparently is a film wiz.

TQ- Okay. He says that Sir Judah is Madan Puri, who is Amrish Puri's brother who is also the guy in Gumnaam. Om shivpuri is the guy who plays Vardan in Don.

Holy Cow- Okay. So Om Shivpuri is the guy who I meant as the one playing father figure in Amitabh films.

TQ- yeah.

Holy Cow- I am not convinced about Sir Judah being same as Gumnaam guy. Did Sir judah have blue eyes?

TQ_ Gumnaam was black and white! How would you make anything out with eye colour?

Holy Cow- Gumnaam was in colour! Don’t you remember Mehmood's dream sequence of "hum kaale hain to kya hua?"

TQ- oh yeah yeah. Well, Madan Puri was the same as Sir Judah. The murderer in Gumnaam is Madan Puri. The bearded chap

Holy Cow- Whoa! Hold on a minute! My chap doesn’t have a beard!

TQ- Well the murderer in Gumnaam was bearded.

Holy Cow- there is a chance I am wrong about my chap being the murderer. Oooh…was there a Madan Mohan? An actor by that name I mean?

TQ- You are confusing Madan Puri with Mac Mohan

Holy Cow- Please! Mac Mohan was such a frail little thing

…….

The conversation flickered to an end.

On Googling for the above mentioned, it turned out that:-

1. The murderer in Gumnaam was Madan Puri. The Holy Cow was pleased to find that his face matched the one she had in her head.
2. Sir Judah in Karz was Prem Nath and not Madan Puri. And yes, Prem Nath is quite fat. Though his dental description requires further exploration.
3. Om Shivpuri is the the man who played father figure ish roles in a lot of Amitabh bachchan films.
4. Madan Puri is Amrish Puri’s brother.