snigdhasen's blog

For harmony's sake, be a doormat

2008-06-27T08:00:20-05:00

Don't be too possessive of your husband; be eager to learn from your mother-in-law; don't talk too much to the neighbor or maids; serve tea to your in-laws with a smile; control your temper. Tips such as these, offered by a "professional counselor and psychologist", are key to a happy marriage and well-adjusted family life with the in-laws. So what about it ticked off Indian bloggers? The advice is meant only for women and underscores the tradition that a marriage -- and building a relationship with in-laws --- is solely a woman's responsibility or burden.

I first read about this unique tip-sheet at Nita's blog, where she, her readers and other bloghers that she linked to, were breathing fire. The "counselor", Uttam Dave, had written a two-part series for a Mumbai tabloid on what to look out for before and after tying the knot. The first part --- Before you say 'I do' --- is a decent set of watch-out-fors and make-sures that I'd even classify as useful. Of course, they discount the fact that most arranged-marriage participants either lack the will or opportunity to run down the list. And in cases where couples pick each other, love can force you to overlook many of the potential deal-breakers that he warns us about. But, if your situation is ideal and objective, this is a good check-list to carry. As Dave himself concludes: it's not humanly possible to meet all the criteria.

But let's come back to the problematic second and concluding part of the series -- Knot Adjustable -- that has left so many women, and men, fuming. I'll leave you to fume and fret at his pearls of wisdom: there's enough material, believe me. But what bothered me more -- as it did many other readers -- that this piece found its pride of place in a newspaper, unchallenged. This is not an opinion piece. This is being offered as advice that people can use to improve their marital lives.

To understand how damaging this piece is, it may help to bear in mind that traditionally, Indians have valued and lived in joint families. Marriage and family are a given and come first. And children are expected to support aging parents.

Modern and urban lifestyles are challenging the system, but many couples continue to live with their parents-in-law, in most cases the fortunate seniors being the boy's parents. So, the girl comes in as a new member to the boy's family and technically becomes a part of the boy's family. [That will partly explain why parents prefer boys, but let's hold that off for another post].

The onus has always been on this new member to not only adjust to a whole new way of life, but to do whatever it takes to make herself acceptable to her in-laws. Women have steadily but surely been working at breaking this cycle of being taken for granted by either moving out to live in nuclear families, or using their own income to support their biological parents. Most modern couples are doing a balancing act, and that works out just fine if you have co-operative in-laws.

Which is why Dave's advice comes across as so insensitive. The premise of his argument accepts the status quo:

In the Indian context, the onus for overall adjustment in life always lies largely with the woman. This is the reason why most of the counselling at the pre-marital stage is targeted at women. Unfortunately, most Indian men still do not gear up and take the required initiative in this area. Some do it willingly after their emotional needs are met by the wife.
Keeping the above scenario in mind, most of the following tips are measures a new bride can take to foster a feeling of harmony in her new home, right from the beginning.

How is this any different from saying: "Look, dowry system still exists, too bad. So a good way of dealing with it would be for parents to avoid having girls. If you do, well, you should start putting aside money for her dowry soon after she is born. You can do that by cutting expenses like her education, clothes, food, etc...so on and so forth."

So, basically, if you have a system that is screaming for change, let's not voice the need for change but find ways to work through it, thereby perpetuating it.

I am not judging a set of tricks for a new bride who is willingly entering a patriarchal dynastic family and is looking to be part of it either for the fortune or the fame or tradition. That's the stuff Indian television soaps are made of. Those are the secrets mothers, sisters and friends will whisper into your ears when you take off for your "new home".

Frankly, none of this is novel or new. But to pass these off as rules for a harmonious married life is disturbing. To add insult to injury, expect no further columns on how a man should behave in a similar situation! The counselor has just given up a fine opportunity to address the people who so badly need advice on working toward a well-adjusted family life -- the men and his family-members.

To see how mindless such "advice" can be in the Indian context, check out how this finishing school in central India trains girls to be good wives and daughters-in-law. (Thanks to Nita, again, for mentioning it in her post. I had dismissed this story several years ago as an anomaly. I wonder now...). Of course, it's run by a man. Please read it to experience ultimate horror.

Nita argues in her post that Dave's advice shows reasonable in-laws in very poor light:

The truth is that if the in-laws are decent people, Mr. Dave’s advise is not necessary. Decent in-laws will understand the nature of give and take and realise that the best chance of a harmonious relationship with their daughter-in-law is to be humane towards her. In fact any decent human being will know that just one person giving her all can never work in the long term and will give rise to suppressed rage and simmering hate.

A contributor at Unchaahi, who also complains about the one-sidedness of the advice, has some remarkably ouchy rebuttals/interetations of the advice. Here are a few gems:

Avoid competition with your sister-in-law, mother-in-law or any other member of your age. Being in a family essentially means co-operation and a genuine effort to feel happy in others’ happiness.
(Yesyes, but never expect these nice, thoughtful gestures from the in-laws. Tsk tsk, this advice is only for you, my girl. Pray that you get a son and you can also be the domineering mother-in-law someday!)

Try to control your anger and temper tantrums even if you feel the need to complain to your husband.
(No, who told you that you could be a regular human being with normal feelings? And that it's your husband's responsibility to look after you, just like you look after him? Why you want to bother the poor, tired soul with your problems? Just bottle them up inside you and take it out on your daughter-in-law when your time comes. So simple!)

Chandni at Bohemian Rhapsody has a similar take. These comments are a great way of getting a cultural context for the issue, especially in understanding where the girl's parents fit in this equation:

Let the husband spend time with his family members and don’t be over possessive. Love for your partner can often breed jealousy and malice towards your in-laws, especially if he’s close to his mother. Make it a point to overlook small lapses made by the in-laws and try to understand them as human beings.

Got that? You are just the wife. Not really a family member. So let the guy spend time with “his” family while you busy yourself in the kitchen or something. That’s the least you can do. What about your family? Come on, you silly girl. You’re the girl rememeber! They don’t figure.

Buy thoughtful gifts for your family from time to time. No matter how small or silly they may be, gifts always increase one’s self-esteem and are bound to touch hearts, especially of those who expect something on birthdays and anniversaries.

Aha. bribing. Always works. But be careful, this only applies to in laws. Don’t buy anything for your own family, as that amounts to wasting money and making unneccesary expenditure. And plus, it isn’t your money to spend, remember? Its the family’s.

Emma and Amrutha have rubbished the article, too. And the good news is, most of the readers who commented online have done so as well.

The writer concludes with this fig leaf :

In spite of your genuine efforts to adjust and adapt, however, if you still face any kind of physical and mental cruelty at the hands of your in-laws, especially in connivance with your husband, please walk out without delay and seek a divorce.

Too little too late, sir. The damage is done.

A rape that has left people wishing her dead-II: Interview with writer Pinki Virani

2008-06-19T21:26:38-05:00

In my post last week about Aruna Shanbaug -- the young nurse who was sodomized and strangulated in 1973 in a Mumbai (Bombay) hospital basement, and continues to live in a vegetative state -- I promised an interview with journalist Pinki Virani, who has written perhaps the most authoritative account of the case in her book Aruna's Story. There were many questions raised about this case in blogs and we have tried to cover as much ground as possible.

The author also raises a point that many Indian women fear -- not much has changed in policing, jurisprudence and social attitudes since Aruna was attacked 35 years ago.

Since this interview was conducted over email, I have reproduced it verbatim. I have made minor changes to format, remove typos, and include questions in their entirety.

Pinki Virani rose from working as a typist at 17 to becoming the editor of a Mumbai publication. A victim of incest herself, she has written probably the first and only book on child sexual abuse in the Indian subcontinent. She was recently recognized by the Indian government for her work in the field of women's empowerment and social development.

Snigdhasen: Following the attack on Aruna Shanbaug, it seems that no one was willing to be the complainant in the case, even after the doctors at KEM (King Edward Memorial Hospital) had established that she had been sodomized. The Bhoiwada police had to put on record a sub-inspector's name as the complainant.

(a) Why did none of the nurses file a complainant despite their support for Aruna? [I understand the hospital would have to provide medical proof for it and the dean wasn't willing to. But given the amount of pressure the nurses were able to exert -- the country's first recorded nurse strike -- I wonder if that was the only reason stopping them from press KEM to file a complaint?]

(b) Why did her fiancé, Dr. Sundeep Sardesai, who was willing to sign required documents for a carotid angiography, not agree to be a complainant? [I know he says -- ref. Page 248 -- that too much was going on in his life at that time and he couldn't handle it. Is that the only reason he decided not to push for a complaint?]

(c) You mention that her mother died not knowing what happened to her. After the attack , the cops and KEM tracked down her brother and sister. Why not the mother?

(d) Her cousin's family -- Nirmala or her brother -- were they not willing to file a case either?

Pinki Virani: (Response to a, b, c, d. ) The word 'Why' is the question in all of Aruna's story, isn't it? The book tries to show the dynamics of that time as also all the minds of the major protagonists (for want of calling them by all their names). There is a reason for everyone's action, or an ostensible lack of reason for their inaction. And that is what I realised I needed to do in the book -- let it be recorded in each person's perspective even though no cohesive answer to those all-important 'Why's' would emerge. Meanwhile, let's fast-forward this to today. Should a case happen like this in India today, would there be similar actions, reactions? Frighteningly, there might be similar lack of actions. If anything, the legal system rewards you even less today for standing up to be counted; you could spend ten years going to court just for the hearings.

SS: Does KEM have any medical records of the rape? If yes, can charges be brought against the perpetrator now, or is it too late? Why?
PV: Aruna is in a semi-coma; she cannot speak. How would she have attested to the sodomy even in the first year of her rape? By the way, the fact that he was not arrested for the rape and not tried separately for 'attempt to murder' were realised only when I started the research and put it down in the book.

SS: The book points to rumors that the perpetrator has moved to Delhi and is working as a ward boy in a hospital under a different name. Did the police system at the time (or even now) have a way of profiling the guy so they'll know who he is in case he repeats the offense?
PV: There is no system in India -- yet -- to permanently profile offenders on a computer system. There is no shared data-base amongst the law and order. This is why so many paedophiles walk free and commit so many crimes on children in India.

SS: According to this 1998 news report in The Indian Express , you requested that KEM allow Aruna to be moved to Jaslok Hospital for a CT Scan/MRI. What happened to that request? Has any scan been done since?
PV: Actually, the hospital gave me all the permissions and the dean of that time, a woman, was supportive. But one doctor, a woman ironically, in charge of the section Aruna administratively fell under, withdrew permissions at the last minute. Perhaps she thought that if Aruna died on her way to the scan, she would be questioned -- and perhaps held accountable. This would possibly put a mark against her in her file, this being a government-job, perhaps even the government-given quarters she lives in would become problematic. None of this was put down on paper as being the reasons, of course. I have been in Delhi since the last few years, I intend returning to Bombay and when I do, I shall once again look into the possibility of an MRI with the new dean, even if that lady doctor is still in-charge. Brain cells do not re-generate when they die; so in many senses Aruna is, indeed, dead. But she is in pain, deeply within her and all over her. And I hope to get an MRI done so that modern scientific advances can at least soothe her catatonic state.

SS: Have there been no further developments in this field since then that may help mitigate Aruna's pain?
(i) It appears certain kinds of treatment were not allowed for various reasons over a period of time:
The brother wouldn't sign off on an angiography: Some nurses wouldn't allow any radical untested treatment to be tried on her; an American doctor never replied to a call for help/advice from a KEM doctor; KEM won't allow her to be transfered to Jaslok for a scan.
Have things changed now? Are people more willing to re-look at her case, or have the KEM doctors given up hope completely?
(ii) Given that global communication has improved so much over the years, has KEM tried to reach out to other doctors globally who may have dealt with similar cases?

PV: She is the only case of her kind in the world; there is no doctor anywhere globally who would have had a similar case, so an MRI might help document something for international doctors as well. Meanwhile, the Indian doctors I know in Bombay and who volunteered earlier are more than competent to prescribe appropriate medications after due medical procedures.

SS: Bachi Karkaria's column mentions that after TOI ran a story saying KEM suggested you take Aruna home since you were willing to become her legal guardian for the CT Scan, you were barred from visiting her: Did they lift the "ban"?
PV: I don't know if the "ban" is lifted. It was about to become a big "tamasha" and I did not want it to get politicised. So till the time I was in Bombay, I would drop off stuff for Aruna at the one point in the hospital and it would be passed on to the ward (small whimsical packets of fish-curry or mangoes when in season; or a change of clothes). I was later told that not all of it reached; unsurprising, since all government hospitals are staffed with attendants, helpers et al who are not held accountable.

SS: How do you stay in touch with her?
PV: Through the earlier dean's secretary. This year the secretary has moved out of the hospital on promotion to the Bombay Municipal Corporation's head office (the BMC runs the hospital). Now the new dean, the secretary to the nurse's welfare society and the matron keep an eye out for Aruna and we have worked out a system that they will let me know what little she needs on a monthly basis. They also, may God bless them, ensure that all her stuff sent for her is used only on her. (Pampers, soups, soaps, et al: all the things need by a very sick patient -- or an infant.) They also have all our emergency phone numbers -- mine, my husband's, Bachi Karkaria's. It is on their records that we three are part of Aruna Shanbaug's family and we will perform her funeral rites when she passes, so that she goes with the greatest dignity possible.

SS: Are the family members now ready to sign off Aruna's responsibility to KEM?
PV: I don't understand your question. There has been no "blood" family for Aruna since very, very long.
[Note: Aruna is one of three sisters and six brothers. One of her brothers was interviewed for the book in 1997. He was 71. So I asked the author to clarify if all her siblings were dead. Her response is below.]
PV: No, we can't say what we don't know. I definitely do not know how many members of her family are still alive, and this would include nieces, nephews, etc. What I do know is that none of them have visited Aruna in a long, long time which is why I say there has been no "blood family" for her in a while. Just us, her well-wishers -- all strangers.

SS: You say you'd rather see her pass on than suffer. Do you have no hope at all for any improvement?
PV: Aruna is brain-dead in most ways. Brain cells do not regenerate. Where, then, is the scope for improvement? Where is the chance of a life as it should be lived -- being able to see, walk, talk? So yes, she must pass on. God must finally give her at least this justice.

[Photo credit: All photographs courtesy Pinki Virani]

A rape that has left people wishing her dead

2008-06-13T07:40:45-05:00

Part II: Interview with writer Pinki Virani

In her column on June 1, titled The woman whom God forgot, Times of India editor Bachi Karkaria -- who I have had the pleasure and honor of working for -- had a death wish for a woman on her 60th birthday; a woman trapped in a hospital bed and a vegetative state for 35 years with an acute sense of pain. The desperation in the tone of a no-nonsense editor like Karkaria had me glued to the story:

Not all women are as sexty as India is this year. In a lonely room in a crowded Mumbai hospital, the woman turning 60 today remains trapped in the perennial midnight hour into which she was pushed on November 27, 1973. Do her a favour. Wish her a happy deathday.

Aruna Shanbaug, a staff nurse at Mumbai's (Bombay) historic King Edward Memorial Hospital, was sodomized and strangulated with a dog chain on the hospital premises in 1973. The attack sent her into a coma from which she progressed into a semiconscious state and has remained thus ever since:

Aruna never come out of the semi-coma into which she lapsed; she has remained on the same hospital bed since 1973. The strangulation took away her sight, speech and mobility, but, perversely not her ability to feel pain. Her tormentor walks free. He was convicted for seven years, only for stealing her jewellery and watch, but not rape. Her hymen, after all, was intact.

The article led me to a book (Aruna's Story), by journalist Pinki Virani, who first heard about Shanbaug when she confronted her mother, who wouldn't stop warning her well-traveled daughter about the risks for being a woman and her late hours. Virani later mentioned Aruna to her then editor, Bachi Karkaria, who commissioned her to do a story. Virani followed her story for years after the Sunday special hit the stands, which subsequently turned into a book.

Aruna's story was a sensation every time it made news; in 1973 when the attack happened, several years later when Virani did her special story, when it became a book, and now, when I read the story in Karkaria's column. Aruna's story has all the ingredients to make your innards flip.

Virani's book tells a story -- in remarkable detail -- of courage, of unbelievable love and hate, overwhelming humanity and cruelty, the sad machinations of government-run hospitals and our legal system, a beautiful life that was so close to being successful, a spirit that is so indomitable that it refuses to leave a body crushed by pain. And the injustice of it all -- while the perpetrator, despite being the focal point of so many people's rage, remains free, the people who care for her want the victim relieved of her misery.

Life, please, let go of her.

Aruna's tragic journey goes something like this: She is all of 25 and a staff nurse at one of the country's most prestigious and historic hospitals. She came from a less-than-well-off family in a coastal village near Mumbai, and was determined to break free of the poverty and mundane existence that came with it. She was known to be sharp-tongued, a rule-breaker, but smart and well-intentioned. And she was pretty, a head-turner. She had ambitions of studying in England, which, of course, she was ready to give up to be married to the most promising doctor at KEM. She was just about to go on leave when tragedy struck.

Or more precisely, a disgruntled sweeper, who couldn't deal with being reprimanded several times by Aruna for slacking off and, as she alleged, stealing food meant for dogs at an experimental lab in the basement of the hospital. Aruna hated her posting in the "dog lab", but made the best of it.
The morning of the attack, Aruna had told the sweeper she was going to complain to the dean about his behavior, and that it would be his last day at KEM. The same evening -- after she changed out of her uniform at the dog lab, [despite repeated orders from the matron and seniors not to do so, many nurses changed in the lab instead of the designated area some floors above] -- she was attacked by the sweeper.

Since she was menstruating, he sodomized her, strangled her with a dog chain while doing so, and left her for dead.

And then began a saga that has left so many who cared for her so dispirited that they'd rather see her dead than have her deal with her excruciating pain. Her family abandoned her for the most part, but wouldn't sign off her custody to the hospital, preventing some crucial tests from being conducted. Her fiancé, after waiting patiently by her bedside for years, moved on, giving her listless body one final hug and her first and only kiss.

She still lives because of the unflinching love of her nurse-colleagues, who went on strike for her cause (Virani notes in her book that this was the first recorded strike by nurses in independent India), who became so possessive that they were ready to block doctors from trying any radical, untested treatment on her. The doctors gave freely of their time to treat her. There were times when the city corporation (that ran the hospital) tried to move her out of the premises to a convalescence home (a veritable death trap) and even succeeded once. KEM nurses found her rotting away in the home, raised a stink, and brought her right back.

The most bizarre part of the story is, however, the accused getting away with a seven-year sentence for robbing and attacking her. Why? Because no one was ready to be the complainant for the sexual assault. Her hymen was intact, so her rape was "unnatural", which is severely punishable by the law. But the hospital -- already beleaguered following the attack --- didn't want to report an "unnatural offense", which could lead to further unrest.

Aruna was attacked before I was born. But her story resonates with so many of us who continue to live with the rage against and fear of such debilitating sexual attacks. Bloghers like Preeti Zachariah at Tenacious Thoughts and And miles to go before I sleep...are angry at Aruna's condition and the innumerable rapes across the country.
Usha Vaidyanathan at Agelessbonding took a stab at understanding why men rape and what in our culture allows this to happen.

I have so many questions swimming in my mind about Aruna Shanbaug, as I struggle to come to terms with what happened to her. Is her case so hopeless? Is there not the slightest chance that her suffering can be mitigated?
Why do these brave women who have followed her case want her to go?

I wrote to Pinki Virani, who was kind enough to respond quickly with an email she sent out a day before Aruna's 60th birthday. She has agreed to answer my questions and I will update this post or repost next week. Meanwhile, I quote from the email she sent me:

tomorrow, june 1 2008, a woman called aruna shanbaug turns 60.

she does not need money. the people of bombay -- the city she came to from coastal karnataka to become a nurse, get engaged to a doctor, live happily ever after -- pay for her upkeep through their taxes to the bmc (the hospital aruna lies on a bed in, is run by the bombay municipal corporation).

she does not need publicity. she has the dubious distinction of being recorded in india's first faction book -- it is exclusively on her -- as the only case of her kind in the world.

she does not need food or clothing. the mashed food she is fed, ironically, is what is keeping her alive. her new clothing tends to get stolen. she can't control the theft because she can neither see, nor speak, nor move from her hospital bed.

all she can do is scream.

this, she does. because it is her last memory -- of being sodomised in her workplace, of being strangulated with a dog-chain while being raped.

the coming november 27, 2008, will make it 35 years for that incident.

what aruna needs from you is a small, quick prayer. to whomsoever you believe in: God/Khuda/Malik/Bhagwan/Lord. that she be allowed to die.

please.

Sexual minorities in India fight archaic law

2008-05-30T07:44:28-05:00

A lesbian couple in the south Indian city of Chennai reportedly burned themselves to death, unable to bear years of forced heterosexual marriages and a lifetime of scorn.

Jaya Verma and Tanuja Chauhan, hailing from a small central Indian town, were luckier -- they didn't die. But the couple, who tied the knot in a Hindu ceremony in 2001, face similar social ostracization.

Their marriage isn't legal. Neither is their relationship. A colonial-era law criminalizes "unnatural" sexual relations. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (introduced in 1860 by the British and retained by many South Asian countries after independence) goes something like this:

Unnatural sexual offences: - Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

[The above information is quoted from a study titled 'Male-to-male sex, and sexuality minorities in South Asia', and is available at Naz Foundation International’s website. The foundation is a UK-based non-profit advocacy group for MSM (gay) networks and HIV prevention in South Asia.]

Naz Foundation (India) Trust (not the Naz International mentioned above), a Delhi-based non-profit working on HIV/AIDS prevention and sexual health in India, challenged the Indian government in the Delhi High Court in 2001, saying the law poses a hurdle in disseminating sexual health information in the gay community, which has a higher incidence of HIV cases than the rest of the population. The High Court initially threw out the petition, but was forced to take a look following a Supreme Court directive.
Human rights advocacy group Lawyers Collective has regular updates of the proceedings

Sexual diversity and the Indian society: Given India's history of being ruled and influenced by multitude of cultures and religious schools of thought, this is highly diffused area. There have been various and divergent claims of religious and social acceptance or the lack thereof of sexual minorities. It is believed that ancient Hindu society was open to and tolerated sexual minorities. Growing up, I have seen eunuchs or hijras (they may be biologically male or intersex), and there is a certain auspiciousness attached to them. Kings have been known to patronize them.

I have seen groups of hijras turn up at homes that have just welcomed a new-born (we often wondered how they found out), demanding money and, on occasions, dancing in their unique style. For the most part, they identify and dress as females in India. Sometimes I have seen families humor them and watch them perform before paying them. Most times people are either terrified or annoyed by their heavy-handedness in extracting a fee.

I understand why. Sexual minorities have a slim to no chance of earning a decent living and leading a normal life while expressing their sexualities.

In her Ultra Violet post on transgenders in India, Anindita Sengupta says:

In India, we live with a level of gender denial that defies all sense
of common decency and humanism — and don’t even notice it most of the
time. Our society consistently rejects and violates an entire group of
people on the basis of their gender. The horror of this never seems to
strike people as they roll up car windows or carefully look away with a
grimace when approached by a hijra. Discussions about this seldom find
their way into the drawing rooms of ‘liberals’.

More recently, however, transgenders and homosexuals are coming out and making their presence felt in mainstream society. Both films and the media have begun discussing issues related to sexual minority.

Naturally, the pressure to decriminalize consensual sex/companionship between two adults, no matter what their sexual orientation, is on the rise.

[Note: There are, of course, two different issues here -- homosexuals who are looking for a change in law, and other sexual minorities such as transsexuals or transgenders who are fighting for social recognition of their chosen sexuality/gender or behavior. I understand that these terms in themselves are complicated and contested, but for the purpose of this post, I shall refer to all unconventional non-heterosexual behavior/realities as sexual minorities.]

What are we afraid of? Let's keep the morality code aside. There seems to be a fear among many that giving legitimacy to sexual minority behavior will "encourage" non-heterosexual behavior in young men and women, and the family system will break down. People who believe that sexual orientation is nature's decision not man's will scoff at such a suggestion. Seems logical.

So what does this fear stem from? Is there a what-if-I-like-it aspect to this (remember George Constanza and his male masseuse in Seinfeld)? While listing the "advantages of being gay", Arnold (Amy and the fifth beatle) argues that all human beings are, basically, "bi-sexual":

I was pondering on and wondering about homosexuality the other day, and
I realized that there are quite a few advantages to being gay. Firstly,
allow me to state that I believe most people are “bi-sexual”. By this I
mean, if 0 is completely straight and 1 is completely homosexual, then
most people would lie somewhere in between. A large majority of people
are close to 0, but they’re not exactly 0. Most things in this fuzzy
world are gray (as opposed to black or white) and so I would assume
that it should be no different for one’s sexual orientation. I would
define true “bi-sexuality” as somewhere between 0.4 and 0.6, but that’s
open to interpretation.

My guess is that a lot of Indians (males particularly) fear this may be true but don't want to figure out if it really is so. Others may have a fear of random sexual experimentation, which, I daresay, may be a valid fear: given the social curbs on free interaction between the opposite sexes, men and women spend a lot of time with their own kind.

However, with norms for social behavior relaxing with time, this is likely to become less of a concern.

Laws aside, the gay community exits in India. For instance, gay bars function but are not advertised.

The power of the Blog: The Internet has provided a platform for many sexually repressed minorities to vent and wage their battles for social change. Blogs by Indian and south Asian sexual minorities, however, are still limited.

Sanjukta (This Is my Truth) has compiled a couple of blogs by gays in her post, which I will include in the list below. Here's her take on the issue:

The social ostracism queers have to face is even worse than police torture.
There prevails a blanket homo-phobia in the society, more particularly
amongst patriarchal hetero sexual man whose man hood is his honour
(which basically is in his D*&$). This ‘man’ refuses to recognize a
gay as ‘man’. A gay is called by names, looked down upon, made fun of,
looked at with suspicion. For an heterosexual man the idea that a man
can be physically attracted to another man is scary and disgusting. I
often hear they say, “what if he feels me up”
[...]
The other day I was talking to a friend whose socio political understanding, outlook
and inclination earns a huge amount of respect from me but it made me
sad to know he is a homophobic. And I just cannot come to terms with
that. This homophobia leads to social ostracism. Like he said, he
wouldn’t not be friends with a gay, says he won’t even like to be seen
hanging around with a gay.

Ergo's fabulous post at Desicritics about being gay in India

Lesley E blogs as Bombay Boy

Nitin Karani's Queer India

Talking Closets

Yugyag (content warning!)

Malika's Indian Transgender Blog

Kalki: The Life and Times of an Indian Transwoman

A spot of good news: Here are some members (mostly Indian) of various sexual minority groups who have made it big --

Indian actress Bobby Darling (Pankaj Sharma).

Popular Pakistani talk show host Begum Nawazish Ali (Ali Saleem) (I am still wondering about this guy, though...Check out this video.)

Indian talk show host, Rose

Indian fashion designer Wendell Rodricks

Other News/Resources:

Seeking Freedom (India Today)

India's dangerous secret sex lives (BBC)

Queer Media Watch

[Photo credit: Afterellen.com. Image from the film Sancharram (The Journey)]

The melody of Indian music survives

2008-05-23T06:57:10-05:00

Earlier this month, India became the 20th country to get its own version of You Tube. For people like me -- with limited access to Indian music, television, movies, cricket and Top 10 countdowns -- this meant a hope for an easier way to watch more music video clips :). Music -- be it classical, folk, pop or Bollywood -- is an essential, almost religious, part of sub-continental life, and loads of You Tube uploads from India are clips of movies (particularly song sequences) and music videos.

As I went hunting for the latest Bollywood chart buster I was reminded of another search that I had done a while ago -- looking for audio blogs or sites that discuss Indian classical music and other forms of music that are native to the land and cultures that have made India home.

As a child, I briefly (yes, four years is quite brief) trained in one of the oldest forms of Indian classical music, the Hindustani classical or Shastriya Sangeet. This is primarily practiced in the northern half of the sub-continent. The form more prevalent in the south is Carnatic music.

Indian classical music is said to have originated from the Vedas, nearly 1,500 years before the Christian era. Over the centuries, classical music has evolved into various forms and styles of rendition. Some of the most melodious numbers in India cinema are rooted either in folk or classical music. So are some of the best singers in the music and film industries. Classical music takes several years of dedicated learning and practice to master, and is regarded as a solid grounding for a singing career.

Music, by nature, transcends barriers. For instance, some of the finest proponents of Hindustani classical -- which has its roots in the Hindu Vedas -- are Muslims. Ghazal (there are English ones too), known to have originated in the Arabic world, finds some of its highly regarded masters in the subcontinent.

For a taste of this wonderful tradition, here are some clips and information about a documentary called Dhrupad: The call of the deep, which tells the story of the oldest extant form of classical music through the lives of a dhrupad maestro and his disciple. I am yet to lay my hands on the film, but I am sold on the idea, thanks to the wonderful clips.

Classical and folk melodies continue to turn me on like none other. Given how developed these forms of music are, there's plenty of information out there. But bloggers have chipped in too, some of them rendering these compositions in their own voices.

Parul K has a Masters degree in Hindustani Classical. Many of her blog posts (in Hindi) are about classical and other traditional forms of music.

Mousumi Karmakar, a Kolkata-based singer, has some beautiful renditions of Bengali pop, folk, devotional songs (kirtan) and Rabindra Sangeet (songs by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore) on her audio blog, Music of Bengal Monsoons.

Anand's blog is dedicated to Hindustani classical music;it is like a beginner's school -- theory, audio and video collections, et al. Indian Raga is another blog dedicated to Hindustani classical.

Vidhya's blog, Music & Me, is all about Carnatic classical.

And all those unnecessary worries about losing our culture and heritage and what not. Classical and tradition Indian music have survived a few thousand years. Me thinks they will survive a few more, at least.

Enjoy!

Other blogs:
Winds from the East
Carnatic on keyboard
Q4Music
Tabla in Hand
Carnatic Music Guide
Carnatic Blog

South Asia: This part of the world is also spinning

2008-05-16T05:44:40-05:00

South Asia is going through turmoil -- some inflicted by nature, some by fellow humans. Myanmar's cyclone has mercilessly claimed lives in ways that we can't begin to fathom, no thanks to the Junta and its closed-door policies. Paddy fields in the Irrawaddy Delta have been washed away with bodies, bang in the middle of a global food crisis. Last heard, the Junta has allowed four Asian countries -- China, India, Thailand and Bangladesh -- to send in disaster relief teams, which tells me the situation there is grim. Very grim and desperate.

Meanwhile, nature and man took its toll on neighboring countries as well.

Here are some of the most significant events that have shaken-up India and its neighbors in recent days and weeks.

Photo credit: Various sources via ifgogo.com

China: A devastating earthquake struck the western province of Sichuan in China on Monday, claiming an estimated 50,000 lives. Like Myanmar, China opened up its rescue operations to experts from Japan and Taiwan. Rescue workers still struggle to reach distant villages buried under rubble. The region is mountainous, making the task arduous. Foreign tourists are reported to be stranded but, safe. Rescue operations continue.
[Aside: Press freedom in China? This report says it's remarkable that China, unlike earlier, has allowed its media considerable amount of freedom to run reports and pictures about the earthquake. Agreed that this is a natural disaster, and not one perpetrated by the government, and the reports still highlight the government's efforts to deal with it, still the change in coverage is obvious. Perhaps it's an attempt to improve China's image in the world post the Tibet fiasco. Or perhaps it's the best way for the government to reach out to its own people and keep the country united in peace. Either way, the openness seems a welcome change.]

China Daily
The earthquake, superstitions and Chinese bloggers (NYT)
BBC
Washington Post
CNN
Blogging the China earthquake
China Confidential
Miss Chiu and Chen Zi at Hong Dou urge you to donate
Ifgogo.com

Photo credit: PTI photo via Rediff.com

India: On Tuesday, a series of eight bomb blasts ripped through the peaceful, historical city of Jaipur in the northwestern Indian state of Rajasthan, killing over 60 people and injuring nearly 200. Most of the bombs were strapped to bicycles. The blasts are being investigated as a terror attack, but none of the better-known terror groups in the region have claimed responsibility. Plenty of red herrings so far, it appears. The city --- a major tourist attraction --- has remained peaceful since the attacks, and people have turned up in droves to donate blood and offer help. Social networks, including bloggers, Twitter and the Facebook, have been abuzz with news, views and analysis about the blasts. Aaman Lamba has put together list of contact numbers for inquiries and information at Desicritics.
[Aside: (i) The show must go on: Organizers of the ongoing Indian Premier League, which had cricket matches scheduled to be played in Jaipur, said there will be no change in plans or venue, blasts or no.
(ii) Storm kills 90: While the blasts kept the nation engaged, nature made its presence felt and took a much higher toll. In just over a day, more than 90 lives were lost in severe dust storms and showers in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.]

Hindustan Times
Rediff
BBC
The Times of India
Daink Bhaskar (Hindi)
Rajasthan Patrika (Hindi)
OffStumped
Sepia Mutiny
The SAJA Forum
Pass the roti on the left hand side

Pakistan: An assassination, an election and a regime change later, Pakistani democracy's birth pangs are back. The newly-elected government's first jolt came when a coalition partner -- the Pakistan Muslim League (N), led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif -- pulled out its ministers from the cabinet, angry over the failure of the government to reinstate several judges sacked by President Pervez Musharraf last year. It has promised "issue-based support" to the majority party (the Pakistan People's Party formerly led by the late Benazir Bhutto). PPP's co-chairman, Asif Ali Zardari (Bhutto's widower) has promised to keep the channels open for further negotiations. But reports point to some serious fissures in the coalition.

The News
All Things Pakistan
KO
Rupeenews
The Pakistani Spectator

BYE-BYE MONARCHY, HELLO DEMOCRACY?

Nepal: Despite a bloody, decade-long struggle that left over 10,000 people dead, the Maoists were elected to power in Nepal, who have promised to abolish the Himalayan country's nearly 300-year-old monarchy. Democracy took its first steps in 1991, but the ride has been rocky since then, with the (constitutional) monarchy taking over the reins twice. The country's economy was brought to its knees by a civil war that Maoists fought for a decade. Time now to give peace a chance.

The Himalayan Times
Kantipur Online
Hamropalo
Blogdai
United We Blog
Archana Srestha (Nepali)
Nepali Journal
Reality, one bite at a time

Bhutan: The small Himalayan kingdom nestled between India and China, also saw an end to its century-long monarchic rule and the beginning of parliamentary democracy. The kingdom has seen much unrest due to ethnic violence and anti-government groups. Two pro-monarchy parties won the recent parliamentary elections. So the kingdom has moved from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one.

Bhutan Observer
Thunderbolt Post
Bhutan: For a Democracy

Food Crisis: Being more thankful, more thoughtful and less wasteful

2008-05-09T08:03:53-05:00

[Updated to add Mad Momma's wonderful post on ways to curb wastage].

A couple weeks back, news about limited rice exports from India gave my husband and I -- both raised on rice-heavy diets -- pause. We briefly mulled over the idea of buying an extra bag of rice just in case, but then let it slide.

Last week, our weekly groceries bill leaped from an average of $40-$60 to $90+. Whoa! What did we just buy?

Or is it the food crisis that we hear about? So it's here?

It has been here for a while, except that Americans have been, to some measure, insulated from the "silent tsunami" that has been consuming countries in Asia and Africa. As Newsweek reports, the massive American food supply chain -- that includes processors, distributors are retailers -- is absorbing most of the rise in costs, so consumers aren't burning a hole in their pockets yet. Meaning, my new, increased grocery bill is, for now, more of "an inconvenience than a dire threat".

It was, however, a recent statement made by President Bush on the food crisis -- that sparked off a controversy in India --- which forced me take a closer look at a situation that is yet to take food off my table, but is grave, nevertheless.

More about the controversy later.*

First, the crisis. The situation is dire in many parts of the world. Prices of commodities have sky-rocketed and foot riots have been reported from several countries. To get a sense of the situation, here are a couple snippets from The Economist's special report:

The Silent Tsunami

For the first time in 30 years, food protests are erupting in many places at once. Bangladesh is in turmoil [...]; even China is worried [...] Elsewhere, the food crisis of 2008 will test the assertion of Amartya Sen, an Indian economist, that famines do not happen in democracies.

Famine traditionally means mass starvation. The measures of today's crisis are misery and malnutrition. The middle classes in poor countries are giving up health care and cutting out meat so they can eat three meals a day. The middling poor, those on $2 a day, are pulling children from school and cutting back on vegetables so they can still afford rice. Those on $1 a day are cutting back on meat, vegetables and one or two meals, so they can afford one bowl. The desperate—those on 50 cents a day—face disaster.
[...]
Rich countries need to take the food problems as seriously as they take the credit crunch.

The new face of hunger

In Haiti, protesters chanting “We're hungry” forced the prime minister to resign; 24 people were killed in riots in Cameroon; Egypt's president ordered the army to start baking bread; the Philippines made hoarding rice punishable by life imprisonment. [...]

Last year wheat prices rose 77% and rice 16% [...]. These were some of the sharpest rises in food prices ever. But this year the speed of change has accelerated. Since January, rice prices have soared 141%; the price of one variety of wheat shot up 25% in a day.

How did this come to pass? The reasons are many and complicated. I have tried to filter out the root causes for the mess -- to make this digestible for readers and for my own sanity [Information sources are linked to or listed at the end]:

Rise in fuel prices have had a trickle-down effect on all commodities. Modern agriculture is fuel-intensive, hence production costs have gone up.
The production and supply of grains have not been able to keep up with the rate of population and economic growth.
An increase in demand (and prices) usually sees an increase in supply. But grains can't be grown overnight. The response is seasonal and hence slow.
To counter the energy crisis, countries such as the U.S. have diverted chunks of grains toward biofuels, leaving less grains for human consumption. Corn-based ethanol is taking the rap.
A large amount of grains get diverted to feeding livestock, demand for which is also increasing.
We -- India included -- were smug in the belief that we had enough food to feed all (those who could pay). We have systematically neglected the agricultural sector.
Stock-piling and hoarding in fear of a deeper crisis has pushed up prices.
Nature has had its say in the matter, too. Global warming has led to uncertain weather patterns. Australia, for example, is suffering its sixth year of drought.

Now what?

This may be a good time to mention "the controversy" over Bush's remarks in India -- It gives an indication of how serious and emotional the food crisis has became.

*The controversy: As inflation skyrockets, India -- the second largest producer of rice behind China -- started curbing exports. It blamed the U.S. for diverting grains away from humans to biofuels. Bush recently argued that ethanol cultivation was not the main driver of food prices, and that greater demand for food from India and China were partly responsible:

"Worldwide, there is increasing demand. There turns out to be prosperity in developing world, which is good. It's going to be good for you because you'll be selling products in the countries, you know, big countries perhaps, and it's hard to sell products into countries that aren't prosperous. In other words, the more prosperous the world is, the more opportunity there is," the US President said.

"It also, however, increases demand. So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That's bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population."

"And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up," he said.

Bush also listed change in weather patterns and increase in basic costs like that of energy as factors contributing to higher food prices.

"No question that ethanol has had a part of it. But I simply do not subscribe to the notion that it is the main cost driver for your food going up," Bush said.

India went ballistic. Politicians lambasted Bush for suggesting the India's rising middle class had anything to do with the food crisis. Newspapers yanked out data to prove how America's per capita consumption was five times more than India's. Bush's statement has attracted much scorn and ridicule.

Rising demand for more and nutritious food from developing nations is without a doubt a contributing factor. So what ticked off India?

The devil, as they say, is in the details: I think Bush would be safe if he stopped at saying there's a rise in demand for food. But comparing India's middle class to America's total population is where he messed up -- how can the biggest consumers of pretty much everything in the world point an accusing finger at a much poorer people who consume much less per head, a good number of who are either vegetarian or don't eat one kind of meat or the other?

Second, at a time of crisis, the world will probably be better served if we looked at reasons and solutions that are actionable. Rising food demand from a growing and more prosperous population cannot be avoided, but indiscriminate use of food grains or arable land for biofuels can.

That brings me to the question: What can American consumers, yet to see a food riot, do to help?

While economists and food experts want us all to refocus our energies on making agriculture more productive, rethinking international commodities trade policies, and research further on what grains should be used for biofuels, we can help contribute individually. According to the Newsweek report, "...[O]verall, consumer food prices were up 4.4 percent between March 2007 and March 2008. Yes, bread and milk have spiked (up 14.7 percent and 13.3 percent in the past year, respectively), but fruits and vegetables were up just 1.7 percent in the same time period."

It's not that bad here, so this may be the time to act. Of course, you can donate to the World Food Program to ease the short-term pain. But why not try the harder, nobler and smarter thing to do: curb waste.

We waste food: sometimes they rot in the refrigerator, sometimes we just throw it out because we don't like it, sometimes we eat more than we need, and sometimes (the worst) we jump into or throw around food on reality shows just for fun.

Yes, when we have plenty, we take things for granted. But now we don't. The world doesn't. Can we not tweak our habits just a bit?

Wasting food is criminal when people across the world are killing each other for a morsel. Roop Rai recounts one such wasteful experience at Banalities of my life:

Even despite such a crisis, I see people here in US, in UK, and even in Canada disregarding food. It's disheartening. I had a few friends come over to our house in UK for a get-together for a friend's birthday. I cooked dinner. Everyone took a plateful, said they loved the food, and threw half of it out. I might've doubted my cooking abilities if they didn't go for second servings half an hour later. This time again, all of them took a plateful, ate what they could, and threw the rest out. I couldn't help but wonder at such nonchalance.

As Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations' special Rapporteur on the right to food, says: "The days of cheap food are over."

It may be time to count our blessings and cut back on the waste. Thanks to our very own Kalyn Denny, I found bloghers who are talking about talking about crisis and food management. I have added some "Bushism" posts by Indian bloghers to the list :)

Mad Momma - Fighting the Food Crisis

The Real Potato

Veggie Might

The Cleaner Plate Club

A Lucid Spoonful

Can cook, must cook

The [ex]Expatriate's Kitchen on "Bushism"

Think of Bush before you eat

Other resources (apart from the ones I have linked to above):

Global Food Crisis (Washington Post)

The Food Chain (NYT)

Food prices and protest -- Taking the strain (Economist.com)

ASIA: Food Crisis Adds to Women’s Burden (IPSNEWS.NET)

Interview with MS Swaminathan, one of the brains behind India's Green Revolution (Rediff)

Why have rice prices surged to record highs? (Mint)

The Cost of Food: Facts & Figures (BBC)

Demand key factor in price rise (WSJ)

Rising Food Prices: What should be done? (International Food Policy Research Institute)

India outsources cheer: Some like it hot, some like it not

2008-05-02T01:39:44-05:00

The hot hot ladies of the Washington Redskins cheer squad are in India shaking their shapely hips in those short shorts, matching go-go boots and bikini tops. Needless to say male fans were left salivating for more, our culture guardians gasping at the "vulgarity", purists demanding that the "Indian" sport be spared of such cheap thrills, and some fence sitters (me included) wondering and analyzing to no end what this all means and if all this fuss is warranted.

Background:
The American squad is cheering for the Bangalore Royal Challengers, one of the eight cricket teams of the newly-formed , flush-with-funds, Indian Premier League. [The Royal Challengers, incidentally, is owned by Vijay 'King of Good Times' Mallya, the liquor baron who also owns Kingfisher Airlines of the "red skirt" fame that our very own Elana Centor blogged about.]
The IPL is similar to the American NFL or the British (soccer) Premier League, and is backed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India as well as the International Cricket Council.
Players are drawn from across the cricketing world through a bidding process -- a first for international cricket. The teams are owned by just about anyone with big bucks -- from Bollywood superstars to industrialists to media houses. The format follows the new, shorter version of the game, popularly called the Twenty20 or T20, and is packed with entertainment. It has appropriately been nicknamed "cricket on crack" :)

[I'd like to clarify the cliche about the game that repeatedly appears in the media here -- T20 is the shortest of the three popularly played versions of the game -- (i) the Test matches -- which are considered the real test of athleticism and tenacity by players and purists alike -- can run up to five days, (ii) the highly popular one-dayers, where the game wraps up in a six-hour day of play (the traditional World Cup is played in this format), and (iii) the latest fast-paced T20, that takes up half the time. So, cricket is NOT making a direct jump for the five-day format to T20. And for many of us who love the game, it does not put us to sleep, despite its length. Had it been so, cricket, a primarily British game, would have died in India a long time ago.]

And then the cheerleaders arrived.

They came from all over the world, but the American girls -- the first ones to take the field -- got the most press. They are only part of a glitzy, glamorous extravaganza that the tournament has turned out to be. The inauguration was a star-studded affair with performers flown in from all parts of the world, and Bollywood has turned up for the games in full force.

But when a group of glam girls -- showing more skin than most of the young predominantly male audience would've probably seen in their unmarried lives -- can the moral police be far behind?

Many young spectators could barely keep their eyes on the ball when the cheerleaders did their gig. Some even confessed the girls were the only reason they turned up to watch the games. That should please the organizers -- high turnout was absolutely essential for the world's most expensive cricket tournament to take off.

But not all were happy.

First the Indians -- The attack seemed two pronged: from traditional cricket enthusiasts who can't see their favorite sport being turned into a spectacle, and from our culture guardians who are shaken by the onslaught of skin-show on good Indian boys and girls and cricket.
I think the first kind are driven by a traditional idea that most of us have held about cricket (the only game India has a strong international presence in): that sport and entertainment are somehow different. I held that belief, too, as I guess many senior players of the game still do. I find the younger crop of players using the word "entertainment" to describe their jobs far more often now than older or retired players did. Which explains why some are uneasy with the mixing of entertainment and sport (what is sport, if not entertainment?).

Pakistani blogger Ammar headlines his post thus -- "The day Cricket died; IPL":

I am not against Indi masala films, neither I am against 20/20 or new exciting form of cricket for that matter. But people IPL is anything but cricket. I mean golden helmets and pads. Half naked cheerleaders cum bar dancers jumping/dancing on every boundary.
Okay I agree I am a bit conservative when it comes to this, but the fact that sex sells does not imply that every picture in the art gallery should have a naked woman. Go on call me a traditionalist but my point makes sense. The only reason of my displeasure is; I was expecting a league of EPL & UEFA standard and I am observing something like WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). So the question is; will the real cricket survive?

Pr3rna at I love life...so I explore seems a bit shaken by the developments and can't figure where her loyalties lie:

There were acrobats and there were pom-pom girls. Cricket was one of the actions scheduled for the day, purely incidental.
[...]
My problem is-when Brett Lee is bowling to Mathew Hayden I don’t know whom to cheer for. I tried to be loyal to Delhi Dare Devils but it is difficult, there are few Delhiites in the team to cheer for. It might take me a few more tournaments to decide which team I want to support.
[...]
All this is fine and everybody is enjoying but the way slogging starts from the first ball, Cricket seems to be buried under the glamour and the noise. Players are boo-ed even when they take singles,forget the reaction on dot balls. When it comes to Cricket I think I still love the longer version of THE GAME.

And then the cheerleaders arrived. The "cultural invasion" happened.

Most of the youth seemed super-kicked about it. Others weren't so happy. Some politicians in Mumbai (ironically, home to Bollywood) wanted them banned for something or the other: either indecency or incorrect work permits, whatever it takes. Then they piped down and asked them cover up. The organizers toed the line. The girls covered up for Mumbai, the National Commission for Women gave a conditional nod to cheerleading, and the show went on, as did the debate.

A Hindustan Times article quotes India’s leading socio-historian and writer, Ramchandra Guha, as saying:

All the organisers are doing by making scantily-clad white women dance in front of huge crowds is to stoke the base, voyeuristic and sexual insecurities of the Indian male. It is revolting, appalling and shows the game in very poor light.[...]
Why we always have to borrow the worst of the western world is beyond me. I have nothing against the cheerleaders, they are only doing their jobs, but I'm against the very concept. It's revolting and crude. I hope people are watching cricket rather than the cheerleaders.

Well, it seems a good number of the audience actually feasted their eyes on the girls, rather than the ball. In fact, one of the players (from Pakistan) found them a distraction and wanted them removed during the game.

In his post (Sexing up cricket) on his blog South Asia Daily, Mayank Chhaya argues that the sexual appeal of the cheerleader is undeniable, and the Indian male was savoring it all:

They did not have cricket on their mind. They had the cheerleaders on their mind with their bright red pompoms, yellow bikini tops, shorts and white high-heeled boots. It was an erotic fantasy come true. Unless you are differently inclined, who does not like girls with taught bodies in tight outfits and high-heeled boots flailing their limbs? Vijay Mallya, the ever glad eye owner of the Royal Challengers team, has understood that in order for his latest business to be attractive he has to have attractive people selling it.

Cheerleading comes to India at a time when its movies have significantly demystified the female body with its many raunchy songs in which girls dress and dance far more provocatively than what was on display at the IPL game in Bangalore. A considerable number of the country’s 550 million under 25 population has been exposed to the oomph and style of entertainment in the West. Even ten years ago the presence of barely clad young women gyrating at a cricket stadium would have set off a firestorm of protests.
[...]
Although it may still offend the sensibilities of some, the changing trend of popular tastes suggests cheerleading could strike roots in India. Of course, like everything else it is bound to be Indianized, which might mean less skin than in the US.

Ipatrix finds the use of cheerleaders a lack of imagination, but is dead against moral policing:

Let us be clear, employing cheerleaders is less of entertainment and more of titillation; pun intended and just because NFL uses them to attract fans doesn’t mean the IPL has to literally cut-paste everything that NFL does. If they had put as much effort in coming up with creative ideas as they did in creating their media contracts, we would definitely have something that is both fun and enticing. After all, we are the country that remixed Bollywood golden oldies. Where is Himesh Reshammiya and the item girls when you need them? At the same time, I’m not with Bal Thackeray’s suggestion that bhangra should replace cheerleading because I know his suggestions come with an implicit lesson in dictating our morality; his role in organizing the Michael Jackson concert notwithstanding.

NYU business professor Tunku Varadarajan -- who like many of us Indians saw the protests coming -- probably rounded off the debate best in a New York Times op-ed:

With the Redskins cheerleaders on Indian soil, one can safely declare that the British cultural influence in India has been entirely replaced by an American one, cricket notwithstanding. India’s relationship with the United States — economic, strategic, diasporic and cultural — is now its primary external alliance, with a complex nuclear deal at one end of the spectrum and 12 cheerleaders and two choreographers at the other.

Now the girls: The media is full of stories about how the cheerleaders have become instant heartthrobs, and have landed gigs in music videos and even in a film as an "item number" (euphemism for a sexy music number in a film). The girls interviewed have been pretty upbeat and seem to be enjoying their place in the tropical sun. But this was the story that I was almost sure would emerge: girls being propositioned with lewd comments. Here's a taste of what some of them experienced in "leer country":

“It’s been horrendous,” a cheerleader told HT, echoing the point of many when saying the kind of comments they have “had to endure over the last week from the Indian public” had left them “disgusted and disturbed”.

Tabitha, who says she’s originally from Uzbekistan, added, “Wherever we go, we do expect people to pass lewd, snide remarks but I’m shocked by the nature and magnitude of the comments people pass here… Be it a 70-year-old oldie or a 15-year-old kid, they all letch at us and make amorous advances. I feel very threatened. We are here to entertain them, to add a bit of glamour, but we are living in constant fear (of someone attempting something).”

Another cheerleader, worried about revealing her name, said: “It’s tough to dance and keep smiling when the people behind are giving you hell. People here think we’re morally loose women just because they see us enjoying ourselves. We’re doing a job and all we want is a bit of respect, that’s all.”

What now? I think the debate is pretty much settled. The girls have found tremendous support. Check out some of the blogs and columns listed below.

Cheering is in India to stay. Music and dance are an integral part of the Indian lifestyle: an athletic dance form is an irresistible experiment. In fact, I think cheer leading could become the competitive sport that it is in the U.S.

The Washington Redskins girls are reportedly auditioning and training Indian cheerleaders. Now, that will be the real test: Will Indian male spectators be willing to see their own women gyrating in skimpy uniforms for the world to see?

It seems to me that it's the outfit that has rattled people, not so much the cheering itself. I absolutely loved Bring It On and I'll stop at any channel covering a cheerleading competition. But the cheering we see on the field are of a different kind, no? Not many boys with pompoms, a whole lot of cleavage and booty on display. I am not totally convinced it's just about athleticism on the field. After all, the girls from Washington had no idea about cricket (or what to expect of their spectators). So why were they flown in for a cricket match?

The sexy entertainment bit is fine by me, as long as we accept it for what it is and move on.

Personally, I don't see much use for cheerleaders at a game that is already so popular -- especially in India where people are so passionate about cricket and require little cheering to keep their spirits high.

But then again, how many forms of entertainment can we claim we really "need"?

Despite my opinion on the "need" for the girls, I say, bring it on. Let this "issue" resolve itself. If young girls in India like it and take to it, then so be it. In any case, the IPL is so fast-paced and packed with entertainment, I doubt that cheerleaders will hold court for too long.

Also, the ladies probably won a tiny battle for the organizers: Cricket found it's way back into the American media -- the ultimate frontier the cricketing world has been dying to conquer :)

Who's complaining?

And the IPL argument continues on...

Save the cheerleader, save the world

Will we ever get used to seeing flesh?

No boobs please, we are Indian

The Games Stupid People Play

Cheerleader's Diary

Strike When its Hot

Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind

[*The IPL came in retaliation to the Indian Cricket League, which was formed as a challenge to BCCI's hold over the game in India. The ICL is now fighting for recognition from the international council.]

Daughters of the Soil (Part II) -- Sex Education in Madrassas

2008-04-18T06:21:13-05:00

Daughters of the soil (Part I)

Changes in society are most sustainable when they come from within. It's more organic, addresses issues that truly matter and affects changes in a way that the society in question can relate to and absorb.

I have often stumbled upon political and social discussions about how the Muslim community in India needed to open up. For the uninitiated, on social issues such as marriages, Muslims in India --- as are Christians and Hindus -- are governed by a separate body, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Some people have called for a uniform civil code in India. Whether we finally have one or or not, the will to change or progress has to come from the communities themselves.

Which is why I find the efforts of this group of Muslim women extraordinary and fundamental. A madrassa (Islamic school) for women in the district of Kishanganj of Bihar -- one of India's most economically backward states -- has introduced sex education for its students. The course deals with changes a woman's body goes through during puberty, and ways to protect oneself from sexually transmitted diseases, which includes the use of condoms. The village, says a student, has seen several cases of HIV in the recent years.

Sex education in schools is tricky in India. The struggle has always been between providing necessary information to stay safe, and the fear of turning a traditional culture into a promiscuous one.
The only sex education I recall having (in the early '90s) was a biology class on how babies are conceived and a presentation by a sanitary products company. Sex education has been part of the curriculum for a while now, but has struggled to change with the times.
With HIV cases on the rise and the growth of a more sexually accommodating society, sex education is back on the table. But not without its share of naysayers. Last year four of India's largest states put the brakes on sex education programs in state-run schools, saying the material was unacceptable for Indian children. To get a sense of how our leaders have been thinking on this issue, here are a few quotes from the article:

The chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, wrote in a letter of protest to the Central Education Ministry that the "government has devaluated Indian culture and its values."

"Instead, the younger generation should be taught about yoga, Indian culture and its values," he concluded.

The education minister in Rajasthan, Ghansyam Tiwari, justified his decision by describing the course material as "disgraceful and capable of corrupting the minds of the young."

Announcing a decision to suspend the course in Karnataka, Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy said at a news conference: "Sex education may be necessary in Western countries, but not in India, which has rich culture. It will have adverse effect on young minds, if implemented."

The federal government has reportedly toned down the sex education manual, stripping it of all educational models and pictures of the human anatomy that the states found so "culturally insensitive".

Now view the madrassa's decision to introduce sex education in this context. Not only are they dealing with the sticky subject of sex education, they are doing so in a conservative Muslim set-up. No surprise that they have met with some serious opposition from members of their own families as well as the Muslim clergy. One Muslim cleric has denounced sex education in all schools, regular or madrassas. Watch this news clip to see what these women are up against.
So far, the women have stood their ground.

Parts of the Muslim leadership in India have ruled sex education to be unIslamic. Recently, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in India, which interprets the Islamic law, reportedly ruled that sex education was incompatible with Islam.

But so have some rightist Hindu groups, leaving the moderates and the intelligentsia from both communities to impress upon the government and society at large the import of sexual health and literacy.

Muslim women who have talked about safe sex -- popular South Indian actress Khushboo (she was born Muslim) and tennis sensation Sania Mirza -- have found themselves in hot water. The brickbats have come from conservatives of both religions.

No matter what cultural or religious groups we talk about, someone needs to educate children about their bodies and how to handle them. Most parents are prudish or uncomfortable discussing such issues with children.
If educating children is a problem, let us make sex education for parents compulsory, so they know how to talk about it to their children.
But then, who will ensure that the parents do their job of making their children aware of the pleasures and pitfalls of sex and related issues? After all, sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, female sexual health, illegal abortions, are not just personal or family issues. They affect entire societies.

Sexual awareness and activities are on the rise in Indian society. As Nita points out in her posts at A Wide Angle View of India, there's more sexual activity among the youth than we want to know. And our children are "learning" about sex from friends, films, random reading material, the Internet and, of course, pornography.

Anita Ratnam at Ultra Violet rightly argues that reducing sex education to education about sex can be dangerous in a country where sexual abuse is painfully present, with a lot of children clueless about how they are being abused by friends and family. As is obvious from the previous quote, we are fighting a undefined demon called "cultural invasion" -- a fear of irresponsible sexual behavior that we usually attribute to the West:

Another fear is that sex education will provoke children to become sexually active. The truth however is that children too (not just adolescents) are sexual beings. Their explorations of their own bodies and childhood sexual play with friends and siblings has been recognised as normal and not dysfunctional behaviour. In a society where we squirm to openly acknowledge even adult sexuality, childhood sexuality has remained a taboo and an enigma.

At the same time, the sexual abuse of children by adults is now recognised as endemic.

The study by Samvada, Bangalore in 1994 and National Study conducted by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, UNICEF, and Save the Children in 2007, both note that child sexual abuse in India begins as early as age five, increases dramatically during pre-pubescence and peaks at 12 to 16 years. Twenty-one percent of respondents reported severe sexual abuse like rape, sodomy, fondling or exposure to pornographic material and 53% acknowledged other forms of sexual abuse with over 50% of the abusers being known and trusted adults.

Most of those abused emphasize that they did not understand what was being done to them. A misplaced trust in “family” or respected elders and the abusers’ confidence that the child will not be able to comprehend or disclose the abuse, have set the stage for such abuse and trauma. By not providing sex education that is age-appropriate and sensitive to social structures, governments are compromising the safety and mental health of our precious children.
[...]
Today, attempts by our own government to address real problems caused by sexual ignorance are once again seen by these ideologues as “western” invasion that threatens our cultural identity and morality. Are we willing to place the honour of an imagined community before basic human rights, desires and safety of our children and youth? Is this morality?

It's time our leaders did a reality check and brought these issues out in the open.

Let's talk about sex.

Also heard in the blogosphere and some places else...:

I found Nurmarifah's Weblog discussing sex and sexuality in the Islamic context. I am not quite sure who the blogger is: This discussion, or interview, probably took place in Nigeria. The gist of the discussion seems to be that theoretical sex education is essential since children need to know what is permitted and what is not in their religion.

Muslim Woman Gives Sex Advice on Arab TV

Cleavage Control: To show or not to show?

2008-04-11T04:24:30-05:00

My first summer on Berkeley campus -- which was also my first year in the U.S. or in any country outside India -- left me smiling a lot. After taking in the unfamiliar sight of girls soaking up the oh-so-welcome sun in their short shorts and short skirts and tank tops, I was wowed by how comfortable women felt displaying their cleavages.

And then I spotted them on the BART, on the bus, on the road -- feminine clefts in all shapes, colors and sizes, with their owners not the least bit distracted. What was pleasantly surprising was that these lovely women were attracting no lingering glances, and there were no crowds of excited men milling around them trying to get a good look.

Wow, I thought. Imagine me strutting my stuff like that in India!

Not that I haven't seen some cleavage back home. Magazines and movies are full of them, with more and more entertainers daring to bare a bit. But spotting common women on streets in low-cut blouses is a bit tricky. You may glimpse a cleavage behind a semi-transparent sari,or a translucent shawl the veils a plunging kameez neckline. Sometimes, it's by accident, a problem you fix the moment you figure several pairs of eyes -- and smirks -- turning your way just like that.

I can't say I jumped at the opportunity and rehashed my wardrobe to pack it with peek-a-boos soon after my first Berkeley summer. But I worry a lot less about the neckline when I am in public these days. However, I know that as soon as the plane touches Indian soil, my neckline sensors will automatically turn on to gauge the cleavage-friendliness of my surroundings.

Or so I thought, until I bumped into some serious philosophical discussions about the power of the cleavage in the Indian blogosphere. Why are more and more women baring their cleavages? Do cleavages empower women?

Jhoomur Bose seems to have kicked off the discussion with her blog posts at Emancipation of Eve and IBNLive .
She makes a case for cleavage, wondering why -- despite its obvious advantages -- women seem more rattled by the sight of a cleavage than men. For IBNLive, she does a sample survey of 155 men and women, asking them why they think women dress "provocatively". A majority, 56 percent, said she likes looking hot and wants to feel good about herself. And 18 percent say women do so because they want to keep their men on their toes by reminding them that they can get any man any time.

Bose argues:

One of the surest ways of making headway in the rat race is to stand out of the melee. People do many things to stand out.
[...]
The Rule of Showing Off clearly states that if you have it and want others to know it, you have to flaunt it.[...] Yet if it’s a woman who has it and flaunts it, she’s had it.
[...]
From women with boyfriends/husbands who have the charming quality of checking out other women, “I show mine so that his eyes are only on me.” From women who have recently lost weight or undergone liposuction, “I worked hard to get this body, why shouldn’t I show it?” From women who have other ‘hot’ women friends, “I don’t want to look like a dowdy cow when with them.”
Whatever be the reason, the cleavage conundrum seems to start and end with ‘looking’ a certain image, an image that perhaps gets attention even if it does not necessarily ask for it. And yet, if showing off is about well, showing off, why give the cleavage such a hard time?

So is cleavage-baring an act with a purpose? Are we trying to achieve something specific? Or is it that you love the way the dress looks and don't care a whole lot if the neckline runs a little deep?
Or maybe, the Indian summer is just too hot to stay all covered up?

Usha Vaidyanathan at Agelessbonding is okay with some cleavage-show as long as it is not confused with empowerment:

How exactly does the display of parts of one's body qualify as empowerment? Because you have the power to buy those uplifting bras that are awfully expensive (I am sure) or because they have large breasts or because it makes you obsessed with the way you look and what you wear, or because you can handle the lecherous stares of men without being bothered by it? What about all those women who wear it because their men like it, they want to look good for the sake of someone else - are these also a signs of empowerment? Is being enslaved to a concept of what constitutes "looking good" a true sign of empowerment?

The argument works better when seen in the Indian context, which she explains later in the post:

An added irony is that the very same people who support cleavage-display when the mammaries are aesthetically showcased , object violently to breast-feeding in public, the primary purpose for which they are there! So what is it? breasts can be shown but nipples are a definite no no? If you are about to tell me that a cleavage doesn't constitute display of breasts, a cleavage does draw one's attention to the breasts whether it was intended or not.[...]
Here is a country where women have to prove that they did not invite rape. Here is a country where society judges you on your dress norms when you have been the victim of eve teasing, physical assault and rape. We have to walk among them, their bad looks and bad intentions. Is the display of one's cleavage worth risking all this? Are our women empowered enough (in terms of laws, self-defence and societal understanding) to handle this jungle and its creatures? Is it that difficult to look good, confident and empowered without a public display of one's mammaries? or is that what differentiates looking "hot" from plain vanilla "looking good"?

My point. That is the root of the problem: We are judged as women by what we wear. As I commented on her post, cleavage-display can be "empowering" if it's done in a society that forces you to do otherwise and judges you based on that. The same way that dressing conservatively can be empowering in a society that pressures you to reveal in order to fit in.

The cleavage controversy does bring out the hypocrisy in Indian society -- We love them on screen, in magazines, but not on our streets. Only recently, a south Indian actress got into trouble with some culture-vultures for wearing this to a local award ceremony. I would've dismissed it as the job of a bunch of jobless people, had the actress not apologized for hurting cultural sentiments, pleading that she had to rush from a shoot and didn't have time to change!

Neelima questions the very soul of women's emancipation at Aankh ki Kirkiri (Dust in the Eye).
She argues that in a patriarchal society, women and their problems are viewed in a piecemeal manner: her social and political struggles are viewed apart from her sexuality, which continues to be defined by a male-dominated thought process.
A woman's right to define her sexuality is as much part of her struggles to get ahead in other aspects of life. But she has neither the opportunity, nor the language nore the self-confidence to express her sexuality.

(Neelima blogs in Hindi. The above is a translation of the gist of her post. For those who can read Hindi, a quote from her post is below):

स्त्री के पास अपने सेक्सुअल आत्म को अभिव्यक्त करने के न अवसर हैं न भाषा और न ही आत्मविश्वास ! परिवार ,समाज संस्कृति ,नैतिकता ,मर्यादा का दायित्व एकमात्र उसके उउपर लादकर चल रही हमारी ये संरचनाऎ बेफिक्र हैं !
[...]
एक आम स्त्री की ज़िंदगी की तमाम उलझनों ,पीडाओं , समस्याओं से इन सवालों को क्या लेना देना --मैं जानती हूं आपमें से काई सुधी पाठकों के मन में यह सवाल उठ रहे होंगे ! आप स्त्री की जिंदगी और जिस्म को कई अलग-अलग टुकडों में देखने के आदी हो गए होंगे सो उसकी सामाजिक राजनीतिक और यौनिक आजादी ( और अभिव्यक्ति ) को आप अलग अलग संघर्षों के रूप में देख रहे होंगे !

But breasts can be a confusing lot. After all, they can be sexual, right? Men are attracted to them. In a society where men make their moves based on fuzzy "signals" that women send out, what are we trying to tell them by displaying what we've got?

A male commenter on Usha's blog has this to say:

Cleavage is supposed to attract and arouse men besides the other parts of a woman's body. So if you show cleavage, it will do only that and nothing else.
And if you expect that men should not get excited looking at it, then I guess thats the end of the sex/physical intimacy in this world.
So if you decide to show it, accept those glances or lusty looks and if they make you uncomfy, don't show it.
And you definitely can't be choosy which men should get aroused and which shouldn't if you decide to display it

It's a tad unfair to expect men to stop gazing at a cleavage, especially if it looks good :) So, there are consequences. What I'd want ensured is how these "consequences" translate into action. If baring a bit of cleavage is an excuse for men to misbehave or maul us, then we have a problem.
One solution maybe to give them an overdose of it. Here's how it looks. Get used to it.

Then, of course, the cleavage may loose some of its traction.

What does your cleavage mean to you? Does its meaning change when you are in another culture?