"You can tell from the lines on her face..."

I am very non-committal when it comes to my belief in palmistry, astrology etc etc. I don't believe or disbelieve. Recently, PCB was visiting a pais extranjero, and she chanced upon a man who said he could read her face (Out of all clairvoyant arts, face reading puzzles me the most. It gives the phrase " chehre par likha hai" - written clearly on someone's face - a new dimension)

Waiting for the train,and concluding that she didn't have anything to lose she agreed.

After telling her about this and that, he tells her -
"You will cheat on your husband"

And, she has been told the same thing by three other people in the past.

This is where the problem arises. Whether I believe or not, I do have an internal locus of control, and regardless of any supernatural powers controlling my fate and the course that my life takes, there are some things that I know I will just not do. Such as cheating on my partner.

The question that comes to my mind is for the people who believe in astrology, face reading and palm reading etc. - Is nothing under your control? I mean, to what extent are your actions and life predetermined?

Dear Youth, please learn from these smart words by your icon

"Kids should not be planned. They should just happen"

- Abhishek Bachchan is reported to have said, on being asked if he and Aishwarya are planning to have a child any time soon.

If a million people were to think like this, I shudder to think about what will happen to the population of this country.

And if most of them aren't movie stars who can afford to provide for their children, I am also afraid for the children who will "just happen" to them.

Birth Certificates

Someone I know recently wanted to get their birth certificate made. I find the whole idea of these certificates rather weird- birth certificate, death certificate, marriage certificate. I don't really understand why they're there in the first place.

So I was just glancing at the affidavit for the birth certificate, and the last point point on the affidavit declares that "I undertake that I will not make any further changes in my name" or something to that effect.

But people change their names all the time! You must have seen announcements in the newspaper- "I, so and so, have legally changed my name to so and so, and blah blah etc etc.". What happens to the undertaking they took when they got their birth certificates then? Does the person get punished for doing something that he or she said, legally and in writing, they wouldn't do? Or does the person just sign another paper that nullifies the first one? But if the second paper nullifies the first one so easily, what was the point of making the earlier declaration? Why make a greater mockery of the birth certificate- the fact that it exists as proof of anything is a joke in itself, considering you can even get a fake passport these days- by asking someone to make a declaration that you're not going to compel them to uphold?

Tomorrow, if I go to whatever authority one goes to to change one's name, they should rightly wave my birth certificate in front of me and say "Sorry. We're going to hold you to your word"

There's enough room on the street. Its the belief that is narrow.

During the month of Shrawan, the Kawarias, in their orange and yellow clothing and brightly coloured golden, silver, pink, red, green carriers filled with Ganga-jal (water from the holy Indian river) speckle the streets of New Delhi. Their walk from the Ganga, wherever they may have encountered her, usually at Haridwar, to their village is a long one, and they usually make the pilgrimage barefoot.

Yesterday, during the morning hours, waiting for the light to turn green, I was generally looking around and taking in the happenings on the busy traffic light. And I caught sight of a few Kawarias - their slim yet strong bodies supporting large water carriers, and supported by determined feet that carried them on their long journey one step at a time- walking alongside expensive cars that were transporting men and women talking on their cellphones, to the places they make their money in. The scene was an example of the peaceful co existence of the spiritual and the material, tradition and modernity.

I smiled to myself, happy to think of my country as one where we had room for God, Ganga and .... um... Goenka.

My views changed in the evening. Its hard to smile about something when that very thing is partly responsible for creating the worst traffic jam I had been in in the entire week. The Kawarias were walking the streets, so cars were stopped so as to not cause any inconvenience to them. Why didn't the traffic police intervene? Take a guess-Try to come between a man and his God and you commit blasphemy that deserves to be punished with bus burning, and stone throwing. Who wants to get involved in such jhamelas unnecessarily? If a leper with one leg eats into a few seconds of a green light, God help him from the barrage of horns and abuses he is likely to be pelted with. But religious men? No No. Shake of the head, fingers touching the ears - How can we ask them to wait on the sidewalk till traffic stops??

Well why the hell not?! If you and I can wait for the light to turn red, why can't they? I'll tell you why. Because the sad fact is, we have this need to give special treatment to something to show our respect for it. We think we might offend the Lord if we walk beside him. So we tread with caution bordering on paranoia. Don't do this or else...Don't do that or else...

It would be so much simpler to just avoid the superficiality and obligatory displays of respect that probably don't make a difference to the supreme being anyway.

Its nice to think of an India where God and man exist side by side in a khud jiyo auron ko bhi jeene do (live and let live) fashion; where there is enough space on the road for both of them to walk side by side. It is not so nice to think of an India where one has to be pushed aside to let the other pass.

One can truly appreciate the faith and resolve of another, no doubt. But only if it doesn't cause bumps and breaks in the smooth flow of one's own (way of) life.

The Dark Cloud of "Consent"

I recently attended a conference in which the surprisingly low figures quoted in the recent government study on the number of people affected by HIV in India were discussed. Last year, a study by the UNAIDS quoted the figure at 5.6 million. As per the Government survey released on July 6th 2007, the number is between 2.5 and 3.1 million. Congratulations. The figures have reduced by 50% in the span of one year.

But social activists and organizations committed to the cause are not convinced. They have several counts on which to be displeased –Allegedly, there is no transparency with respect to the details of how the study was conducted. Secondly, the sample was not a representative one- the participation of all subjects was purely voluntary.

It is this second point, which is of interest to me. Testing for HIV is entirely voluntary. That means, if I don't wish to find out if I am HIV positive, no one can make me.

I am of the opinion that it wont be a bad idea to remove this heavily loaded term- "consent"- from HIV testing. All those who have jumped out of their seats arguing freedom of choice, human rights and so on may kindly sit down and hear me out first.

Take a moment to think of why testing for AIDS is consent based. It is because of the fear of stigmatization. The sad fact is that people living with AIDS are ostracized by society, so this fear is justified. But by making testing consent based, we are in fact making the following admission – "If you do turn out to be HIV positive, we cannot assure that you will not be treated like scum. Nor can we offer sufficient support- medical or emotional (the latter being more necessary)". People present at the conference said it was "impossible" to ensure safe testing and stigma-free living in case we decided to test everyone. One woman justified consent based testing precisely on this argument – "if we carry out the test, and find out that the person has AIDS, we don't have anything to protect them from the stigma and discrimination they are likely to face." Fantastic. You deserve a pat on the back for your honesty.

All this drama about consent is a cover up. It emerges from a desire to absolve oneself of the responsibility of the mammoth task of trying to change the mindset of the majority.

There needs to be a shift in perspective. You cannot combat a widespread illness unless you know the magnitude of the problem. The focus should be on finding out more and more people who need help, and offering it to them when it can still be of help. The focus should be on removing their fear, and on ending the discrimination and stigmatization that people with AIDS face every single day (rather than reinforcing it by allowing the affected persons to hide because of a fear that, ideally, if the society were made up of decent people, would not be present at all).

The stigmatization will not end if you say, "I will not test you if you don't want to be tested. Because I understand your fear of social and personal rejection".

We can do more if we say, "Come and get tested. For your own safety and that of others. And if you test positive, I promise to stand by you and help you get through this in the best way possible."

Also, how on earth do you expect the numbers to be exact or even close to accurate if participation is consent based? What struck me was the irrationality with which consent based participation was being rejected by those people who were in support of consent based testing- "Only those people who are sure that they will not test positive will voluntarily participate". I don't know how they intended to get around this one.

Thirdly, the status given to AIDS in our country is related to sexuality. People forget that AIDS can be transmitted by non-sexual means. That's why the very suggestion of mandatory testing raises eyebrows. I have met people who say they would take offence if someone asked them to get tested. As if a judgment was being made on their charitra (character) or something! A prominent social activist asked me how I would feel if somebody asked me to get tested. I told her I wouldn't mind at all. Then she asked me if I thought little children should be tested (she asked "Little children?" in a tone of incredulous disbelief). I obviously said, "Why not?"

Why do you think AIDS is not openly talked about? In recent times, thanks to the media, awareness efforts are on the rise. But it still creates more of a stir than..say.. cancer. It is because of the million other moral and social questions that it throws up. And it is because of this distorted view that the scream of AIDS that would otherwise have woken us up is silenced.

AIDS is not a morality issue. It is a medical problem. Let's look at it that way. It would help us combat the illness as well as social issues surrounding it.

Michel Foucault warned us long ago, and told us to look for value judgments in the most innocent of places. We should start by lifting the cloud of "consent" and examining the values that lie hidden beneath it.