If nothing else, this was a case of terrible timing. Shahrukh Khan or SRK for short, was on his way to Chicago to participate in India's Independence Day celebrations. For the past several months, he has been spending a good part of the year in the U.S. shooting for his forthcoming film My Name is Khan, ironically about the travails of a Muslim man and racial profiling. Fox Star Studios, by the way, has bagged the worldwide distributing rights for the film, a first for Bollywood.
To make matters worse, this comes close on the heels of a former Indian president being frisked at an Indian airport ahead of boarding Continental Airlines for New York. Indian authorities alleged it was against Indian laws to frisk a former president. The airline finally apologized, saying U.S. air travel laws and the Indian ones had different mandates. But the case rubbed Indians the wrong way, even as the much-loved, unassuming ex-president went through the drill without a fuss.

Now, another beloved public figure has been put through extra security procedures. But this one did not keep quiet.

Ever since Khan's questioning, many other Indian actors with Muslim names (and some without) claim they have been subjected to extra security checks at American airports. One was allegedly stopped because officials thought he was too light-skinned to be of Indian origin. 

Until newly-appointed U.S. ambassador to India delivers on his promise to ferret out the real story, we only have the actor's version and media reports to go by. Briefly, it went something like this: SRK landed at the immigration counter. He was then taken to a room full of people for further questioning because, Khan says, he was told his name had "popped up" in a computer-generated list. He was asked to produce contacts in America who could vouch for him, which SRK found "embarrassing" and disrespectful. Khan claimed there were other immigration officers who recognized him and promised to vouch for him, but the officer questioning him was not satisfied. Meanwhile, Khan says, people around him, including other passengers at the airport had recognized him and had started taking pictures. Khan says he was finally allowed to make a call, which he did to an Indian government official and friend. He was let off after Indian and U.S. officials intervened.

A much calmer Khan later said what bothered him was that his papers were in order and that the officer had not gone through the usual procedure of fingerprinting and retina scanning, which he says would have established his identity immediately. He, however, insisted that they were polite to him all through.
The Customs and Border Patrol, without giving details said his questioning had nothing to do with his Muslim identity and it had got prolonged because his baggage had not arrived. A more recent report suggests that it was because of U.S. and London-based promoters of Bollywood entertainment -- many of SRK's shows included -- who were under the scanner for shady finances and links with the underworld, that Khan was questioned.

For whatever reasons -- maybe a long flight, missing luggage, interrogation --- Khan snapped. That set off a juggernaut. As a rested SRK later said in India: ‘‘This is not going to end and we will have to live with that.’’

Khan's friend in the Indian administration who helped get his release, according to the actor, was related to the media and the news leaked. He didn't help himself when he told an eagerly waiting Chicago crowd that he was humiliated and didn't feel like stepping on American soil again, and that he had been questioned because he was a Khan.

But unlike in the case of former president APJ Abdul Kalam's frisking, SRK did not receive overwhelming support back home from all quarters, with several people, including newspaper columnists, arguing India is burdened with its own "VIP culture" and it was high time we shed it. Besides angry and hurt fans, he found public support in another set of Indian VIPs -- our politicians -- who shouted India should respond similarly to delegates from the U.S. One government minister suggested a "tit-for-tat" policy, while another well-known director, while criticizing the minister's comment on his blog, said we should "ensure that this does not happen to an Indian public figure like him again, and move on". His readers didn't think so, though.

The government's response set off another debate about India's lax security despite so many terror attacks, with people suggesting we should have already dropped our official VIP list and international protocols and screened everyone irrespective of their country of origin or stature. A Bollywood star -- who enjoys a demigod status in India -- is no exception. A lot of people simply did not see the Kalam and Khan as comparable figures.
 
King Khan: I must confess I was rather surprised at SRK's initial outburst. In a career spanning nearly two decades, his public persona has been impeccable: a good-looking middle-class boy with a fabulous school record and an economics degree (we love those degrees), SRK made it in films with no sugar daddy to see him through. He pursued and married his high-school sweetheart (who is Hindu) before his first film and has remained scandal-and-affairs-free even as he graduated to being the nation's heartthrob. He is seen as a secular family man. He is a polite, witty, funny, articulate public speaker with a relatively cool temperament, always ready to apologize to anyone for any perceived infraction.

He pleasantly surprised his fans in America with an appearance at the recent Golden Globe Awards and landed a spot on Newsweek's 50 most powerful people in the world. He is hugely popular in South Asia, the Muslim world, even in parts of Europe and America. But he has always projected himself as a man with his feet firmly planted on the ground. Only recently, he had dismissed as a one-off incident, a fellow Muslim colleague's allegations of religious discrimination in Mumbai: "I have never been treated differently because of my religion. I am 44 years old now and never in my life have I felt discriminated." As Priya Ramani points out in her blog at Mint:

SRK rarely wears his Muslim identity on his sleeve. He has repeatedly said he stands for young, educated India, more than for any single community. SRK is the poster boy of Consumer India, not Muslim India. That is why, even at Newark, SRK never used the word Muslim. I think he intentionally avoided it. All of Bollywood's three Khans are educated, liberal Muslims. They don't want to be in a situation where they are made the poster boys of right wing groups who believe the US hates all Muslims.

So what on earth happened at the airport that ticked him off? Was it a long, tiring flight? Or, did he finally feel the heat that so many international travelers have been putting up with for so many years? 
 
Security: One of the better outcomes of this pointless brouhaha, and the more serious one around the ex-president's experience, is the public discussion about India's own security system that has more holes than hoops. As Anand Soondas blogs at The The Times of India:

We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism. Frisk Brad Pitt when he lands in India next. Give Tom Cruise the same dose. Don’t spare Bill Clinton either. Isn’t he an ex-prez just like Kalam? Who’s stopping you and what’s stopping you? Colonial hangover? Or is it plain lethargy and callousness. Looks like both.
We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don’t do it to them’’. Oh no, we don’t. And it’s a scandal. We should.[...]
So instead of making SRK’s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up. [...]
A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can’t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country’s safety is concerned.

The VIP culture: Another positive by-product of both the airport controversies -- people coming out strongly against what they see as India's VIP culture of entitlement. In an interview to CNN-IBN, SRK, by now his genial humble self, insisted he did not believe in the VIP culture himself and would not like to be treated differently. Maybe he's being honest, but that didn't deter people from raising the bigger question of why anybody should be exempt or above the security of  our nation. Mellisa A. Bell, an American expat in India, writes on her blog at Mint:

Let's just get this out of the way: Yes, an officer likely religiously profiled the guy. Yes, it sucks that we religiously profile and racially profile people in the US. There are small-minded people in positions of authority and that authority can be abused. But that's what this incident says about the US.
What does it say about India?
Yes, it sucks being detained at the airport. I know. I have been. [...] It's annoying. It's not fun. It's even kind of scary. But there are a lot worse things than being held up a couple hours at an airport. [...]
All this brouhaha won't really change the racial profiling in the U.S., especially when it sounds like SRK is throwing a temper tamper. [...]
And all these calls of injustice from politicians and stars reaffirms the idolatry of VIP status in India. SRK shouldn't have been detained! He's a great movie star! Just google him and see!
So, what? Only movie stars should be exempt from racial profiling?

SRK's detention may have angered some, and the response to it may have irritated others, but it has effectively reminded us of two prickly thorns on India's side --- security and entitlement. Khan's detention drama is dying out. Hopefully, the debates that he set off unconsciously, will not.

More bloggers on SRK:
 
Aman Lamba at Desicritics
The India Uncut Blog
Sepia Mutiny
Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind
Filmi Girl

A legal battle in India over the rights of a mentally challenged woman who had been raped in a government-run home for destitute women and is now pregnant, has torn the nation. Does a 19-year-old with the IQ of a nine-year-old have the right or the ability to make a decision about her unborn child conceived through rape? Can rights come without responsibilities?

Unfortunately, the case is not that simple. The girl, at this point, has little choice but to wait for the country to decide her fate. The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that she be allowed to carry her pregnancy to the full term, kicking off a series of heart-wrenching debates.

The Case: This 19-year-old orphan was living in a state-run Nari Niketan (home for destitute women) in northwestern Chandigarh. In May, another state-run facility where she was moved determined that she was pregnant. Subsequent tests confirmed she had been raped.  (Three-four employees of the home have been arrested so far. It is suspected that she may have been raped repeatedly in both the state-run shelters she lived in). The Chandigarh administration then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for permission to terminate the pregnancy. The court asked a panel of four doctors to determine the condition of the girl and her ability to give birth and raise a child. The panel found that the girl's mental age was no more than a 9-year-old's but she was physically capable of bearing the child; she did not clearly understand the concept or consequences of conception, child-bearing and motherhood outside wedlock, but seemed excited about having a baby; she did not ask for the sex (rape) and did not like it. The panel, however, stopped short of suggesting a course of action, remarking that "any decision that is taken keeping her best interests as well as of her unborn child has to be based on the holistic assessment of physical, psychological and social parameters”.

In response to the court’s question about her understanding of the distinction between a child born out of and outside the wedlock as well as the social connotations attached thereto, the panel said, “As per her mental status, she is incapable of making the distinctions between a child born before or after marriage or outside the wedlock and is unable to understand the connotations attached thereto”. [...] “She knows that she is bearing a child and is keen to have one. However, she is unable to appreciate and understand the consequences of her own future and that of the child she is bearing. She is a case of mild to moderate mental retardation which often limits the mental capacity to bear and raise a child in the absence of adequate social support and supervision” the panel replied. [Source: Indian Express]

The court also appointed three advocate generals to study the case. Two of them voted in favor of the abortion, one against. The high court ruled in July that the pregnancy be terminated immediately. In its judgment, the court observed:

We find that the victim is neither intellectually nor on social, personal, financial or family fronts able to raise a child. We are satisfied with the reports that the victim is incapable of understanding the concept of motherhood or of pregnancy or pre and post-delivery implications. Asking her to continue with the pregnancy and, thereafter, raise the child would be a travesty of justice and a permanent addition to her miseries. The ‘toy’ with which she wants to play would want her to invest hugely which she is incapable of”.
[...] “We cannot also overlook the fact that if allowed to be born, the child’s own life and future prospects may be highly disappointing. The grooming and education of the child would again be at the mercy of the government-run/aided institutions...”

A New Delhi-based lawyer challenged the high court decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that it was the girl's right to give birth to the child if she so desired: her mental handicap cannot be an excuse. After hearing what appears to be a cocktail of emotional and factual arguments, by July-end -- as the girl came close to the crucial 20-week mark beyond which abortion is illegal in India -- the Supreme Court stayed the high court decision, ruling against terminating the pregnancy even while observing that care and supervision had to be assured for both the mother and child. Some non-profit organizations have offered to take care of them. The court is yet to give a final detailed ruling on how the care is to be handled. In its stay order, the Supreme Court observed:

The foetus is fine and does not appear to suffer from any deformity. We cannot say for sure whether the child will be mentally retarded. The pregnancy is in an advanced stage. Moreover, if someone agrees to take care of the mother through the pregnancy and the child when it is born, then why should she be deprived of motherhood.

The Debate: Why is this case so complicated?
First, the law. According to India's abortion laws* (note below), a pregnancy cannot be terminated without the consent of the woman. However, if the woman is a minor or mentally challenged such that she cannot function as an adult, her guardian would have to consent to the termination.
In this case, all provisions of the law have been put to the test:
a) She is physically an adult and wants to keep the pregnancy. But, she is mentally a minor and needs guardianship and supervision.
b) She has no blood relatives or a social circle to support her. She is incapable of supporting and taking care of herself or her child.
c) Her legal guardian is the state and the state-run shelters she lived in. Now that the very shelter meant to take care of her abused and raped her, does its consent count anymore? That's probably the reason why the Chandigarh administration took the matter to the court.

The case has divided people along the lines of what constitutes a fundamental right. Disability rights groups have come out in favor of the judgment, saying it was a huge step in making our society more inclusive. Those against the ruling see this as a burden imposed on an innocent, abused, abandoned girl, especially one who does not understand what she's asking for.

Their anger is not without reason. As we had discussed in an earlier post about another abortion legal battle in India, we simply do not have adequate physical and social infrastructure to support people with disabilities. We are not a fully accessible country, both in terms of physical facilities and social attitudes. Abuse and neglect in state-run shelters are rampant.
As lawyers in favor of abortion argued, we need to look at the case from the perspective of ground realities and not social ideals. While lambasting the state administration for running abusive and negligent shelters and ordering "sweeping" reforms, the high court, in its reply to an advocate general who opposed the termination, noted that social change does not happen in a day and a person's life cannot be held hostage to it:

“It requires populism to say that the case in hand be tested and tried and be made an example to awaken the society to change its stereotyped perceptions and shed its prejudices. Suffice it to add here that misconceptions and prejudices do not grown in a day’s span nor can they be eliminated within a night. Would it be not more poetic justice if we, notwithstanding our profound belief, are swayed by the emotional hue and cry made on behalf of a physically grown but mentally weak person who does not understand the consequences of what she is asking for, and allow that unborn child to enter this world even with the possible risk of physical deformities and an inadequate mother, or should we allow the victim to liberate herself from the forced physical, mental, moral and social responsibility which she is neither capable of shouldering nor aware of as to how has she been burdened with it ?”

On the other hand, those against the termination argued that as a society we cannot keep putting off responsibilities on the basis of "ground realities" and make no attempt to change them. Others argued that a disability -- or any other perceived notion of inadequacy -- cannot be used to stop someone from being a mother. Also, India's laws provide for care of mentally challenged persons, so there is no reason she should not be guaranteed help.
 
I understand the high court's perspective: It called for changes in welfare programs but decided not to burden the girl.
I understand the Supreme Court's view too: They too were worried about the girl's welfare, but once convinced that she could have access to care, they did not see any reason to deny her what they perceived as her fundamental right, something she herself wanted.

I think both courts argued and acted in a way they thought would be most beneficial to the victim and the society as a whole.

The girl still has several weeks to go in her pregnancy. A lot can change. Some doctors fear she will be unable to cope when more serious changes to her body start setting in. The Supreme Court feels Nature and biology will help her.

Either way, if the country can deliver on both the courts' judgments -- provide care for the girl and her child, as well as push for reforms in the state-run welfare sector, we would have taken a huge leap toward establishing a more equal, human and efficient society.

[* The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 refers to the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. The Lunacy Act has been replaced by the Mental Health Act, 1987]

Bloggers say...

Prerna - at I Love Life...So I Explore does not agree with the ruling

Aditi Ray

Mahendra at An Unquiet Mind has done an excellent job of laying down the entire case

Manju at Of Cabbages and Kings is skeptical about a decision to keep the pregnancy, but argues that our society has failed her

Meghna Mann at Invoking Thoughts, in a passionate plea as an unborn child, demands to know what her future as a "rape-child" holds for her

Nazish Rahman, like many fellow Indians, has no faith that the sate will take care of the girl or her child

Disability Rights activist SC Vashishth

Two recent pieces of news from the region on the extreme ends of the spectrum brought back that consciousness of the burden -- a beauty contest and a pornographic cartoon character.

The Beauties...
Beauty contests continue to be a bone of contention, even among women worldwide: Are the contestants just meat for roving eyes? But even if they are, who are we to stop other women from doing what they want?
For those who argue against such contests, the main thorn on their side I presume is the emphasis on the female body put on display for others to judge.
Now, what bothers us more: is it the display of the body or the judging? My hunch is that it is the judging that puts people off, although, for obvious reasons, the body gets the attention.
If that's true, where do we place the "Queen of Beautiful Morals", a 'beauty' contest organized in Saudi Arabia, focusing on "inner beauty, as defined by Islamic standards of Saudi Arabia"? The winner, an 18-year-old who wants to go into medicine, pipped 200 odd contestants in her abaya that covered her head to toe. According to this report in Dawn:

There was none of the swimsuit and evening gown competitions and heavy media coverage of beauty pageants elsewhere when the contest was decided in the eastern city of Safwa.

Instead, the winner and the two runner-up princesses had to undergo a three-month test of their dutifulness to their parents and family, and their service to society.

This included a battery of personal, cultural, social and psychological tests, Al-Watan reported.

And this is not a first. Not long ago, Miss World Punjaban  saw a similar contest that tested women of Punjabi origin on -- besides basic physical attributes and their knowledge of everything Punjabi --  "traditional household work" such as using the grinding stone. (Youtube link via India Uncut).

Are they any better or worse than the traditional swim-suit contests popular worldwide?

Why do women bother to participate? I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the contestants. They are in it for the money, and in some cases, the fame. The lady in the abaya at least walked away with lots of cash, diamond jewelry and a vacation. But I also suspect that some women feel stereotyped in their own ways of life and are looking to redefine their identities  -- 'I feel too restricted in my life so here's a chance for me to strut my stuff in a bikini and become famous along the way', OR, 'I am tired of beauty being all about the body so now let's do a morality contest and I will be the good girl'.  Simply put, a backlash against the current norm, whatever it is.

Why do organizers  -- or societies -- feel the need to judge women at such contests and celebrate the winners? Are we afraid of the traditional role of women as paragons of physical beauty or moral virtues giving way? Is a woman, who does not feel the need to judge herself by her physical beauty or traditional moralities, in some way, threatening? 

Or, are we simply making too much ado about nothing? It's just another contest, right? That's what is not clear to me. For instance, the woman using the grinding stone in the video is accomplishing nothing extraordinary other than proving that she knows what goes where in a grinding stone. It's not as if all the women are competing to establish who the best grinder is. Worse, grinding stones are pretty much absent in the modern kitchen. So, where's the skill?
And, as many bloggers pointed out, Miss Morals contest had an age limit of 25. What happens to Muslim women's morals after 25?

I'm wondering...just that I cannot shake off this feeling that something isn't sitting quite right. Meanwhile, here are what some bloggers are saying:

Sadaf Farooqi -- a computer scientist-turned-Islamic educationist writes in her post at MuslimMatters.org:

All I know is, that as a woman who felt distinctly uncomfortable amid stares and other renditions of amorous male attention, and who eventually felt the heady waves of absolute freedom and liberation by donning the Islamic hijab, any pageant that takes into account only a woman’s character, Islamic conduct, taqwa and knowledge and not her beauty; that does not cash in on the display of lines upon lines of young lovelies by garnering media attention and lucrative sponsor deals; and does not use the male vote to attach tags based on hip-and-bust measurements, is a welcome change from the norm, if nothing else; one that can show to the world what the true merit of a woman should be, for others, insha’Allah.

Of course, this post drew comments and questions about why Saudi Arabia needed a pageant at all and if such contests did not encourage simply saying what the judges wanted to hear and winning big prizes for doing so.

Melinda writes at Muslimah Media Watch:

I recognize that the contest is meant to be a response to contests like “Miss World” and “Miss Universe,” but I can’t see any reason to not have an equivalent contest for men. It seems a related jump from judging women for their appearance to judging them for their morality (indeed, the two are often related in people’s minds). But a contest to judge men on their perceived morality? The fact that this option hasn’t been brought up in any of the commentary indicates a double standard: It’s appropriate to judge women (whether on appearance or morals), but it’s not even a possibility to judge men.

Deepa Iyer on News You Can't Use:

Most beauty contests are designed to showcase women whom men find desirable, within the paradigms of local culture or fantasy. In that respect, there is little to choose between conventional pageants, the Miss World Punjaban or the Miss Moral Beauty one.

 
The Porn Star: Last week, India lost its first and only famous female porn star Savita Bhabhi: she was a cartoon character, a horny housewife and the toon series is all about her sexual escapades. The term bhabhi is an immediate giveaway that this character is married. Bhabhi in Hindi means sister-in-law (brother's wife). And since we are all brothers and sisters in India, your male friend's wife will also be addressed as bhabhi.
The government banned the cartoon and asked all internet service providers in the country to block the site. Protests followed with blog and Twitter "Save Savita" campaigns becoming the rage. 
The final blow, however, came when the maker of the series -- a British national of Indian origin who until then published under a pseudonym -- decided to end the campaign to save the site, claiming that revealing his real identity had led to a lot of personal family pressures. (Well, the site still seems accessible).

Now you know why I love Savita Bhabhi. She’s Indian. She’s sexy and she wears a sari.

By banning her site, the I&B Ministry has demonstrated (yet again) how men want to control women all the time. What is Savita Bhabhi’s greatest appeal? That she is a typical Bharatiya nari who is brave enough to demonstrate that when it comes to sex she’s no pushover. I have known many women like her who pretend to succumb to the sexual politics that men incessantly play around them and yet manage to get their way by cleverly manipulating the XXL male ego. So even as they play coy and  subjugated, they are actually free women who live their lives on their own terms. I admire such women and worship on their altar.
[...]
Savita Bhabhi is a symbol of freedom, of empowerment, of the sexuality our women can wield if they are allowed to escape the sham world we Indian men trap them in because of our own fears of sexual inadequacy masquerading as machismo. That’s why so many rapes happen. We feel inadequate when it comes to having sex with an equal partner. So we want sex slaves as wives, maids, friends, work colleagues, even underage kids. Savita Bhabhi challenges this mindset.  The more virgin and demure she looks, the more powerful she is as a symbol of defiance against male chauvinism.

Now, this is seriously questionable. A cheating, manipulating sex-starved housewife as a symbol of feminine freedom? As one commenter questions -- if she is so emancipated, why cheat behind her husband's back? Get out of the marriage and have all the sex you want. I am quoting the comment verbatim and in full. It explains why this case is not as straightforward:

I admire your views of Savita Bhabhi as a liberated woman. But those 60 million fans who flock her site dont see that in her. They simply see a pornographic woman of their dreams, who they would like to keep in their fantasies. They would not want a Savita Bhabi as their wife or sister or friend. That is where lies the hypocracy.
I would love if all the women take their decisions with a liberal mind, but not just with physical intimacy on their mind. Savita Bhabhi did only that. If she was a liberated woman, she wouldnt be leading a dual life. Rather would have left her husband to lead the very life she wants.
It was the men who created Savita Bhabi, men who got pleasure in watching her shed clothes, men who banned her and men who see her as a liberating woman.
Maybe it is time to ask what a woman thinks on the issue. Please Men, give up making decisions for us. We have a mind of our own!!

There may be truth to claims that India has many Savita bhabhis. There are many philandering husbands out there for sure. But can a dual life like this actually be empowering? I am seriously conflicted.

I checked out a couple of Savita Bhabhi "stories" online after this controversy broke. Personally, I think it's more of a commentary on the complete lack of chemistry between the woman and her husband, who is conspicuous by his absence in her scheme of things. But that's not necessarily why she's going about having sex with all and sundry. She had done it before in school, too. With her math teacher. To get a passing grade. But I have to agree with her supporters that her character always seems to be in charge. She is not portrayed as a victim (maybe of her own desires) or a plaything. She seemed to be more focused on pleasing herself than the men. She always seemed to be aware of when she was crossing the so-called line of propriety, but she crossed it anyway.

Savita Bhabhi, besides being the Indian voyeur's delight, symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people. Or so they argue. I wondered, though, if using a hot housewife, a woman, to expose the near-perverse side of India's sex life makes for more hard-hitting copy than censuring the millions of men who think nothing of cheating on their spouses. Maybe it does --it is almost like a slap on the faces of the men who thought their women were at home being the coy, good Indian housewives, as they went about their lives unconcerned about their wives' sexual needs.

Pornography is illegal in India. But so are Indian films in Pakistan. So naturally, those who want it will get it. And with the Internet, it's near impossible to contain anything. But from our experiences here in the West, I am not sure pornography is desirous or even necessary for the cause of feminism and equality. So where does Savita Bhabhi fit in?

India's sexual mores need a huge overhaul and loads of discussions, especially between partners. But can Ms. Immorality Savita Bhabhi actually be the guiding star?

Eggstreamly Eggcentric on the Demise of Savita Bhabhi