Politicize rape !

I do not agree that the issue should not be politicized. The very reason why security of the aam aadmi and aam aurat is neglected is that it is not politicized as the issues of inflation, unemployment, subsidies, reservation etc. When an important problem is discussed by everyone with the same argument, everyone supporting it, it gets diluted and is as good as no one supporting firm action, just like the reservation for women's bill.

When we need political action, when we need an amendment to the bill, or a firm executive decision, how can we not politicize it. How can we make out those who are serious about doing something from those who are not, unless we politicize it? People vote based on what a political party promises it would do when elected to power.

This is how the most important issues are handled. Parties make their stand clear and the policies they would implement in the form of a manifesto. Only when we politicize the issue would a party care to put its action plan in its manifesto. It is purely because subsidies are highly politicized that the Congress party is using the cash transfer idea to limp back to power again.

The issue should absolutely be politicized and the national parties forced to include this in their manifesto and the steps they would take should be clearly spelt out.

Nothing great can happen without partisan politics.

So, let’s politicize women’s security.

Why did she dress that way ? Why do you care – the rationale please ?

Let me start by making it very clear. I truly believe in what the following statement says: “If I'm woman and I'm walking down the street naked, you STILL don't have a right to rape me”- Dick Gregory. 

I don’t really know who this Dick Gregory is (I wouldn’t have known this sentence without facebook) but the statement makes sense; in fact a society can be judged by the acceptance of such rights to its citizens; and if it is a truly liberal society. 

India is “outraged” at the incident in Delhi. But was India not outraged every time a rape happened. It’s like the virginity thing. You can’t lose it again and again.  India cannot be outraged every time the same crime happens. May be it’s the lack of adjectives to express the anguish, that media is forced to use outrage every time. But what would be the outcome of this outrage, most likely it will be nothing. Just another opportunity to make candle lit marches, celebrities making great statements, and people like me writing blogs like this one.

It is the political class that is to take action. But these incidents are too insignificant to make them act, because it just does not pay in terms of votes to take strong actions. The issue of safety of common man is not yet significant enough to form political alliances, extend incentives to the network of local to center level politicians. Security of women, their dignity, their rights (also of men), have to be issues as politically deciding as the ones like LPG price, inflation, petrol price, etc

Coming to the discussion on the statements like: Why did she dress that way, why did she go there at that time, what was she doing there etc.

When men (or women) say such things, there needs to be a differentiation of people based on what is their premise-conclusion process, and the reason behind making such statements.

There are those who are still stuck in a medieval time frame and just cannot tolerate an educated, independent woman, dressing the way she wants to, going where she wants to, and doing what she want to. These minds I feel mostly come from the rural pockets, but would also exist in cities; would also have a package of hard fixed notions of patriarchy, woman as a house-hold being, rights to man and responsibilities to woman, family honor whose onus is on woman, and other unreasonable and unacceptable thoughts of preference for male child etc etc.

When this set of people make such statements (why did she dress that way), they surely mean to find fault purely with the woman, the victim. They accept the society in its bad and ruthless form, they condone the inefficiency of police, and place the blame totally on her. The proponents of other medieval, woman-repressive practices of burkha too should fall within this category. It is this set of people who are to be thoroughly criticized, ostracized and forced to change.

But with every such incident, this set gets a reason to say why are right, a kind of vindication With every such crime, comes the risk of more people joining their side.

Now, coming to the other set of people who too say: why was she dressed that way, etc. But what is important is the reason why they say it. It is only out of concern for their loved ones, when they go out to areas not considered very safe. They are only suggesting precautions for safety of women. They are all for women’s rights and freedom but they also realize our society is not yet fully civilized enough to handle such liberalism. They do not accept the society the way it is, but they realize it would take long years for it to transform. But till then, should women not be careful, use their discretion and take precautions? They know police cannot be everywhere, all the time, though the police might do its best, but the responsibility of safety and security should first begin from oneself. When a mother tells her daughter no to stay out late, it is not to curb her rights, but to avoid risks. These are not the patriarchal, oppressive types who oppose women’s freedom. These are the liberal, yet practical minds who are concerned for the safety of women in this wild society.

Though the lines both the sets of people say are the same, the motive and the rationale is totally different.

Musilms need tolerance and they need to accept more

3 pieces that i read today, force me to think yet again about the minority question.

Is there anything that binds todays muslims in India to India?
The first one is the news article in today's paper about the need to bring changes in the Muslims Personal law which governs issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. Muslims demand special treatment and want the nation to allow them to follow their shariah law. They do not accept a single law to govern all citizens of this country.
This nation accepts a muslim personal law. A 13% muslim population has its word in a nation of 85% non-muslims.

The second  piece is about how muslims reject the local idiom, the indian languages, not even to write the names of shops and business' in the State language, leave alone learning and using it in their lives. They are again united in defying the State's decisions and get their way most of the times.

The third piece is a paragraph from the book 'The Argumentative Indian' by Amartya Sen which i was reading on the same day by chance.
This international intellectual forcefully argues that muslims should be accepted using the sanskrit word 'Swikriti', as if this country is persecuting its minorities.

After reading the about the muslim personal law and the language issue, is it wrong to say that it is the muslims who should be more accepting of their duties, their history, their local culture, heritage etc and not just only fight for rights and concessions from the State but also recognize their duties.

If Parsees never had such problems living in this country, it was because they merge, they respect, they accept the local culture, they blend in with the local, just a sugar blends in milk giving a sweet taste; even though they migrated and were never a part of the indian heritage. Whereas, muslims in india, though most of them are converts and were Hindus at one time, they just do not blend in.

Did not Naipaul point out the same after his tours of convert muslim nations?

My temple attire

In dhoti when i was at an ancient temple in my State. First time that i wore it, and i was not uncomfortable.

Double-standard of our intellectual elite on Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray

Perceived injustice begets passions, stirs one into action. Is this not the case with both Naxalism and the politics of Thackeray? The exploitation of tribals by non-tribals, through capture of their resources, leading to loss of their livelihoods is the root cause of Naxalism and Maoism in India’s red corridor. Similarly, the pre-dominance of non-marathas, and non-locals in employment, and the marginalization of the locals in their own city was the reason for abrasive speeches and rough politics of the Shiv Sena.

Tribals take to barrels, directly challenge the law and even kill any number policemen so inhumanly. Though their cause is the same as that of the Shiv Sena, that is, protection of the rights of son of the soil, the local culture, etc, and though their violence is literally on a war footing, most of the intellectuals, scholars, activists, NGOs, and media, invariably take a soft and considerate tone, suggesting the State to address the root cause of the problem, and they tend to dilute the crime of murder and war against State.

When it comes to the politics of Shiv Sena and the role Thackeray, the same intellectuals, turn to be vitriolic, inconsiderate, intellectually dense, and compete in showing their despise to the earthy method of shiv sainiks. Are the methods of Shiv Sena more violent that those of Maoists? Have the Shiv Sainiks shown any record of butchering of innocent policemen and State authorities? Is the anger of tribals against the devious, exploitative non-tribals, any different from the so called 'chauvinism' shown by Shiv Sainiks? Is the cause of Shiv Sena any unpatriotic or seditious like those of Maoists? The answer to all these questions is No. Then why do the intellectuals not go into the root cause and do a balanced analysis of politics of Bal Thackeray?

Or is it that the people who feel their rights being trodden down have no right to protest? What do these so called armchair intellectuals expect the common man to do when he perceives injustice? Read their columns and write to the letters to editor, applauding their analysis? Change does not happen by editorials and intellectual columns.

These intellectuals who fashionably quote Marx to look communist and egalitarian, do they realize that Marx famously quoted “"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it". Marx calls for action. Why is then Marx not criticized as Bal Thackeray, but used as a decorative by the intellectuals trying to pass off as communists.

Why is it that the fight for justice in one case, is labeled as chauvinism in another case by a section of our society. Is this not a double-standard?

Aam aadmi ke khaas masle - (The peculiar problems of mango man)

Caste and Class only apply for the middle range people. The middle castes and middle class are victims of most of the prickly societal issues ranging from caste based marriages to petty corruption. People at the top rung and the bottom are exempt from most of these real life problems.

Is it that the people in the middle make a lot of fuss of everything, or is it that the ones at top and bottom don’t give a damn about it, or are they institutionally beyond these petty affairs?

If the Hindu religion and tradition are alive in India, it is mostly due to the adherence of these middle castes to them. They hold on to rules laid by the Brahmans who themselves might not really bother much about. If not for the middle castes, most of India would have been converted to other faiths, due to the reasons like untouchability, stigma of caste, and the oppression of Dwijas over non-dwijas. The so called avarnas or the Scheduled Castes do not hesitate to leave the religion and accept other non-indic faiths; not only to protest the injustice but also to gain equality. It’s a separate discussion as to how far they were successful in achieving equality in their new faiths. Even any rough estimates would show that the majority of the people visiting temples and making huge donations like the ones at Triupati is the middle castes.

Caste, which is a side-kick of religion, stands to be the most complicating factor in understanding what rules people in India live by. The question of caste occupies an undue predominance particularly in marriage among middle castes. These castes not only look for caste, as in the classification by varna (ex Brahman, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra) but also are particular about the sub-caste ie, the ones like yadav, reddy, kamma, velama, vokkaliga, kurumba etc. which are based on vocation Though all of these fall under the varna of shudra, there is again a mind bogglingly insane hierarchy of superior and inferior complexes. I call them complexes because that is what I believe they are. It’s all in the mind, which is allowed to be controlled by the rules written by someone who considers him the most superior. The insanity does not end even after years and years of liberal, education. How shamefully people call themselves ‘very educated family’ in matrimony profiles, but in the same breath, they write off all other castes putatively lower to them from marrying into. The shamelessness stoops to self-disrespect when they write they are open to an inter-caste marriage but on the condition that the other side is ‘higher’ than their own in the hierarchy of caste wretchedness.

The Brahmins, I think, would be open to marrying into any sub-caste, so long as they fall in the rubric of Brahmins. I mean they only care for the Varna. The scheduled castes I guess would marry into any family which is again a SC without deeper classification. Of course, there is again the factor of region and language, which goes without saying.  The other groups like the ultra-rich, celebrity groups, political families, business houses etc marry on different logics which do not apply to the aam aadmi. It is the middle castes who are the most insane when it comes to the caste question.

Since class is in terms of economic power, the middle classes are strapped with the curse of eking a livelihood even the harshest conditions without even breaking any major rules. Even positive things like education, a decent family, a low paying job become liabilities to the middle class aam aadmi who cannot think of taking any radical steps to break out of this cycle of monthly recharged life. Those at the top are too high up even to imagine the everyday scarcity of common man. They make millions in minutes from crooked deals be it due to their connections, or information or capital clout. They can bend rules, get them amended or even better enter the legislatures and make their own rules. The people at the bottom, on the other hand are too poor to lose anything by taking any risk. They are so at the bottom that only direction they can move in is up. The rags to riches stories of both the good and bad kinds are examples of such risk taking. It is only the middle class that is stuck with the semblance of prosperity and which has a lot to lose if the risk works against them; which the entire socio-economic-political system ensures would happen.

This way, the mango people of this complex country live on…

Everyone suckles on this mango called ‘Aam aadmi’

As I stop my car at the red light, this traffic policeman drops in a pamphlet which ‘educates’ people on the Supreme court’s judgment that all tints and films should be removed from car windows and failing which, the police will penalize with heavy fines.

Why are the police so over active about implementing this particular order by the Court? Because this is easy to implement, as it only targets the aam aadmi. The VIPs and the politicians, who in the current times are the habitual and worst law breakers, are privileged to blue beacons and dark tints and what not. The law abiding, tax-paying, aam aadmi can be easily forced/frightened by authorities unlike the politically connected who don’t care for the law and who can get the officers transferred.

The police would not show any interest in the orders of Supreme Court which are tough to implement because it demands true courage, real interest in peoples welfare, and more than anything else, calls for facing political consequences. An example can be the Supreme Court’s order which bans the use of funnel type speakers for religious prayers and prayer calls from Temples and Mosques. Do these police authorities overwrought over tinted cars, care a bit about such orders? Not even the toughest cop would dare take action on such issues. They do not because any action about it can raise political hackles and put them in a spot, get them transferred.

There are ministers who flout all rules and yet the police remains a silent party. Before such powerful people, the police behaves more like a postman than a policeman. The case of ministers who owe lakhs in electricity bills is well known and yet no authority dares touch them. When a poor aam aadmi cannot afford the heavy power bills, the power line is promptly disconnected, as happened in Delhi recently.

The aam aadmi of this country is easy prey for everyone and everything. From a pick pocket to the police and politician, from corruption to inflation, from potholed roads to traffic jams, the aam aadi bears it all. Yet, there is no major violence or revolution.

Isn’t the Indian Mango man more deserving of the Nobel Peace prize than the European Union?

Burfi - a strong mind and a clean heart

It is people like Shruti, who not only make their own lives but also others’ life miserable. These are the ones who cause pain to people around them. How irresponsible, how infidelic, fickle; people, especially some women can be. Being engaged to someone, Shruti did not have any compunctions playing around with a clean hearted Barfi. Are girls impaired when it comes to deciding what they want? Even after they decide on and settle things like engagement, marriage, are they un-trustable?

If Shruti did not have the courage, the standing up to the consequences quality in her, why should she even stoke hopes in Barfi. If someone does not have an independent mind of his/her own, if one can not control ones own life, one should not pretend to be so. They should not go around in society like educated, independent, individuals who are in control of their lives. People like her should not have to right to play around with their own lives, let alone others’.

Be that as it may, what this lady does after her marriage to Ranjit is recklessness of the highest order. The way she walks away when Ranjit tries to stop her, only goes to show how unsettled her mind was even after 6 yrs of marriage, and how spectacularly wrong decisions, women can make.

Shouldn’t there be a limit to impulsiveness; despite the chaos created in mind by the usually blamed fault of hormones.

What can one say of 6 yrs of marriage when Shruti’s mother herself had an infidelic mind even after decades of marriage? How shameless was the mother in going secretly to see the woodcutter even years and years after marriage. Seems like age has no bearing on a woman’s fickle mindedness. This can not be justified under the rubric of womanly, expressive, tender, understanding, matters of heart etc etc.Yes, matters of fidelity in a relationship are to be black or white. There should be no place for grey.

Crossing the lines of wrong decision making and bounds of morality, and even outdoing her mother, Shruti attempts to get back, or rather get in between Barfi and Jhilmil when the two souls were bonding up. Even a differently abled mind like Jhilmil could sense this and she decides to leave immediately. 

Shruti could neither belong to her husband, not to Barfi, not even be true to herself. Beings like these do not have to courage to talk to themselves, question their decisions, their morality, or face their own soul. They live half lives, inflicting suffering unto themselves and to those connected to them.

People like Barfi would still have no ill will for the likes of Shruti, but I have my sympathies for Barfi, Ranjit (Shruti’s husband), the woodcutter (Shruti’s mother’s barfi), and Shruti’s father.

Jhilmil did not have a normal mind, but she had a clean heart. Shruti had a normal mind but an unclean heart.

Kasab, you, I are all equal

Whither Constitutionalism! Kasab, you, I are all equal..!!! It is a welcome decision by the Supreme Court that upheld death for Kasab. But will he be hanged in the near future? Not sure. It is unfortunate that the terrorist; an alien from an enemy State is given all the rights of a citizen of India. The Constitution clearly states that the rights of citizens of India cannot be extended to enemy aliens. Enemy aliens are nationals of a country in war with India. Is it not true that if there is one such country in the world which has been in continuous, overt and covert war with India, it is Pakistan? It is quintessentially unconstitutional that Kasab can still petition for Presidential mercy, equating him to any other ‘aam aadmi’ of this country.

Indians fight for their rights, for local jobs, ethnic identities, regional resources etc. The ‘Sons of the soil’ are ready to agitate against their fellow countrymen for benefits. Maratha against Bihari, South against North, Gujjar against Meena, Telangana against Andhra etc. But there is no movement when this enemy is treated as an Indian.

This is high time that this discrepancy is resolved, lest we have more Kasabs claiming equality with nationals of India.

Housing apartheid

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3613994.ece
Response

A good piece by The Hindu on the ghetto mindedness of the landlords in letting out their premises. Though the bias that exists is condemnable, the author should have gone a little deeper and analyzed the reasons for such discrimination which are not very hard to see. It has been this writers experience that when a few muslim families settle in a new locality, the first community action they would think of is the construction of a mosque even in the midst of non-muslim residences, no matter how inconvenient it is with its blaring five times a day, call for prayers. Another very valid reason is their practice of sacrificing a goat on Bakrid in full public view, with the animals blood forming a long stream, while the animal struggles on the road side before the public which could leave sensitive minds, vegetarians, animal lovers etc disturbed; and the foul smell lingers for days. Another reason can be the Arabization of the locality, with not only the women but also little girls being covered up in the darkness of burkhas and hijabs. If any one denies these points, then he/she should pay a visit to Hyderabad. The discrimination might not end as long as such practices are carried out in public. One cannot expect liberalism in return for public insensitivity.

Prejudice runs both ways?

In response to the piece
Humour is by no means exempt from prejudice in The Hindu on June 8, 2012, about Controversial Ambedkar cartoon
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3501903.ece

The most convincing piece in the entire article was the statement -‘The whip is inseparable from violence…’ After reading that sentence, the outlook towards the article changed completely. One can not but agree and sympathize with the emotion in that idea. However, one point still remains unsolved, which is, - Why should dalits take the whip in Nehru’s hand to be falling on Ambedkar? The cartoon actually shows the whip aimed at the snail which is used as a symbol of very slow movement. Ambedkar too is helping the whole process by goading the snail to move faster. Why is Ambedkar invariably seen by Dalits as being responsible for the sluggish pace. Dalits need to offload the psychological baggage which almost borders on paranoia, and see things with a bit more balanced judgment. With such a balance, one can realize that Ambedkar and Nehru together worked for faster progress of the Constitution.

The grounds of Dalit identity and pseudo Abedkarites

Ambedkar, or for that matter no one should be above criticism. This prophet-hood being foisted on the great personality is a sign of how divisive the dalit politics is getting.  It shows a very farsighted strategy to acquire unbridled power without responsibility by the so called spokesmen of dalit interests. An attempt to get away with anything (irresponsible statements, violence etc)  under the shield of dalit identity.

Kancha Illiah can only spew venom at anything even remotely connected to Hinduism or upper caste hindus. These are the people who selectively use or abuse Ambedkar’s ideas for their own ends. His ideas are dangerous and only water the seeds of everlasting hatred among dalits and non-dalits.

The ilk of Illiah just do not want the demolition of caste, lest they be effaced to oblivion.  These are the kind of people who would never allow admbedkar’s ideas like inter-caste marriages to succeed.

Illiah supported the beef  fest recently at Hyderabad. He calls it an assertion of dalit identity. The reason is that hindus do not eat it and because Gandhi’s work for upliftment of ‘Harijans’ included urging them to quit eating beef and carrion. By claiming that beef eating was/is a way of life of dalits, they are nurturing a dalit identity; an identity built selectively on those issues which can pinch and  hurt the caste hindus’ conscience. Gandhi also encouraged education, giving up of unclean jobs, hygiene, etc. Why not also give them up to assert dalit identity, if that is how they used to live. Can they not be called their way of life, going by the logic of beef eating? 

May be it's just that they are not divisive enough!

Do India's Muslims need to be represented by Muslims?

The writer rightly raised an important issue affecting Indian polity now. Today’s muslim leaders are showing the same attitude that prevailed during the times of Independence. History tells us that Jinnah insisted on being the sole representative of all muslims in undivided India; to disallow congress from fielding muslims. The Owaisis in Hyderabad too claim to be the sole representatives of muslims and are determined not to concede any political space to other parties. Muslim vote, or for that matter any vote is not a monopoly of muslim leaders. Its time common muslims realized this and break out of this political warp which is holding the community back.

Another paradox about muslim vote is that, when the Shahi Imam openly endorses politics, it does not raise any eyebrows; in fact, the Congress uses his popularity, but when Baba Ramdev speaks with political overtones, the Congress men cry foul that religious men should keep off from politics.

I, Me, Myself !!!