tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55087965092435216742024-03-08T16:30:13.526+05:30The Views Expressed By The Author Are PersonalCYNIC | FEMINIST | LEFTIST | CHAOS | COMMENTARY | THE PERSONAL IS POLITICALProshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-55579091380048126122014-04-25T14:17:00.000+05:302016-12-25T14:24:25.182+05:30Of ‘Hate Hags’, Witch-hunts, and the Orwellian Woman<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The term ‘hate
hag’, used to describe “women supporters of Narendra Modi” in an <i>Outlook </i>Magazine <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?289992">article</a> recently gained
currency, especially on social media. Vrinda Gopinath, who authored the
article, clearly referred to three women—Madhu Kishwar, Tavleen Singh, and
Sandhya Jain—as ‘Modi’s <i>mausis</i>’
(Modi’s aunts). Describing these women as what</span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">
</span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">“Libs call Hate Hags or
Hacks”, she states that they:<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 42.75pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">“have
swung into the national debate ever since the media’s imbalance in promoting
Modi tilted favourably towards him, feverishly affirming their faith on
television, Twitter, Facebook and in their columns. They dismiss contrarian,
inquiring views as archaic and wimpy; and club those who question them as communists,
feminists, and socialists. They’d love to be hailed as right-wing reactionaries
but are now famously known as Modi’s Mausis.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">She further explains how Kishwar—dubbed as ‘Madhu
Mausi’—“has taken her Modimania to newer heights of emotional fervour”; how
Singh “constructs ‘secularism’ as a dirty word”; and finally, Jain, who “apart
from covering [Modi’s] rallies and quoting every pearl that rolls off his
tongue…endorses Modi’s views on population control and religious demography,
and chants with Modi on ‘Third Front, Third Rate’ and other mantras”. Perhaps,
I am too quick to judge her piece (given that ‘a longer version’ of the article
appears in print). However, even by the standards of <a href="http://kafila.org/2013/06/18/madhu-mausi-namo-mamu-and-the-ghost-of-uncle-pepper/">criticisms</a>
levelled against Kishwar, or other apologists for the Sangh Parivaar,
Gopinath’s pieces resonates with the crass tone one would normally find in an
amateur, anonymous handle-led blog, and certainly not in a publication
like <i>Outlook </i>(However, given Manu Joseph’s <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?289993">equally crass piece</a>
on the Tarun Tejpal sexual assault case, it is perhaps not so unsurprising).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">While
there’s no problem in writing a sarcastic article on these women, what I found
more disconcerting was the over-judicious appropriation and usage of the term
‘hate hag’ by the anti-Modi and anti-BJP voices on social media to target
women, especially on Twitter, who are either sympathetic to the BJP and Modi,
or themselves are BJP workers. This attack on women—irrespective, or in this
case,<i> because</i> of their political
ideologies—I argue, is unprecedented, crass and unbecoming. In using the term
‘hate hag’ the risk is in reaffirming a notion of ‘ideal’ woman, whose
political views <i>have </i>to be in full agreement
with so-called liberal, secular (or religious, fundamentalist) ideal. This is
not to say that there are no contradictions whatsoever in women’s support for
the BJP, RSS, and the Sangh Parivaar—indeed, these contradictions, I think, are
irreconcilable. However, there is a difference in expressing ones disagreement
with these, and using a term that is inherently sexist, misogynistic and
demeaning to women.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In
this essay I critique the term ‘hate hag’ through three broad arguments: first,
I argue the term ‘hate hag’ is inherently sexist and misogynistic, and in using
the term to ‘shame’ women because of their political ideology, we reinstate
another form of a the medieval witch-hunt. Second, I look at the irreconcilable
contradictions in the ‘women’s question’ and the Political Right, especially in
light of the Janus-faced patriarchy that the BJP and the Sangh Parivaar
represent. Here I underscore the role played by real, symbolic and semiotic
violence that is directed against women’s bodies and ‘honour’. Finally, I
present the idea that the term ‘hate hag’ conforms to the same form of semiotic
violence that the Political Right and conservatives use to ‘shame’ women to
reaffirm a patriarchal politics. This, I argue, is creates the Orwellian Woman
as the ‘other’—that is, the notion that “some women are more equal than other
women”, when it comes to being objects of such attacks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: left;">
<b><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">“‘Hate hags’? So what’s the problem? Don’t these women
deserve to be shamed anyway?”<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">As
expected, since its introduction, the term ‘hate hag’—not so much ‘Modi’s
Mausis’—was widely discussed, shared, and was met with both opposition and
appropriation over social media. The way this unfolded, at least on Twitter,
was interesting. On the one hand, we had the ardent anti-BJP, anti-Modi (or
pro-Congress crowd), who, quite unproblematically, appropriated the term, and
used it to deride well-known women BJP-Modi supporters on Twitter (besides the
three mentioned in Gopinath’s article). Said this </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="https://twitter.com/priyankac19/status/449782366932709376"><span lang="EN-IN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-IN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Congress spokesperson</span></a></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 21.15pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">“Hate
Hags perfect term coined by Outlook magazine for NaMo’s women supporters on
social media. Sue me now for saying this.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Several other anti-BJP/Modi counter-propagandists have
celebrated the usage of the term because of its “shock value”. Here’s another
example:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1.jpg" height="189" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 36pt;">Some have argued that “such behaviour must be shamed”
(a line of thought which could give the Khaps a run for their money).</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_2" o:spid="_x0000_i1030" style="height: 159pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 267pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:\Users\Lenovo\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2.jpg" height="190" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">“Attach Shame”</span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">These counter-propagandists, it would seem, see a war
coming. “Political correctness”, they say, is of little use when “the dogs of
war are here”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_3" o:spid="_x0000_i1029" style="height: 183pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 296.25pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:\Users\Lenovo\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/3.jpg" height="198" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<i style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;">‘The Dogs of War/Political Correctness'</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">For these counter-propagandists, it is a case of
fighting fire with fire; of fighting hatred with hatred; countering one act of
shaming with another. They speak of “shaming” women supporters of the BJP, but
fail to see their own language as unbecoming, uncivil, and, ultimately,
regressively patriarchal. I lack the space here to undertake an archaeology of
the term ‘hate hag’. But let’s rely on the dictionary meaning of the term
‘hag’. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hag" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-IN" style="color: windowtext; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">defines</span></a></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> ‘hag’ as:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: 2.0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">1. An ugly, slatternly, or evil-looking old woman;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: 2.0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">2. <i>Archaic</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: 2.0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 15.3pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">a: a female demon,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: 2.0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 15.3pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">b: an evil or frightening spirit;<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: 2.0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">3. Witch<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_10" o:spid="_x0000_i1028" style="height: 180.75pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 251.25pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:\Users\Lenovo\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image004.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/4.jpg" height="230" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<i style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;">‘Cucking Stool, used in the “trial” of witches’ (Source: Wikimedia
Commons)</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Thus, by its very constitution the term ‘hate hag’ is
demeaning to women, and is inherently sexist (</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Although,
many supporters of Modi are quite proudly, and sardonically, wearing the title
of ‘hate hag’—as was with the term ‘slut’, which led to numerous Slut Walks). </span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">By underscoring the ‘internal/external’ ugliness
(of women), people who support the term are supporting a perverted logic that
assigns ‘value’ on womanhood based on a notion of beauty/ugliness and
purity/pollution. This underscores an import point about the insidious function
of discipline/punish that’s embedded in the notion of shame and honour (I will
discuss this point in detail in the concluding segment).</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_6" o:spid="_x0000_i1027" style="height: 213pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 228.75pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:\Users\Lenovo\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image005.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/5.jpg" height="298" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></i></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;">‘</span></i></span><i style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;">External ugliness/internal
ugliness’</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Coming back, it would seem that Gopinath’s piece, and
the so-called ‘shaming’ the counter-propagandists engage in, occupy a curious
space in this on-going tirade against women expressing their political opinion
on media. We are well aware of how journalists and activists have been
viciously abused on social media by Right-wing fanatics. A BBC Hindi <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-22378366">report </a>revealed
how women journalists and activists, like Sagarika Ghose, Kavita Krishnan, and
Meena Kandaswamy, who have been critical of “caste and Hindu nationalism” have
been singled out as victims of misogynistic attacks online. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Ghose was abused on Twitter by right-wing chauvinists
who called her a “high-class prostitute”; Krishnan, speaking at a Rediff.com
discussion when someone with the handle @RAPIST posted abusive comments, and
asked where he could “rape her using a condom”; Kandaswamy was threatened with
“live telecasted gang-rape and being torched alive and acid
attacks”. These are among the many instances where women are abused
and humiliated online, usually by anonymous handles.</span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> While Gopinath’s piece, and the usage of the
term ‘hate hag’, does not use the abusive language of the anonymous Right-wing
troll, it still perpetuates a language of misogyny, sexism and hatred. For her
and the anti-Modi/anti-BJP crowd, these ‘Modi’s mausis’ are nothing but
apologists for the Sangh, who find fault with the “secular, liberal media” on
the one hand, and “have all been steadfastly loyal to the idea of their Hriday
Samrat, emperor of India, Narendra Modi”. Gopinath’s argument is one which
infantilizes these women for their “blind devotion” to Modi, and yet occupies
the moral high ground. But it is unclear as to what she’s based her assumptions
on. Going by her arguments, there is nothing to indicate that what people like
Kishwar, Singh and Jain write about Modi is qualitatively exceptional in its
content. Sure, Madhu Kishwar occupies a piñata-esque position, when it comes to
“Modi-worship”. Many of Singh’s columns in <i>The Sunday Express</i>, and
on <i>NitiCentral</i> are terrible excuses. And, to be honest, I
don’t know enough about Sandhya Jain to comment on her. That said, I do know
several people, of both genders, who appraise Modi—from enumerating merits in
his so-called ‘Gujarat Model’, and admire the vast and burgeoning propaganda
surrounding the man. But why single out these three women? I mean, if one is
thinking of women insofar as talking about their role in the Sangh’s
moral-political economy, there are women in the Sangh Parivaar who occupy a
more dangerous role.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<b><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The Janus-faced
patriarchy and the Women’s Question<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">On
the face of it, it’s not entirely inaccurate to assume that there can be
grounds for one to have sympathy with Gopinath’s piece. It is well-known that
the Political Right in India produces, harbours, and espouses misogynistic and
sexist ideologies, and, by any standard, is a text-book case of what I have
previously <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/11/notes-on-patriarchal-moral-political_2.html">described</a>
as a patriarchal moral-political economy. Women, however, occupy a more tenuous
role in this matter: Should they conform to an ideal notion of universal
feminism where they condemn <i>all</i> forms of misogyny and sexism?<a href="file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/Documents/Of%20hate%20hags,%20witch-hunts%20and%20the%20Orwellian%20Woman.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
Or, does their support of individuals or ideologies put them at odds with these
so-called universal feminist ideals? Can the so-called “women’s question” be
reconciled by constructing an inner, spiritual domain, free from the trappings
of western modernity—and yet, is ‘modern’ in a more functional way?<a href="file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/Documents/Of%20hate%20hags,%20witch-hunts%20and%20the%20Orwellian%20Woman.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><sup><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></sup><!--[endif]--></sup></a> If
indeed so, are Kishwar, Singh and Jain exemplary in this regard? I don’t think
so. For one, none of the three women are being castigated explicitly for
ignoring/endorsing a feminist question. In fact, Gopinath’s sole criticism
seems to be their hero-worshiping of Modi. She, it seems, couldn’t care less
about actual irreconcilable problems and contradictions between equal rights
for women, and the inherently patriarchal ideology of the Sangh Parivaar. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Before I proceed, however, let me clarify some things.
I am very definitely critical of the BJP-Sangh and Narendra Modi. I have argued
elsewhere that the BJP, RSS, and Sangh Parivaar, with Modi as its face,
represent a Janus-faced patriarchal moral-political economy, and have
underlying fascist tendencies. I have also categorically stated that apologists
for the patriarchal Sangh—and these includes women “supporters”, as well as
members of the Sangh’s women’s wing, Durga Vahini—espouse an idea that is
fundamentally inimical to the goal of achieving equal rights for women. There
are glaring contradictions in the support women give to Modi. For one, I find
it irreconcilable that one can support Modi—no matter how awesome his visions
of ‘development’ are—and not be bothered by the violence perpetrated by the Sangh
on women: be it the brutal gang-rapes of Muslim women in the 2002 post-Godhra
riots, or rapes of nuns in Kandhamal in Orissa during the <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/30/stories/2008093058040100.htm">anti-Christian
riots</a>; or the Bajrang Dal’s and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s (VHP) moral
policing and beating up of women and young couples; or even the Rashtriaya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rapes-happen-in-india-not-bharat-says-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat/313784-37-64.html">claims</a>
that “rapes happen in India, and not in Bharat”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Thus, when Modi <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/assembly-elections-2013/delhi-polls/narendra-modi-evokes-nirbhaya-asks-delhi-to-vote-for-women-s-security_893635.html">speaks</a>
of the Nirbhaya case, and promises “security” for women, does he also promise
them safety from the vile, misogynistic elements within the fold of the Sangh? In
her article Gopinath doesn’t ask if we expected Modi, or his “mausis”, to speak
up after Pramod Muthalik, the Shri Ram Sene chief was inducted, and subsequently
expelled from the BJP (Muthalik and the SRS is infamous for the 2009 attack on
women in a Mangalore pub) Apparently, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/sri-ram-sene-founder-pramod-muthalik-joins-bjp-aims-to-ensure-modi-becomes-pm/">Muthalik
joined the BJP</a> with the objective of “making Narendra Modi the prime
minister”. More pertinently, she does not raise any questions about other women
within the Sangh’s fold—women who do not enjoy the celebrity-like status of
Kishwar, but women who nevertheless believe in, and espouse, the ideologies of
the Sangh Parivaar, violently so, if required.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Take, for instance this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_E2YNWuMg">clip </a>from Nisha
Pahuja’s documentary, <i>The World Before Her</i>, which examines two
contrasting scapes: first, the camp of the RSS’ women’s wing, Durga Vahini, and
the assaults on women and couples in public places, and pubs (the latter by the
notorious Shri Ram Sene); and second, the selection round of the Miss India pageant.
The instructor at the Durga Vahini camp goes on record to say that women are
“biologically weaker than men”, and must, therefore, shun any hopes for gender
equality. The more shocking aspect about this “brainwashing at the VHP’s
Durga Vahini camp”, <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/its-the-brainwashing-in-vhps-durga-vahini-camp-that-shocked-me-1052559.html">according</a>
to Pahuja, is what Prachi, a 20 year-old trainee at the camp, has to say about
her father, (and, thus, the moral-political economy he and the RSS represent).
Says Prachi about her father:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 42.75pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> “In
a traditional family they don’t let girl child live. They kill the child. So
this is the thing. I get angry; I have quarrels with my dad. But this thing,
when it comes in my mind, I feel like crying… he let me live. That is the best
part.” </span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Clearly, if we highlight the issue of women’s
rights—and, thus the contradiction of women supporting Modi and the Janus-faced
Sangh Parivaar-BJP—what Pahuja’s clip shows is more inimical to the question of
gender equality. This, evidently, is what deserves our attention, and perhaps
is worth filling column inches. Instead, what we get from Gopinath is a
pointless tirade and caricaturing of three women, who aren’t even big names in the
BJP. On Twitter itself, several counter-propagandists have highlighted several
female members/supporters of the BJP who have espoused a variety of illiberal
balderdash—from casteism, to (ironically) misogyny. Incidentally, it would
appear that the preoccupation of these counter-propagandists <i>is to find
women who fit into the bill</i> of the ‘hate hags’.</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/6.jpg" height="320" width="317" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;">‘A random, unverified handle vilifying Dalits deserves to be labelled
“hate hag”?’</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Before
I conclude, let me offer a clarification: While I am critical of the
contradictions between the question of violence against women perpetrated by
the Right-wing, patriarchal Hindutva organisations and the women who support
these ideologies, I am equally cautious about the risk of reducing violence
against women and misogyny to the crucible of ‘culture’. This risk is of
patronising women, and given the colonial discourse of paternalistic
intervention, there is a risk of reinstating what Gayatri Spivak has described
as “saving the brown woman from the brown man”. Anthropologist Kamala
Vishwesaran in her book <i>Un/Common
Cultures: Racism and the Rearticulation of Cultural Difference</i>, too,
highlights this point in the case of refugee women seeking asylum to the United
States, where the lands these women come from—usually the Middle East—is seen
as inherently misogynistic, sexist and inimical to women’s freedoms. She points
that this perception draws from precisely the colonial tension Spivak
highlights, and obfuscates (if not entirely erases) the question of violence
faced by women in the west, and in United States. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; tab-stops: 36.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Thus, to reiterate the question I asked earlier: can
there be a version of feminist thinking that emanates from the political
Right-wing Hindutva discourse that is in line with the feminist goal of equal
rights for women? By relying of the praxis of Hindutva politics in the last two
decades—and not merely on scriptures—I am inclined to say I don’t think so. I
would, very self-reflexively, say that the ideas women like Prachi and the
instructor at the Durga Vahini training camp espouse in fundamentally inimical
to the language of equal rights. They are based on an insidious logic of
demarcating, and targeting, women based on certain notions they have of the
‘other’. This is based on the double-bind disciplining function of women’s
‘emancipation’ and their ‘punishment’, which can be achieved only by conforming
to the hegemonic idea of what is deemed as appropriate in the patriarchal
moral-political economy. This is the same notion the French, and so-called
liberal western discourse has of the Muslim women. And this is at the heart of
using the term ‘hate hag’ against women supporters of Modi, and the BJP.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<b><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Conclusion: A twenty-first century witch-hunt and the
Orwellian woman<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In
this essay, I have attempted to present two broad critiques of the term ‘hate
hag’, which was used target “women supporters of the BJP”. First, I argued that
the term ‘hate hag’, etymologically and discursively, is inherently sexist,
misogynistic, and demeaning to women—in this case, since it is used to target,
and ‘shame’, women <i>because of their ideological standings</i>. Secondly, I
stated that there <i>are indeed several contradictions</i> in the sexist,
misogynistic, and regressive patriarchal politics of the Sangh Parivaar, and
the RSS, and the question of equal rights for women, and their security—and,
the patina of Modi’s “development” does little to hide that fact. This also
underlines an insidious Orwellian ploy that “some women are more women than
others” and thus, the latter are more deserving of abuse, castigation, and so
on. Given these two contexts, the effect of ‘hate hags’ is exacerbated as it
functions on an insidious patriarchal logic of discipline/punishment, wherein
the woman is assigned space in the dichotomy of virtue/wickedness. In other
words, it’s perfectly alright<i> that a particular type of woman is the object
of misogyny and sexism and violence </i>(semiotic and/or real) since she<i>—</i>her
very being<i> reduced to her appearance, or other marker (like her political
belief)—</i>represents the other<i>. </i>She may be a woman, but her ‘marker’
(and that she’s casteist/sexist/bigoted etc.), <i>makes her a less equal one</i>.</span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_7" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 162.75pt; mso-wrap-style: square; visibility: visible; width: 263.25pt;" type="#_x0000_t75">
<v:imagedata o:title="" src="file:///C:\Users\Lenovo\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image007.jpg">
</v:imagedata></v:shape></span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://nirmukta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/7.jpg" height="198" width="320" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 1pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">‘The language of shaming has universal resonance in patriarchal discourse’</span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Admittedly, perhaps, I am overstating things,
and drawing too many conclusions. In all likelihood, like most things on
Twitter, this will probably blow over (if it hasn’t already). Unfortunately,
Vrinda Gopinath’s piece will still exist. And I will still live with the
memories of the crass, misogynistic and sexist language used by people I follow
on Twitter. Probably a good thing, too: a closet misogynist, for me, is more
dangerous than an obvious bigot. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<b><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Acknowledgements<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I am indebted to some
of the wonderful feminists I follow on Twitter for their interventions during
this debate; to Ketaki for a conversation we’d had long back on women and the Hindutva
Right; and, to Nolina, for her constant encouragement, love, and support. This
post originally appeared in the secular humanist website, Nirmukta.org. I would
also like to thank the editors, especially Satish, for their feedback and for
publishing it. You can access it <a href="http://nirmukta.com/2014/04/06/of-hate-hags-witch-hunts-and-the-orwellian-woman/" target="_blank">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Notes<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
</div>
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br clear="all" />
</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/Documents/Of%20hate%20hags,%20witch-hunts%20and%20the%20Orwellian%20Woman.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;">
This also holds true in the case of Islam and feminism. In western liberal
circles most debates on Islam and feminism have centered round the ‘veil’, or
the hijab or burqa (these terms are used
interchangeably). However, many other scholars and academics, like Lila
Abu-Lugodh, have argued that this debate reinstates the colonial tension of
“saving the brown woman from the brown man” (to use Gayatri Spivak’s phrase),
and ignores the systemic oppression of women in Islamic regions due to
colonialism, and more recently, the ‘war on terror’. See, Lila Abu-Lugodh, ‘Do
Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural
relativism and its others’, <i>American Anthropologist</i> <i>104</i>/3, 2002.
Accessed from: <a href="http://webbox.lafayette.edu/~alexya/courses/readings/Abu-Lughod_Do%20Muslim%20Women.pdf">http://webbox.lafayette.edu/~alexya/courses/readings/Abu-Lughod_Do%20Muslim%20Women.pdf</a>;
see also, Val Moghadam, ‘Islamic Feminism and its Discontents’, <i>Steal This
Hijab</i>, 8 June, 2011. Accessed from: <a href="http://stealthishijab.com/2011/06/08/islamic-feminism-and-its-discontents/">http://stealthishijab.com/2011/06/08/islamic-feminism-and-its-discontents/</a><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 6.0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/Documents/Of%20hate%20hags,%20witch-hunts%20and%20the%20Orwellian%20Woman.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">
Historian and Subaltern Studies scholar Partha Chatterjee has explored this in
his essay, ‘The Nationalist Resolution of the Women’s Question’. Chatterjee
argues that in the 19<sup>th</sup> century Bengali bourgeois nationalism,
nurtured the idea of the <i>bhadramahila</i>—that is, the ideal Bengali woman,
who is formally educated, but also well-versed in the traditional etiquettes of
the household. The distinction Chatterjee traces between the home and the
outside, <i>ghar</i> and <i>bahir</i>. See, Partha Chatterjee, <i>Empire & Nation: Essential Writings
1985-2005</i>, pp. 116-135, New
Delhi: Permanent Black, 2010.</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="edn2">
</div>
</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-27244320052868996142014-01-26T12:41:00.001+05:302014-01-26T12:41:40.906+05:30‘The Grammar of Anarchy’ Debate: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><br /></span></i></b></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">
Note</span></i></b><b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">: </span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This is an excerpt
from Ambedkar's speech made in the Constituent Assembly, on November 25th, 1949
(<i>Constituent Assembly of India - Volume XI</i>). The full debate can be
accessed <a href="http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol11p11.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;"> </span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">On
26<sup>th</sup> January 1950, India will be an independent country. What
would happen to her independence? Will she maintain her independence or will
she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not
that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost
the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought
which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the
fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it
by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people. In the invasion of
Sind by Mahommed-Bin-Kasim, the military commanders of King Dahar accepted
bribes from the agents of Mahommed-Bin-Kasim and refused to fight on the side
of their King. It was Jaichand who invited Mahommed Gohri to invade India and
fight against Prithvi Raj and promised him the help of himself and the Solanki
Kings. When Shivaji was fighting for the liberation of Hindus, the other
Maratha noblemen and the Rajput Kings were fighting the battle on the side of
Moghul Emperors. When the British were trying to destroy the Sikh Rulers, Gulab
Singh, their principal commander sat silent and did not help to save the Sikh
Kingdom. In 1857, when a large part of India had declared a war of independence
against the British, the Sikhs stood and watched the event as silent
spectators.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Will history repeat itself? It is this thought
which fills me with anxiety. This anxiety is deepened by the realization of the
fact that in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we
are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political
creeds. Will Indian place the country above their creed or will they place
creed above country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the
parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a
second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all
resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with
the last drop of our blood.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">On the 26<sup>th</sup> of January 1950, India
would be a democratic country in the sense that India from that day would have
a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The same thought
comes to my mind. What would happen to her democratic Constitution? Will she be
able to maintain it or will she lose it again? This is the second thought that
comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">It is not that India did not know what Democracy
is. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where
there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never
absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary
Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only
there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the
Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to
modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding
Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot,
Censure Motion, Regularization, <i>Res Judicata</i>, etc. Although these
rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of
the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political
Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it
a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India
– where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new
– there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite
possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to
dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second
possibility becoming actuality is much greater.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in
form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we
must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and
economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution.
It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation
and <i>satyagraha</i>. When there was no way left for constitutional
methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of
justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods
are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods.
These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are
abandoned, the better for us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">The second thing we must do is to observe the
caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the
maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of
even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their
institutions”. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have
rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to
gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O'Connel, no
man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the
cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.
This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any
other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion
or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the
part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in
religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or
hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">The third thing we must do is not to be content
with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social
democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies, at the
base of it, social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way
of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of
life…[And] these principles</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px;">…</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 14.2pt;">are not to be treated
as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that
to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from
liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without
equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many.
Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity,
liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many; without
fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.
It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging
the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of
these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the
principle of graded inequality which we have a society in which there are some
who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">On the 26<sup>th</sup> of January 1950, we are
going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality
and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be
recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our
social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic
structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall
we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to
deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for
long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must
remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who
suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which
is Assembly has to laboriously built up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">The second thing we are wanting in is recognition
of the principle of fraternity. What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a
sense of common brotherhood of all Indians – if Indians being one people. It is
the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a
difficult thing to achieve. How difficult it is, can be realized from the story
related by James Bryce in his volume on American Commonwealth about the United
States of America.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> The story is – I propose to
recount it in the words of Bryce himself – that:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 18.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> “Some years ago the American
Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its triennial Convention in
revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among the short
sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people, and an eminent New
England divine proposed the words `O Lord, bless our nation'. Accepted one
afternoon, on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for
reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word
nation' as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was
dropped, and instead there were adopted the words `O Lord, bless these United
States.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> There was so little solidarity
in the U.S.A. at the time when this incident occurred that the people of
America did not think that they were a nation. If the people of the United
States could not feel that they were a nation, how difficult it is for Indians
to think that they are a nation. I remember the days when politically-minded
Indians, resented the expression “the people of India”. They preferred the
expression “the Indian nation”. I am of opinion that in believing that we are a
nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into several
thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a
nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us.
For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously
think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is
going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United
States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The
castes are anti-national. In the first place, because they bring about
separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate
jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these
difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a
fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will
be no deeper than coats of paint.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> These are my reflections about
the tasks that lie ahead of us. They may not be very pleasant to some. But
there can be no gainsaying that political power in this country has too long been
the monopoly of a few and the many are only beasts of burden, but also beasts
of prey. This monopoly has not merely deprived them of their chance of
betterment, it has sapped them of what may be called the significance of life.
These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed. They are impatient to
govern themselves. This urge for self-realization in the down-trodden classes
must not be allowed to devolve into a class struggle or class war. It would
lead to a division of the House. That would indeed be a day of disaster. For,
as has been well said by Abraham Lincoln, a House divided against itself cannot
stand very long. Therefore the sooner room is made for the realization of their
aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for
the maintenance for its independence and the better for the continuance of its
democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality
and fraternity in all spheres of life. That is why I have laid so much stresses
on them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> I do not wish to weary the House
any further. Independence is no doubt a matter of joy. But let us not forget
that this independence has thrown on us great responsibilities. By
independence, we have lost the excuse of blaming the British for anything going
wrong. If hereafter things go wrong, we will have nobody to blame except
ourselves. There is great danger of things going wrong. Times are fast
changing. People including our own are being moved by new ideologies. They are
getting tired of Government by the people. They are prepared to have
Governments for the people and are indifferent whether it is Government of the
people and by the people. If we wish to preserve the Constitution in which we
have sought to enshrine the principle of Government of the people, for the
people and by the people, let us resolve not to be tardy in the recognition of
the evils that lie across our path and which induce people to prefer Government
for the people to Government by the people, nor to be weak in our initiative to
remove them. That is the only way to serve the country. I know of no better.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-65772285791636073472014-01-18T13:46:00.000+05:302016-12-25T13:49:42.606+05:30Religion, Homophobia and the Aftermath of 377: Some notes from Jamaat-e-Islami Hind's “protest against homosexuality”<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I
was walking past Azad Maidan on my way to CST when I saw something that caught
my eye. It was, as most things at Azad Maidan are, a protest. But the nature of
the protest is what intrigued me: it was a “protest against homosexuality”,
organised by Jammat-e-Islami Hind (JIH), which appraised the Supreme Court
verdict of December 11<sup>th</sup>, 2013, which effectively criminalized
consensual same-sex between adults under the archaic Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code. This wasn’t surprising since Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) has been
very vocal in its support of the <a href="http://kafila.org/2014/01/03/homosexuality-and-islam-indian-muslims-responses-abhay-kumar/">Supreme
Court verdict</a>. Against my better judgement, I decided to stay there
for a few moments, and try to understand what this “protest” was really about.
Never before, have I been in an atmosphere that was so intolerant and venomous.
I sat amidst JIH volunteers holding placards like: “GAY: God Abhors You!”,
“Homosexuals are selfish”, and “Gay rights are not human rights!” It was, also,
an atmosphere fraught with fallacies, hatred and misinformation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Before I proceed with an overview, and criticism of the JIH “protest”,
let me clarify a few things: firstly, I write as a student of gender studies,
so my views are more concerned with JIH as representing a patriarchal ideology,
than they are as a religious organisation. There are homophobic and irrational
views across the political and religious spectrum—and most of them are as
worse, if not more, than the others. In this case, as it just so happens,
Jamaat is an Islamic organisation. In fact, they had even roped in a <i>sadhu </i>to
speak out against homosexuality. Secondly, in this article, my argument is
against the misinformation, lies and inaccuracies about homosexuality that the
JIH presented. Finally, this article attempts to examine how differing
ideologies (religious, political) coalesce under patriarchy and, in that
respect, it also presents a critique of such pervasive patriarchal structures.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“<b>Homosexuality
is a Western idea; it is against Indian culture; it will lead to population
decline”</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">First
of all, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that homosexuality made its
way from the West to India—even during colonialism. That India has its own
legacy of homoerotic representations in literature and art, and that there are
prominent queer themes in Hinduism, too, is entirely (and purposefully) absent
in their discourse. As Devdutt Patnaik <a href="http://devdutt.com/blog/did-homosexuality-exist-in-ancient-india.html">writes</a>:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 42.75pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“…homosexual activities – in some form – did exist in ancient India…its
existence was acknowledged but not approved. There was some degree of tolerance
when the act expressed itself in heterosexual terms.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Indian “culture”, therefore, for organisations like Jamaat and the
political Right, exists purely in a rhetorical space, and is divorced from
historical facts. Their limited and myopic reading of history of the West also
fails to see the moral panic over homosexuality, even in the United States and
Britain, and Europe. As Abhay Kumar points out:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 42.75pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“The argument is made in such a way that Indians – both Hindus and
Muslims – are opposed to homosexuality, while Indian culture is painted as
morally sound and Western culture is morally repulsive and corrupt. The
difference between Hindus and Muslims, seen as the source of perennial
‘Hindu-Muslim’ conflicts, suddenly disappears.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Thus, events like the persecution of homosexuals by the Third Reich, the
Stonewall riots, the assassination of Harvey Milk, Proposition 8, and the
present-day persecution of homosexuals in Russia—to state a few examples—cannot
at all figure in their interpretation of the “West”. It, like their definition
of an “Indian culture”, is an empty category to be used for political
mobilisation. In fact, what both Jamaat and the <i>sadhu</i> forgot
was that Section 377 is an <i>explicitly colonial legislation</i>, based
on Victorian morality and control over sexuality. To put it simply, had it not
been for the West and British colonialism, there would be no Section 377, and
by extension, there would be nothing for Jamaat to protest against.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Likewise, there is <i>no evidence to suggest</i> that it is
homosexuality that’s affecting population growth in the West; and the same
would hold true for India. An examination of the population growth and total
percentage of homosexuals in the United States of America, for instance, lends
no credibility to the claims of the JIH. The <a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2013/index.html">population
of the USA</a> in 1970 was 205.1 million, and in 2012 it was 313.8 million—a
population rise of approx. 65.3% in 42 years. At the same time, according
to a <a href="http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf">study</a>
conducted by the Williams Institute in 2011, an estimated 3.5% of adults in the
USA identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. On the other hand, as of 2013,
the <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html">contraceptive
prevalence rate</a> in the USA is 76.4%. This, coupled with factors like
increased costs of livings, declining family size, capital-intensive labour,
and so on, have possibly contributed to a slower growth rate – and, most
definitely, not homosexuality.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“<b>Homosexuality
is a disease; it causes AIDS; it can be cured”</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">As
with their earlier claims of homosexuality being a factor causing population –
and thereby, civilizational – decline, these claims of the JIH, too, are
untenable. First of all, in 1973, the American Psychological Association’s
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II) eliminated ‘homosexuality’
as a mental disorder. Through this elimination, argues Dr Robert Spitzer, who
authored the <a href="http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf">paper</a>:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 42.55pt; margin-right: 42.75pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“…we will be removing one of the justifications for the denial of civil
rights to individuals whose only crime is that their sexual orientation is to
members of the same sex.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Clearly, then, homosexuality <i>per se</i> is not a deviance,
or a disorder, and much less a disease (</span><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">However,
the ASA’s usage of the term ‘Sexual Orientation Disturbance’, too, is extremely
problematic. But that’s an argument for another discussion)</span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">. Further, questioning the givenness of gender and sexual
identities, anthropologists have presented compelling cases wherein several
indigenous cultures (and, even biology) do not conform to the binary model of
gender. Anne Fausto-Sterling, for instance, has presented a <a href="chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http:/www.fd.unl.pt/docentes_docs/ma/TPB_MA_5937.pdf">historical
overview</a> of “intersex” identities and argues for a need to think of five
sexes, and not two. Sharyn Graham, studying the Bugis in Indonesia, too, <a href="http://www.insideindonesia.org/sulawesis-fifth-gender">presents a case</a>
for five genders, as well as a ‘meta-gender identity’.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Their arguments on HIV and AIDS, too, are ill-founded. The human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is transmitted by only four means—of which,
homosexuality <i>can account for only one</i>, i.e., unprotected sexual
intercourse with an infected partner. It is estimated that 85 to 87% of all HIV
transmission is through unprotected sex. And while anal sex does increase the
chances of HIV transmission, it is difficult to estimate <i>exactly how
much</i> of it is through homosexual sex. Thus, homosexuals who have sex
without using condoms would be at no more, or less, risk of contracting HIV,
than heterosexuals who do the same.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">According to the Supreme Court verdict, HIV prevalence among MSM (Men
who have sex with men) is approximately 7%, and that there are about 25 lakh
MSM in India presently. This, however, is a contested figure, as the
category of MSM does not just include gays, but also men who are married, and
do not identify themselves as homosexuals. According to the Behavioural
Sentinel Surveillance (BSS) report in 2006, “three percent” of all respondents
“indulged in sex with males in the last one year”. And, in the states with high
awareness on the issue “the involvement was also reported to be the highest”;
among these, “only one-fifth used condoms during the last occasion of sex with
a male partner” (BSS, 2006: p. xix). The BSS 2006 report on MSM further
estimates that, on an average, consistent condom use among MSM is approximately
between 35 to 36% (this includes both, with commercial and non-commercial
partners, in 10 Indian cities) (ibid, p. 42).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Thus, on a practical note, the dynamic (and dangerous) nature of HIV
transmission makes it extremely difficult to chart out an exact statistical
figure of risks. Instead, it is more feasible to understand the notion of
“risk” through vulnerabilities—that is to say: communities that are socially,
economically and culturally vulnerable are at a greater risk of contracting
HIV. By forcing the question of AIDS on only homosexuals, we run the risk of <i>misunderstanding
how it affects other marginalised groups</i>, like drug users, female sex
workers, AIDS widows and orphans. Furthermore, as Shivananda Khan of Naz
Foundation (one of the petitioners in the SC) <a href="chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http:/www.nfi.net/NFI%20Publications/Essays/2004/MSM,%20HIV%20and%20India.pdf">argues</a>,
factors like stigma, discrimination, violence etc. are responsible for driving
the disease underground, and these seriously harm intervention efforts that are
trying to address issues like transmission, prevention and building support
systems for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHAs). This persecution of
homosexuals—and, those who work on health issues of MSM—is, thus, framed under
the misguided assumption that social ostracism can deal with AIDS.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In fact, JIH <i>wants these people to hide, and be underground</i>—to
live in <i>khauf</i> (fear), as one of their speakers put it.They
said, that after the 2009 verdict, gays “came out on the street and marched
fearlessly”. This, for the JIH, is in absolute contravention of patriarchal
norms. Homosexuals, further to being persecuted, must also be deeply shamed for
being who—and, what—they are. More to the point, not only is this attitude
being deeply dehumanizing, it is, I argue, also one that seeks to entrench them
in the worldview of the dominant patriarchal discourse.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The questions that I have raised above, however, are of no concern to
the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, and other patriarchal ideologies. They are resistant
to viewing social reality, and problems, as complex; for them, the force of
their arguments comes from simplifying issues of sexuality, reducing it to a
notion of patriarchal control over bodies, and stems from the concern—or
obsession, more correctly—over control of sexuality and property rights. For
instance, their supposed “cure” for homosexuality is early marriage. In older
days, they said, people were married off precisely because this “prevented them
from getting homosexual desires”. So, for people to get these “desires” in the
first place, would not the homosexual desire be “natural” in all of us?—which
must, then, be “prevented”?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Further, they claimed: “If we legalise homosexuality today, then
tomorrow will we also legalise crime, rape, sodomy, bestiality, incest, and so
on?” Once again, the Jamaat speakers displayed their ineptitude at
understanding Section 377. In cases of rape and sodomy, insofar as there is
evidence to indicate that it was non-consensual and/or coercive, Section 377
can, in theory, be applied—and the victims of such sexual assaults could be
women, minors and even other men.The merit of the Delhi High Court verdict was
that it presented such a nuanced reading. But nuances, for Jamaat, and other
like-minded organisations, are almost incomprehensible, it would appear. In
fact, they would rather cite the “historical evidence” of the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, to justify their view that homosexuality is a sin, that it
is immoral, and so on. I won’t even try providing any credible references to
refute these claims because that would only insult my intelligence, and that of
the readers’. Their entire “protest” was rife with such logical inaccuracies.
This evidently demonstrates that the JIH did not have the first clue about what
homosexuality actually entails; theirs was, from the beginning, a prejudiced
view—nothing more, nothing less. However, the crux of Jamaat’s protest, I
suspect has more to do with their desire to portray themselves as a masculine,
chauvinistic outfit, than one actually concerned with religion.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“<b>The
government must not amend Section 377, or they will lose our votes”</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I
confess, they did not use the exact same words; but, their sentiments were
apparent. Indeed, this was their primary reason for holding the “protest”. They
said, Congress ministers who are supporting the amendment of Section 377, and
thereby “decriminalising homosexuality”, should think twice about it, given the
2014 General Elections are only a few months away. There was also a vague, and
snide, speculation over Rahul Gandhi’s (prolonged) bachelorhood, and the
Congress’ desire to amend the said Section. Jamaat’s criticism of the Congress,
thus, was an implicit projection of their support for the BJP (as if the
presence of the <i>sadhu </i>was not enough)—whose president, Rajnath
Singh, “welcomed the Supreme Court verdict”, making their stance on
homosexuality quite clear.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Jamaat-e-Islami Hind’s intolerance of homosexuality, and its alignment
with the Hindutva Right on this, therefore, is much less a coincidence, than it
is an indication of a condition that gives them power and legitimacy in the
dominant patriarchal nature of politics in India. This kind of political
machismo and parochialism aims to ’emasculate’<sup>*</sup> a certain
section of the population, and is perhaps the most prevalent form of power-mongering
in Indian politics—the MNS’ tirade against the “north Indian migrant”; Shri Ram
Sene’s and the VHP’s assaults on women in pubs and public spaces; the violence
directed on individuals by the Khap Panchayats in the form of “honour
killings”; and, now, this renewed persecution of homosexuality. These are, all
of them, indicative of a masculine politics of domination in a system of the
patriarchal moral-political economy. Patriarchy, more than being a redundant
concept, is widespread in contemporary society, institutions, and politics in
renewed and pervasive forms. It functions on the subordination and persecution
of sexualities (and other caste, religious etc. identities), and aims to punish
the transgression of patriarchal norms.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Moreover, what I found particularly infuriating was one speaker’s
reference to Ambedkar, and how, he added, the constitution must “prevent
homosexuality from spreading”. As an admirer of Ambedkar, this statement was
offensive to me personally, and it also undermined and insulted Ambedkar’s
legacy, and all that he stood for. Ambedkar was a revolutionary—if not <i>the</i> most
revolutionary—thinker of 20<sup>th</sup> century India. Besides his
struggles against Brahmanical hegemony, it was Ambedkar’s Hindu Code Bill that
not only challenged Brahmanical patriarchy, but also gave civil liberties to
Hindu women, such as rights over property, divorce, and so forth (see Sharmila
Rege’s <i>Against the Madness of Manu</i>,
Navyana, 2013, pp. 204-243). As with the championing for the rights of
marginalised communities, the legacy of Ambedkarite political thought
underscores the contemporary struggles against the homophobia and sexism of
(patriarchal) organisations like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, and the Hindutva
Right-wing. Homosexuality—as with giving property rights to women—is precisely
the target of such masculine politics of domination, because it deeply
unsettles the notion of power that comes to be defined in terms of, and gains
privilege from, a hegemonic masculinity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">By the end of the “protest”, I wanted to speak out, and question their
claims. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">But, to be really honest, I could not take that suffocating and venomous
atmosphere anymore. I left. And then, I Tweeted this whole incident—a pointless
exercise, really. Not entirely because I failed to say this to the JIH
“protestors”; but because they—like other organisations are trying to assert a
patriarchal moral superiority—did not possess the acumen or sophistication to
engage in any kind of debate, especially one that would undermine their
masculine imagery. Their attack on homosexuals is an empty exercise to gain
masculine capital in a patriarchal moral-political economy. To conclude,
therefore, Jamaat’s “protest” was no more than a self-congratulatory exercise;
a desperate bid to keep itself—and its sense of morality and
patriarchy—relevant in a charged political scenario.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This post first appeared in the
secular humanist website, Nirmukta.org, under the title ‘Jamaat-e-Islami Hind’s
Homophobia.’ I am thankful to the editors for their feedback on the post, and
for publishing it on their platform. You can read the original post <a href="http://nirmukta.com/2014/01/16/jamaat-e-islami-hinds-homophobia/">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><i><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Notes</span></i></b><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<sup><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">* </span></span></sup><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The
term “emasculation” is used here very specifically. In case of analysing
violence against homosexuals, and especially gay men, it is important to see
how entrenched patriarchal and homophobic attitudes work insidiously to deny
them a “gay” masculinity—because, that would mean the constitution of a
masculinity outside of the hegemonic and patriarchal moral-political context.
‘Masculinity’ is a reified category precisely because it is such reification
that gives it power in certain contexts. Thus, something as ubiquitous as using
the term “gay” or “faggot” as an insult, seeks to undermine (and, in more
serious cases, deny) masculinity to even (presumably) straight men, until they
conform to the notion of hegemonic masculine identity. I have explained this in
detail in an academic research paper on masculinity in the critically acclaimed
TV show, <i>The Wire</i>. Access it <a href="https://www.academia.edu/4694221/Masculinity_in_conditions_of_patriarchy_and_hegemony_An_analysis_of_masculinities_in_The_Wire">here</a>.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-7014326235007701502013-12-13T22:38:00.000+05:302014-01-02T22:15:37.561+05:30Thoughts on Section 377: Against the absurdity that is “against the order of nature”<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></b></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I</span></span></b></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">There’s a line from the movie<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Philadelphia</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>that I recollect every time I’ve
discussed homosexuality, the AIDS epidemic, legality and so on. In the movie,
as those who’ve seen it are aware, there’s a<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/web/movies/Philadelphia.htm">scene
in the courtroom</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>where Denzel
Washington, in his cocksure, charismatic charm, says:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“Everybody’s
thinking about sexual orientation, sexual preference...whatever you want to
call it. Who does what to whom and how they do it. So let's get it out in the
open. Let's get it out of the closet. Because this case is not just about AIDS,
is it? So let's talk about what this case is really all about: The general
public's hatred, our loathing...our fear of homosexuals.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">On the 11<sup>th</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>of December, 2013,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-says-gay-sex-illegal-govt-hints-at-legislative-route/article1-1161395.aspx">the
Supreme Court of India “set aside” a landmark judgement of the Delhi High Court
pertaining to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code</a>. The Delhi HC verdict, which had effectively
decriminalized consensual same-sex relations among adults covered under Section
377 of the IPC (effectively: homosexuality; read the full verdict<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://www.nazindia.org/judgement_377.pdf">here</a>), was thus rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The assumption, therefore, is that those who engage in sex as stipulated in
Section 377 can be tried under it (the description is given below). Section 377
was enacted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, and it states:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">377.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Unnatural Offences</b>: 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 term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;">Explanation</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;">: Penetration is
sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense
described in this section.<o:p></o:p></span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The Delhi High Court’s judgement, in
decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations, thus, was truly bold and
revolutionary; and it is pertinent to quote its verdict at length:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> “130. If there is
one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian
Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’. This Court believes that Indian
Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society nurtured over
several generations. The inclusiveness…is manifest in recognising a role in
society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or
‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracised.”</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“131. Where society can
display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life
of dignity and non-discrimination…It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is
antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will
foster the dignity of every individual.”</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“132. We declare that
Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in
private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution…[and] by
‘adult’ we mean everyone who is over 18 years of age and above.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">It added that the
provisions of Section 377 continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal
sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors (those below 18 years of age)
as they “would be presumed to not be able to consent to a sexual act.” This
clarification, the High Court held, will hold until Parliament chooses to amend
the law, and enact the recommendation of the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/rapelaws.htm">172nd
Law Commission Report</a><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>which sought
to decriminalize homosexuality [see Section 1.2.1.Part I, (3)].<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The two-member bench of
the Supreme Court, however, ruled that:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>“Section
377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality [and]…that the
said section [377] does not suffer from constitutional infirmity.” It thus
concludes that declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is
“legally unsustainable”, and puts the ball firmly in the legislature’s
[Parliament’s] court, stating: “Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent
legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of
deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It further argues that
“even after 60 years of independence, Parliament has not thought it proper to
delete or amend Section”, the section, therefore, remains valid. The Additional
Solicitor General, P.P. Malhotra, in an affidavit by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, which:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“…had opposed
decriminalisation of homosexuality and…recommended retention of Section 377 IPC
because the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>societal
disapproval thereof was very strong</i></b>. [And] that the legislature, which
represents the will of the people, has decided not to delete and it is not for
the [Delhi High] Court to import the extra-ordinary moral values and thrust the
same upon the society”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">It must, here, be
remembered that the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality specifically<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>within</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>the Section 377, upholding it in cases
of sexual assault – against women, children and men. However, this
‘severability’ is something which the Supreme Court didn’t agree with (</span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070">read
the full judgement here</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">II</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">Of course, in light of the Supreme Court’s
judgement, Denzel Washington’s quote from<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Philadelphia</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>is exceedingly significant; especially
since many have dubbed the Supreme Court’s ruling as “</span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://inagist.com/all/410970731535552512/">procedural homophobia</a>”. Others, too, have criticised it for being “regressive”
and taking us back to the 19<sup>th</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>century.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">My criticisms of the
Supreme Court judgement, however, are different: they are concerned with the
judgement being situated in the larger discourse of what I’ve argued is the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/09/the-janus-faced-nature-of-patriarchal.html" target="_blank">patriarchal moral-political economy</a>. Although the Supreme Court’s concern is, largely,
constitutional and legal, constitutionality is<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>not a textual problem</i>;<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>it’s also a socio-political one</i>.
The Delhi High Court verdict was revolutionary<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>precisely because it helped a
social group articulate its political and social rights</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>– and, that this social group is not
necessarily a “sexual minority”. My other concern is that there are several
logical fallacies riddled in the judgement, through which, the Supreme Court effectively
sanitizes and, thus, absolves itself of this responsibility from the larger
political movement of gender rights.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I shall elaborate on
these arguments throughout the course of this essay – and its follow up.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The Supreme Court ruling which reinstates Section
377 of the Indian Penal Code, and thereby criminalizes “voluntary” same-sex
relations between consenting adults is, to say the very least, regressive. Now,
I use the term ‘regressive’ in a very specific way: not in terms of the
judico-moral discourse of human rights, or anything, but especially as huge
setback to:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">(a) The consistent work
being done by organisations in HIV/AIDS outreach activities, especially among
what is called ‘MSM’ (men who have sex with men), such as the petitioners, Naz
Foundation; and, (b) The vocal LGBT community, and other allied
organisations and social groups, like transgender communities, <i>hijras</i>,
and so forth, who suffer from police brutality, irrespective of the question of
law, who are equal stakeholders in this struggle.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The Supreme Court verdict
also, apart from these specific concerns, seriously undermines the women’s
movement, and the question of gender rights and equality, when it states that: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“In its anxiety to
protect the so-called rights of LGBT persons…the [Delhi] High Court has
extensively relied upon the judgments of other jurisdictions….we feel that they
cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of the law
enacted by the Indian legislature.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This is, perhaps, one of
the most regressive points in the entirety of the 98-page document – “so-called
rights”? Would the Supreme Court say that rights of women, Dalits, religious
and linguistic minorities are “so-called” rights? This violates the entire
legacy of Feminist, Dalit and other politics – and of groups, much like the
LGBT community, who have invested their faith in the judiciary; and it is this
hope which has been betrayed. My argument, thus, is that the Supreme Court
bench fails to situate the Delhi HC’s verdict in the broader context of the
gender rights; subsequently, it betrays the spirit of the makers of the
Constitution – chiefly, that of B.R. Ambedkar – who sought to include
marginalised sections of the population under the protection proffered by the
Constitution, and were given respective rights. This becomes more baffling,
seeing that the bench observed: “…in last more than 150 years less than 200
persons have been prosecuted…for committing offence under Section 377 IPC…”,
there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in the law itself (42; p. 83); and
the precedent is on the Legislature to repeal/amend the section (56.;
pp.97-98). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I will, however, keep the
above problems on the legislature, and the state, in the follow up post. In
this essay, I attempt to put the Supreme Court’s logic to the test, especially
on the concept which of “against the order of nature”, which is a predominant
theme in the court's judgement. The conceptual clarity that I seek to proffer
on this condition is embedded in the whole discourse surrounding Section 377,
which is, as Washington puts it, “our fear of homosexuals”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">III</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Firstly, the cases the judgement cites, wherein
Section 377 IPC has been used to prosecute offences, were indeed brutal cases
(pp. 69-70). There’s no doubt about that: women, children, and even other men
can be, and are, victims of sexual assaults. But, a closer reading of these
verdicts reveals that the offence is not so much against the bodily integrity
of the victim, as it is against the “order of nature”. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">[<b><i>Note</i></b>: the
text below contains some amount of graphic details. Reader’s discretion is
advised].<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">For instance, in the
Khanu v. Emperor AIR 1925 Sind 286 (p. 69), wherein the accused is said to “be
guilty of having committed the sin of Gomorrah coitus per os with a certain
little child”, the case reads:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“…Is the act here
committed one of carnal intercourse? If so, it is clearly against the order of
nature,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>because the natural
object of carnal intercourse is that there should be the possibility of
conception of human beings</i></b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>which
in the case of coitus per os is impossible.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Further to it, in the
Lohana Vasantlal Devchand v. The State AIR 1968 Guj 252 (p. 70), the accused
had sexually assaulted the victim boy, by subjecting him to anal and oral sex:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“The question that arose
for consideration therein<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>was
as to whether the insertion of the male organ by the second accused into the
orifice of the mouth of the boy amounted to an offense under Section 377 IPC</i></b>.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This verdict, based on a
definition of “reciprocity” – “the enveloping of a visiting member by the
visited organism” – which intercourse connotes, therefore was that “the act in
question amounted to an offense punishable under Section 377.” The verdict
cites other cases – one in which a boy was sexually assaulted and murdered, and
the other where oral sex was forced upon a six year old girl – and in all of
them, the prerogative was to establish is the offence “was against the order of
nature”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In all cases cited, it is
sufficient to say that very grave and violent crimes were committed against
children. And, by all means, it is the prerogative of the courts to ensure that
the accused are given maximum punishment under the valid laws. But, does that
validate the archaic definitions embedded in Section 377 – such as
‘reciprocity’, ‘orifice’, and ‘order of nature’? Clearly, from these cases, it
would appear that the courts were more interesting in defining what exactly
constitutes offence “against the order of nature” – there is no explicit
mention of the crime violating the bodily integrity of the victim in question.
Even in its own conclusion, the Supreme Court bench observes that, despite the
idea of sexual intercourse meant for procreation being outdated, at the same
time (p. 71):<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“…it could be said
without any hesitation of contradiction that the orifice of mouth is not,
according to nature, meant for sexual or carnal intercourse. Viewing from that
aspect, it could be said that<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>this
act of putting a male-organ in the mouth of a victim for the purposes of satisfying
sexual appetite would be an act of carnal intercourse against the order of
nature</i></b>.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Thus, even sexual
stimulation gained by “intercourse between the thighs” is against the order of
nature (p. 73). In other words, forced oral or anal sex (viz. sexual assault)
is not a grave crime insofar as we would seek to define it in terms of
physically harming the bodily and mental integrity or personhood of the victim;
it is a crime because<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>even
if it is consensual,</i></b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>it
is against the order of nature</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The judgement, however,
does concede that the cases refer “to non-consensual, coercive situations…and
the keenness of the court in bringing about justice cannot be discounted while
analysing the manner in which the section has been interpreted.” However, this
justification is difficult to fathom when the court holds that (p. 77):<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“Section 377 IPC does not
criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b><i>merely identifies certain acts
which, if committed could constitute an offence</i></b>. Such a prohibition regulates
sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In an absence of cases
where consent can be established, the Court functions merely on the presumption
that there is a form of sexual intercourse that is normal, and not against the
“order of nature”, and sexual activity that contravenes this normalcy is, by
law, illegal and punishable. In other words, as long as people who identify as
homosexuals do not engage in sex, they cannot be criminalized – the absence of
proof (of consensual same-sex), constitutes, for the judgement,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>the proof of its absence.</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>The absurdity of “the order of nature”
is foundation stone of the patriarchal moral-political economy. One of the
processes through which the moral-political economy sustains unequal relations
between and within genders, is by its definition of the dominant (hegemonic)
form of masculinity. Furthermore, as Michel Foucault argues in<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>The History of Sexuality</i>, this
“new persecution of peripheral sexualities entailed<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>an incorporation of perversions</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>a
new specification of individuals</i>…sodomy was a category of forbidden acts;
their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them” (1978:
pp. 42-43, tr. Robert Hurley, New York: Pantheon Books).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">IV</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">There is, however, some truth to the arguments
made by the counsel – who represented the Hindu, Christian and Muslim
organisations, and the Delhi Child Rights Commission – opposing the Delhi High Court verdict,
saying that Section 377 is gender neutral, and “covers voluntary acts of carnal
intercourse against the order of nature<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>irrespective
of the gender of the persons committing the act</i>” (p. 22). Further:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">“…[and that in] carnal
intercourse between man and man, man and woman, and woman and woman…[there is]
no constitutional right that vests in a person to indulge in an activity which
has the propensity to cause harm and any act which has the capacity to cause
harm to others cannot be validated.”</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Thus, going by the above logic, Section 377 does not criminalize
only homosexuals – it<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>criminalizes
any individual who has it in them to indulge in desire, and pleasure outside of
heteronormative norms</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>– thus,
rendering people as a “new specification of individuals”, as Foucault put it.
It rests on a fallacious concern for human dignity, safety and morality; but is
silent on the fact<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>that a
great deal of violence is perpetrated on women when they are raped, in many
cases, by their own husbands,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>in
accordance “to the order of nature”</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>–
which, ironically, still isn’t a crime in the law books (more on that later).
Perhaps, then, it is important for those in the gender rights movement to
articulate our unregulated right to fuck – not just the “miniscule population”
of gays, lesbians, and transgender people, but even straight, heterosexuals,
and – who knows, maybe even “thigh-fetishists”?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The arguments concerning
“against the order of nature”, thus, firmly seek to entrench patriarchal
structures. Referring back to the notion of the moral-political economy, it is
not sufficient for it to merely define the dominant category, or signifier, of
the masculine; there is a concerted need to define the intimacy of subjects so
as constitute the masculine in a sexualised process. The “order of nature” –
and this conclusion, I concede, comes rather late –<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>is this the order of the
patriarchal moral-political economy</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;">V</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In the next post, I shall continue my criticisms
of the Supreme Court judgement on Section 377 of the IPC, by situating them in
the broad context of gender identities, the gender rights movement, and present
a critique of the Parliament . Therein, I will attempt to unravel the
contradictions of the Supreme Court’s judgement, by arguing that reinstating
Section 377 points out the fallacies of the Indian State’s commitment to
preserving the rights of marginal groups – both, women, and the LGBT community,
have been at the receiving end of the Indian State’s apathy; and by suggesting
that the very same state legislate on Section 377, the Supreme Court’s verdict
is a historical blunder, and fails its own legacy. Moreover, the clarity I
argued for in the case against “against the order of nature”,
is pertinent in the follow up post, where I shall situate my argument,
alongside the critiques of the state, and structures of legality, in what could
be called a “politics of desire”.</span></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-79873024285678327112013-11-22T02:36:00.000+05:302013-11-25T23:50:46.311+05:30Afterthoughts on the Patriarchal Moral-political Economy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">There are two
disparate, yet connected (made so quite forcefully), events that have captured
the public imagination over the last couple of days. The first, of course, has
been referred to as the “Saheb stalking” case in Gujarat, wherein the Modi
government put a woman, a landscape architect, under illegal surveillance for
months. This, allegedly, was at the behest of the girl’s father, who personally
approached Modi for her “protection”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Second,
and the more shocking, is the case of Tarun Tejpal sexually assaulting a female
junior colleague and fellow journalist at the <i>Tehelka</i> Think2013.
Tejpal is the co-founder of <i>Tehelka </i>magazine, which is
critically acclaimed for its incisive, critical investigative journalism,
something it has pioneered in India – and a bulk of <i>Tehelka’s</i> journalism
has been a hard-hitting coverage of the pervasive violence against women in
India. This incident, thus, is a trial-by-fire of sorts for <i>Tehelka</i>:
one where their ethics, their values are put on the dock. And one, going by the
recent turn of events, that looks on extremely shaky grounds.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">I,
like the majority of sane voices, some of them echoed on Times Now’s <a href="http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Tehelkas-absurd-argument---2/videoshow/4442139.cms" target="_blank"><i><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">News Hour</span></i><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> debate last night</span></a>, think the blame
squarely lies on Tejpal, and Tejpal alone (something to which he admits).
However, there are certain points that compound the picture. But, in Tejpal’s
case, this becomes extremely problematic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The first is
Tejpal’s <a href="http://pastebin.com/nNaWCu3e" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">email </span></a>to
his <i>Tehelka</i> colleagues, primarily the managing editor, Shoma
Chaudhury. In the letter, Tejpal writes that: “A bad lapse of judgement, an
awful misreading of the situation have led to an unfortunate incident that
rails against all we believe in and fight for.” He further writes
for a need for “atonement” but “not just in words”, a “penance that lacerates”
him, and with that, he offers recuse from the editorship of <i>Tehelka </i>for
six months. The public, naturally and rightly so, is livid. The fact that
Tejpal “chooses his own punishment” is in violation of the rule of law, said
the Times Now debate. Atonement, lacerations, recuses and moral guilt cannot,
in way whatsoever, dilute the reprehensible nature of his actions. They are, as
someone rightly put it on Twitter, sanctimonious. And needless to say, the rest
of Tejpal’s letter is a glorification of his organisation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Now,
there are many issues at stake here: the primary one being the (lack of)
implementation of the <a href="http://www.iitb.ac.in/WomensCell/data/Vishaka-Guidelines.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Vishaka Guidelines</span></a> to put a check on sexual harassment of
women in workplaces. There are other pertinent points about the pervasive
nature of patriarchal power and control over women in workplaces. Nivedita
Menon, for instance, <a href="http://kafila.org/2013/11/21/sexualized-workplaces-predatory-men-and-the-rage-of-women/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">chronicles this pervasive “sexualisation of workplaces”</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">“The
workplace – from the classroom to the court to the newsroom, every single
workplace in short – is utterly sexualized. It is sexualized in a masculinist
and misogynistic power-laden way. The continuous invocation of the possibility
of sex and of women as sexual objects is the very air of the workplace.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">This </span><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/01/a-culture-of-violence.html" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">culture of violence</span></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> is an inherent aspect of what I have
argued is </span><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/09/the-janus-faced-nature-of-patriarchal.html" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">the patriarchal moral-political economy.</span></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Very briefly,
the patriarchal moral-political economy denotes an insidious structure, or a
network of structures, that function on patriarchal and misogynistic logic of
governance. There is no one model of moral-political economy; it is a
Janus-faced, hegemonic enterprise, that manufactures legitimacy for violence;
and lastly,</span><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/11/notes-on-patriarchal-moral-political_2.html" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> it invests its power in the repository of the masculine</span></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">.
By this argument, therefore, what has ensued in </span><i style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Tehelka</i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> conforms
to the operation of a patriarchal moral-political economy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">At
the same time, alongside the question of real violence perpetrated on real bodies
and by real people, there is a discourse of sexual violence, and our response
to it, that is equally real: if not its form, but certainly in its effects and
consequences. And this discourse is something that needs to be critically
examined as well. People, usually critics of <i>Tehelka</i>, have not
spared the opportunity to drag the magazine’s (and Tejpal’s) name through the
mud (“critics” is a polite term; I’d prefer the term ‘trolls’, or just idiots).
Allegations about <a href="https://twitter.com/gsurya/status/403171251079749632" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">“prostitutes” in
the offices of <i>Tehelka</i></span></a> or the<a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/dear-twitter-abusing-tejpals-daughter-for-his-sins-is-disgusting-1241967.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> insults hurled at Tejpal’s daughter</span></a>, to name a few,
nauseate the environment. Because let’s face it: we still are a terrible
public. We want a spectacle; we want blood; we want hangings and castrations.
In the <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/12/so-fucking-disappointing-i-tell-you.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">aftermath of the Delhi gang rape-murder</span></a>, I argued that only
because the perpetrators were from a particular demographic group they were
caught in record time. In this case, <a href="http://farzana-versey.blogspot.ae/2013/11/will-tarun-tejpal-open-can-of-worms.html?m=1" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tejpal represents</span></a> a different monstrosity: arrogant,
sanctimonious, and elite. And we want his blood. This demonization of Tejpal,
thus, is a result of a petty, middle class, fettered conscience; wherein, we
forget to (or choose not to) see that he, like other predatory men, is human,
and must be held accountable for his crimes. For, as Nivedita Menon writes:
“Men in the workplace need to know this now, and with certainty, – their
sexualized behaviour is not charming or harmless, but a criminal offence.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Having
said that, I do not think that Tejpal – despite his efforts, his “blood, toil,
tears and sweat” – is reducible to <i>Tehelka</i> and nor the magazine
to him; <i>Tehelka</i>’<i>s </i>journalism is the credit of dozens of
hard-working journalists – men and women – who certainly, to a degree, embody
the glorification Tejpal makes of the magazine. And it’s precisely their faith,
and the faith of its readers, that is at stake here – if not entirely betrayed.
Perhaps, Tejpal’s glorification of <i>Tehelka</i> is actually a
desperate plea for the law of function impartially and without biases; of the
magazine upholding the principles upon which it was founded, by seeing that Tejpal
faces the full force of the law – something, which the people crititcised
by <i>Tehelka</i>, have escaped. Or perhaps, it <i>is </i>sheer
arrogance, an indefensible and utterly shameful justification of patriarchal
power in the sexualised workplace. We cannot know for sure; and must, unlike
blood-thirsty trolls on social media, wait for our courts and legal machinery
decide the same (of course, the legal machinery is something that itself is
deeply embedded in the patriarchal moral-political economy).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">There is, as I
mentioned in the beginning, an uncanny similarity in the overarching narrative
of the <i>Tehelka</i> case, and the Saheb stalking case. Both cases
are models of patriarchal moral-political economies: they rest on a gross abuse
of power (a patriarchal power-space, it must be remembered), and both cases are
(apparently) shying away from legal intervention. Furthermore, there is the
regressive assumption that for women to be “protected” (ironically, by and
against patriarchal forms of violence), they must submit to patriarchal
controls, and forfeit any agency they have. In the Saheb case, the woman’s
agency is completely overtaken and appropriated by her father and the masculine
state: the <a href="http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Snooped-woman-tells-NCW-no-probe-needed/2013/11/19/article1900138.ece" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">father wrote</span></a> to the National Commission of Women makes no
mention of the alleged “threats” his daughter needs protection from; and Arun
Jaitley, in a spectacularly silly move, said that <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/security-protection-not-snooping-jaitley/1197509/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">“security and protection are not snooping”</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Similarly,
by trying to <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tejpal-s-resignation-more-than-the-apology-woman-wanted-tehelka-s-shoma-chaudhury/article1-1154058.aspx" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">cover up Tejpal’s alleged sexual harassment</span></a>, Shoma Chaudhury
is doing more harm than good; to <i>Tehelka</i>, and to the larger
question about women’s movement, and its critiques of patriarchy. Regrettably,
Chaudhury, who once appeared on a debate in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TORP8GHHsXk" target="_blank"><i><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The Outsider</span></i><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, where she
spoke for the motion that ‘India is no country for women’</span></a>, and has
herself written critical pieces on women’s rights, and violence against women
(her coverage of the Arushi Case is most prominent), comes awfully close to
what I have argued is the Janus-faced nature of moral-political economies
(something we can describe as Jaitley’s comments as). The burden,
unfortunately, has befallen on her. As a woman, and especially under these
circumstances, I can imagine that things indeed must be very, very hard for
her. But this is a chance for her to subvert and challenge the patriarchal moral-political
economy – one so pervasive in her own organisation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Yes, <i>Tehelka</i> and
other organisations (media and otherwise) <i>need</i> to implement
Vishakha Guidelines; and, more importantly, the criminal proceedings against
Tejpal (and the Modi government) must and should proceed, but not in a logic of
protectionism to the women in question. That further robs them of agency, and
reasserts the perverted nature of patriarchies. They – and the <i>Tehelka</i> journalist
more so – need to act on their own free will, free of compulsions, compromises,
and coercion [<a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-tehelka-s-tarun-tejpal-sexual-asault-case-on-a-victim-s-right-to-choose-1923217" target="_blank">Read Amba Salekar's argument on the same</a>; however, it should also be noted that insofar are we are talking about agency and implementation of law, there are many constraints on the former by the latter: see <b><i>Postscript</i>]</b>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">At
the same time, it is extremely imperative that the responsible parties do not
go away unpunished. The legal complications in both cases, thanks to my own
limitations, are lost on me [See <i style="font-weight: bold;">Postscript</i>]. But as sociologist Dipankar Gupta puts it, there is a need to
differentiate between the moral and the ethical; the former, he argues, is
dangerous because it is personal, ambiguous and thus, dangerous – which is how
both Tejpal’s and the Modi government’s actions can be defined as. Hence, <a href="http://www.india-seminar.com/2011/621/621_interview_gupta.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">he argues</span></a> for: public ethics replacing private
morality; transparency and accountability in public behaviour; and trust in
institutions replacing trust in people. However complex and contradictory this
may seem, and in spite of my own criticisms of it, the need for such
intervention is imperative.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Patriarchy
doesn’t make monsters out of men and women; it exists because we see it as
normal, because we fail to see the ways in which it harms human beings. This
failure – to stand up to, and against, patriarchy; to rubbish atonement, and
demand impartial justice; to see violence for what it is – is the fatal flaw. <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-question-to-modi/1197022/0" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">We cannot fall back on our “inordinate capacity to forgive sinners”, “who
turn a new leaf”.</span></a> It is that flaw that we must perpetually
struggle against. And I, for one, do hope that Shoma Chaudhury senses this as
well. For, it’s not just <i>Tehelka’s </i>credibility, the faith of
its readers, or even the question of justice for the journalist, that is at
stake here; it is a larger danger of a feminist question failing itself, and
its politics. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Postscript</span></i></b><b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">: </span></b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">There’s
two additional points I would like to add on. First concerns the question of
agency. According to the Vishakha Guidelines, if sexual harassment does occur
and:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">“Where
such conduct amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal Code or under
any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance
with law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">The prerogative, therefore, <i>was</i> on Chaudhury to register an FIR against
Tejpal, and <i>not</i> address the grievances of her colleague. The
notion of agency – of the woman filing the complaint on her own, as many,
including I, have argued – is compounded. Thus, when we do talk about the law functioning impartially, there are already, by that virtue, constraints on the operation of that agency.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Secondly,
since the publication of this post, many ugly details have come out about the
nature of the crime, and more shockingly so about <i>Tehelka’s </i>consistent
failures of addressing the crime in question; more so, several journalists and
editors have <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tehelka-journalist-resigns/article5390104.ece" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">also resigned</span></a> from their respective posts in the
magazine. As of now, 25<sup>th</sup> of November, 2013, the <i>Tehelka </i>journalist
in question has given her <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288651" target="_blank"><span style="color: #4d469c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">resignation
letter</span></a>. She has also alleged that Tejpal’s family members have
intimidated her. She writes that despite <i>Tehelka</i> “defending
the rights of women… [and speaking] harshly against the culture of victim
blaming, tactical emotional intimidation and character assassination of
those who dare to speak out against sexual violence”, and now that she is the
victim to such a crime, she is:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">“…shattered
to find the Editor-in-Chief of <i>Tehelka </i>[Tejpal], and you – in
your capacity as Managing Editor – resorting to precisely these tactics of
intimidation, character assassination and slander.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">It
would, therefore, appear that whatever cautious arguments I have made above
concerning <i>Tehelka</i>, thanks to this gross lack of concern and
victimisation of the journalist, now stand discredited. For, as the journalist
writes, it is not just Tejpal who has failed her as an
employer, “but <i>Tehelka</i> that has failed women, employees,
journalists and feminists collectively.” I am left with a bitter,
nauseating aftertaste. This is the end of <i>Tehelka </i>as we’ve know
it. I might still have great respect for their coverage of certain issues in
the past, but clearly, I do not anticipate a bright future for it. And for that
that, shame on you, Shoma Chaudhury; and shame on you, Tarun Tejpal. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<b><i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">Acknowledgements: </span></i></b><i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;">To Shubhra, for the discussions that never (and,
hopefully, should never) end. And to Uday Chandra, for bringing about the
complexities of agency in this context, and even otherwise.</span></i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<span style="background: white; color: #444444; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"><br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-29188582107370138922013-11-02T13:27:00.001+05:302013-12-20T01:33:20.447+05:30Notes on the Patriarchal Moral-political Economy: Hindutva, Fascism & the masculine politics of domination<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">“Politics is the continuation of
war by other means.”</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-right: 42.4pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Michel Foucault, <i>Society Must Be Defended</i><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In my <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/09/the-janus-faced-nature-of-patriarchal.html" target="_blank">previous post, my central argument was to explore how the patriarchal moral-political economy is Janus-faced</a>; that
is, how, through “collective conscience”…the moral-political economy
“legitimates violence against the bodies of criminals,</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> not because of
the crime they commit, but because who they commit it against</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">; and…in doing
so, through its various institutions, it creates and reinforces network of
hegemony, that defines criminality…and its (selective, and often brutal)
punishment.” In this post, I attempt to offer further explanation on what I
call the “masculine politics of domination”, in the context of the political
Right-wing Hindutva in contemporary India.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Thus, to reiterate my other two conditions of
moral-political economies: there is <i>no one model</i> of a
moral-political economy; there are moral-political <i>economies</i>. That
is, networks of hegemony, patronage and violence; networks that fall outside
the ambit of government, but are insidious components of <i>governance</i>.
And one way these networks of violence are operationalized (and legitimated) is
through what I call the masculine politics of domination. This ‘politics’
invests its power in the category of the masculine as the dominant trope of
organising power relations. However, this does not work in, or limited to, the
rigid binaries of gender, or even sexualities. It is located at the
intersection of political ideologies, spaces, economics, and, more importantly,
in engendering violence, and manufacturing the legitimacy for the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Therefore, our discussion on moral-political
economies also has a lot to do with the events that unfolded on our television
screens the same day that the Saket Sessions court awarded the death
sentence to the Delhi gang rape-murder perpetrators: <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/modi-is-bjps-prime-ministerial-candidate-despite-advanis-objection/1168735/"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Narendra Modi’s
anointment as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Masculine Politics of Domination: More forms of
legitimating violence</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">That there’s a lot being said about Modi is an
understatement. And it is indeed quite a task to sift out contradictory and
divergent strands of thought, or ideas that can elucidate what the deal with
him is: Is it purely economics? Based on the merits of his so-called Gujarat
Model of development? The belief that he can deliver <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshows/people/10-punch-lines-from-narendra-modis-speech-at-srcc/minimum-government-maximum-governance/slideshow/18370073.cms"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">“maximum
governance, with minimum government”</span></a>, where the corrupt UPA has
failed?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Or, is it about his complicity (if not direct
involvement) in the genocidal riots that rocked Gujarat in 2002? – <a href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/gujarat.pdf"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">That are, by any
account, one of the worst instances of communal conflicts in India</span></a>.
Clearly, his refusal to talk about 2002, and his usage of metaphors (for when
he does) – <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-guilty-feeling-about-gujarat-riots-says-modi/article4908704.ece"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">that the riots were
like a “puppy coming under the wheels of a car” and that, naturally, he is sad</span></a></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">– is,
to say the very least, problematic But, what then? And let us not forget
the <a href="http://www.tehelka.com/ghost-of-fake-encounters-comes-back-to-haunt-gujarat/"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">spate of fake
encounter killings between</span></a> 2004 and 2007, that were,
undoubtedly, a quasi-policy of the state in dealing with the sublime threat of
Islamic terrorism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Personally, I do not think that dwelling on 2002
purely on the basis of rhetoric gets us anywhere (which degenerate into <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStXxdRJtms"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">petty exchanges</span></a>). The
proof against Shiv Sena leader, Balasaheb Thackeray,<a href="http://www.sabrang.com/srikrish/hinrole.htm"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> in the 1992 Bombay riots was as
damning, if not more</span></a>. And that man, on whose watch one of India’s
greatest cities burned, <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/state-funeral-for-bal-thackeray-calm-city-lines-up/1032864/"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">got a state funeral</span></a>.
Will Modi ever be held accountable for 2002? I am not sure. In fact, if
anything, the question of the 2002 riots vis-à-vis the patriarchal moral-political
economy begs a pertinent intervention in discussing what Ward Berenschot calls
“riot politics” in his book <a href="http://books.google.co.in/books/about/Riot_Politics.html?id=vlRg0iU3qdYC&redir_esc=y"><i><span style="color: blue;">Riot Politics: Hindu-Muslim Violence and the Indian State</span></i></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">For Berenschot, the violence in Gujarat was
possible not because it was an explicit government pogrom, or because the riots
were uncontrollable; they were possible because of several factors, like the
decline of traditional mediation networks in the communities, decline of trade
unions, and the rise of virulent Hindutva politics. Older structures,
like <i>Pol Panchayats </i>had but lost their influence in the
communities of Ahmedabad; in lieu of them, politicians, <i>goondas</i>,
and <i>chamchas</i> were now extended patronage networks, to which
people (the Gujarati middle class) turned to. And it is these social actors
that served as “riot networks”, and the riot, ultimately, was a way of
“maintaining power relations” (<a href="http://www.kitlv.nl/pdf_documents/Berenschot_2009_Rioting_as_Maintaining_Relations.pdf"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">read his paper here</span></a>).
A feminist reading of Berenschot’s arguments thus renders a conception of a
“working” moral-political economy: the question of macro- and micro-spaces,
making Berenschot’s work indispensable in our understanding of masculine
politics of domination.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Following <a href="http://www.egs.edu/faculty/judith-butler/videos/performative-politics-and-the-critique-of-state-violence/"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Judith Butler’s
idea of performativity and violence</span></a>, politics of domination would
refer to not only the legitimation of violence – “rape-as-punishment” &
“rape-being-punished-by-death” – but also the <i>very nature of the
violence perpetrated</i> (the appalling description of violence and rape
chronicled by <a href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/gujarat.pdf"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Human Rights
Watch’s report on Gujarat</span></a>). Moreover, this form of violence is a <i>perverse
process of creating the bodies of the “other”</i> – women, Muslims, Dalits
– as a site which engenders a fundamentally Right-wing politics of violence.
Thus, the violence enacted on Muslim bodies during the riots, of allowing
Hindus to express their anger”, of “putting the Muslims in place”; as well as
the violence perpetrated on Dalits, and women, engenders the legitimacy of
violence, and more so, the necessity of it, in the creation of moral-political
economies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In this essay, however, I also explore another
fundamental idea: the intersection of fascism with the Right’s moral-political
economy. It is my argument that, by representing Modi as the dominant trope of
masculinity, and, through his own attempts to forge more secular or tolerant
credentials for himself, Modi’s image as “the governator” is essential for the
creation of the Sangh’s moral-political economy. Secondly, I also extrapolate
how the Sangh itself embodies or represents what Italian philosopher Umberto
Eco calls “Ur-Fascism”. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">[</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">Note</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">: the term ‘Sangh’ is
shorthand for mainly the RSS, and its associated organisations: the BJP, VHP,
Bajrang Dal & Durga Vahini].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Modi, Hindutva and image of the “governator”</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">It is no secret or great big revelation, that the
RSS, the VHP and other right-wing outfits associated with the BJP are
regressively patriarchal. They, and their assorted misogynistic codswallop,
represent what I have earlier described as <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2013/01/a-culture-of-violence.html"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">a culture of
violence</span></a>. Misogyny, policing of sexualities, a pervasive rape
culture, are actually normalized fields of violence for them. In <i>Masculinities</i>,
R.W. Connell differentiates between different masculinities, and the
relationship between them – these being, hegemony, subordination, complicity,
and marginalisation (see the previous post for a discussion of Connell’s work
on hegemonic masculinity).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The masculine that Modi comes to define and inhabit
is, to refer the arguments above, a penultimate form of hegemonic masculinity.
The resurgence of the right can also be seen, in part, as a re-masculinization
in reaction the emasculating politics of the soft, corrupt UPA regime. It also
functions to emasculate and marginalise the masculinity of the Muslim “other” –
which has always been the Sangh’s object of attack (more on that later).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">That might offer some preliminary explanation on
why Hindutva figures so virulently in the political agenda of the BJP
specifically. I mean, on the one hand, they are desperate to show that they are
not entirely dominated by the regressive patriarchy of the VHP, and much less,
the RSS. And on the other, they are equally desperate to reverse the
emasculating policies of the UPA, to reassert, and reinstate, what <a href="http://gas.sagepub.com/content/21/4/461.abstract"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Michael Messner has called the
“masculinity of the governator”</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Messner argues that the rise of Arnold
Schwarzenegger in American politics was done so by him forging a credible,
hybrid masculine imagery as a “kindergarten commando”. This, he says,
“represents an ascendant hegemonic masculinity…foregrounding toughness, and the
threat of violence and following the situationally appropriate symbolic
displays of compassions”. This utilisation masculine imagery, for the
Republicans, was necessary in national politics to gain voters’ trust in times
of fear and insecurity. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">What the BJP and Modi are trying to achieve, is a
similar process. Both, the so-called Gujarat Model and Modi’s masculine
imagery, his “<a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/modi-thumps-his-56inch-chest-with-gujarat-win/54850-37.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">56-inch chest</span></a>” included (he was dubbed “<a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/rambo-modi-runs-through-upa/article1-1081281.aspx"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Rambo Modi</span></a>”
with news of his rescue of 15,000 stranded Gujaratis in Uttarakhand after the
floods) represents both, a kind of Janus-faced politics, and the constitution
of a hegemonic category of masculinity. The shrill cry of Hindutva – <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/yes-i-am-a-hindu-nationalist-narendra-modi/1141243/"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">his claims of being
a “Hindu nationalist”</span></a> – contrary to being (just) a communal
assertion, is actually a <i>masculine</i> <i>assertion</i>. It is,
among many other things, an attempt <i>for the BJP to forge the Hindutva
patriarchal moral-political economy with the image of Modi as governator at its
helm </i>(if the claim of </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 150%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">“Ram-<i>rajya</i>” </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"> is <i>not</i> a
plea for more patriarchal control, then I don’t know what is). </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Many of these arguments on Hindutva politics, <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/books/review-moral-materialism/article1-899327.aspx"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">masculinity and
male embodiment are explained in Joseph Alter’s <i>Moral Materialism: Sex
and Celibacy in Modern India</i></span></a>. Alter locates the discussion on
celibacy in the milieu of nationalist discourse of post-Independent India,
where to contrast the hegemonic, western masculinity of the colonisers, there
was a revival in the Indian (more so, the Hindu) conception of celibacy and
sexuality. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">Incidentally, however, the </span><a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/to-prevent-population-imbalance-hindus-must-have-more-kids-rss/1187738/" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">RSS' recent claim
that Hindus should scrap the one-child norm and have more children to “balance”
the demographic imbalance</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"> (i.e., to counter “rising” Muslim
population) represents yet another patriarchal attempt at biopolitics—the most
notorious being the mass-sterilizations and family planning under the aegis of
Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Thus, apart from being Messner’s “governator”, Modi
also serves as the epitaph of popular Hindutva for a vast majority of Hindus (predominantly, male
youth) in the country. His stance on the economy (especially, the Food Security
Bill), the armed forces, the border, and India’s (emasculated) relationship
with <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cant-allow-china-to-dominate-india-we-need-to-take-ourselves-seriously-modi/1184413/"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">China </span></a>and <a href="http://dawn.com/news/1046274/indias-modi-promises-tough-stance-against-pakistan"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Pakistan</span></a>,
are fantastic ideological tools that have, and pardon my use of floral
language, captured the hearts and minds of the masses. <o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">For, as sociologist Shiv Visvanathan rightly
points out in his essay, <a href="http://www.india-seminar.com/2013/641/641_shiv_visvanathan.htm" target="_blank">‘The Remaking of Narendra Modi’</a>: “He [Modi] is a
cultural dream for Hindus tired of softness and gentleness who welcome his
technocratic machismo.”</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Modi, Hindutva & Ur-Fascism</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Modi’s hard, masculine stance is, for obvious reasons, highly problematic. Further to Connell’s understanding of the “relation between
and within genders”, a closer and more nuanced examination of Modi also begs
extremely pertinent questions on fascism, and its relation of the patriarchal
moral-political economy. In an interview with Modi when he was an RSS <i>prachalak </i>in the 1980s,
social scientist <a href="http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/513/513%20ashis%20nandy.htm"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Ashis Nandy
described him as “a classic, clinical case of a fascist” and that for the first
time in his life he had “met a textbook case of a fascist and a prospective
killer, and perhaps even a future mass murderer”</span></a>. [<b><i>Note:</i></b> it should
be clarified that I do not have access to Nandy's original statement]. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Now, I am wary of throwing around a term like
‘fascist’ – partly because Digvijay Singh’s (</span><a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nitish-draws-hitler-parallel-tells-modi-yours-is-language-of-fascism/1188955/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">or, more recently, Nithish Kumar’</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">s) more-than-judicious
use of the same bothers me; and also because I do not possess Nandy’s
qualifications. However, situating the discourse of Modi in the larger scheme
of the Sangh, some of the fascist iterations become evident. Also,
Nandy’s </span><a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?236317"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">later writings</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> on Modi – for instance, in which he
claims that politics has “blunted him and made him less dangerous” – are
interesting. He writes: “Modi's earnestness has declined...he has become more
instrumental [and] is at once less threatening and more dangerous”. Modi, now,
can balance his power ambitions, and project the RSS’ (and the Sangh's)
patriarchal ideologies in a manner that hides their regressive patriarchy in
the patina of “development” and “governance” (Janus-faced). And, while Nandy may
seem reluctant to revisit his diagnosis of fascism, I would agree with Shiv Visvanathan,
when he <a href="http://www.india-seminar.com/2013/641/641_shiv_visvanathan.htm" target="_blank">writes that</a> we must understand “the remaking of Modi, the modernist as
fascist…if we wish to unmake it”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Umberto Eco’s essay, <a href="http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf"><i><span style="color: blue;">Ur-Fascism</span></i></a>, is extremely pertinent in this
regard. Eco, who as a boy survived the Fascism of Mussolini in Italy in the
1940s, has offered the most compelling, exhaustive and chilling explanation of
what he calls “Ur-Fascism”, or “Eternal Fascism”. He writes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 28.25pt; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">“…fascism [did not] contained in itself…all the
elements of any later form of totalitarianism. On the contrary, fascism had no
quintessence. Fascism was a <i>fuzzy </i>totalitarianism, a collage
of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of
contradictions.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">But despite of this “fuzziness”, Eco outlines a
list of 14 features that are typical to “Ur-Fascism”. A more contextual reading
of Eco would thus render a lot of sense to the insidious politics of the BJP
and, more importantly, of its allied bodies in the Sangh Parivar (more so when
we put Modi in the picture). However, due to constraints of space it is difficult
for me to explain and extrapolate entirely Eco’s points on <i>Ur-Fascism</i> to
the discourse of the BJP & RSS’ Hindutva politics. However, I shall retain
some of the points that I think are extremely relevant in my analysis. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">[<b><i>Note:
</i></b>I would urge the reader to read Eco’s essay more closely to understand
the points he raises about fascism; see also, Sumit Sarkar's essay on <i><a href="http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/sSARKARonSANGHPARIVAR.html" target="_blank">The Fascism of the Sangh Parivar</a></i>, which he wrote after the 1992 Babri masjid demolition, and the subsequent riots that followed].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">Thus, with regard to the BJP-RSS in general,
and to Modi in particular, my understanding of fascism, and its intersection
with the patriarchal moral-political economy, is based on seven fundamental
points that are raised by Eco in </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">Ur-Fascism. </i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">The first is the
“</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">cult of syncretistic traditionalism</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">” which “</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">rejects modernism</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">”.
Although Modi’s Gujarat model is, supposedly, pro-development, the Ram </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">janmabhoomi </i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">debate
features vociferously the BJP’s election agenda. An argument can also be
made about the Janus-faced nature of the BJP’s political agenda here: their
claims on development, and a regression to their idea of Hindu Rashtra. In
fact, it would seem that only in the discourse of patriarchy and fascism can
such glaring contradictions coexist.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Second, is the <i>fear of difference</i>,<i> </i>and
the <i>obsession with a plot</i> (which is an appeal to xenophobia);
this grows with an appeal “against intruders”, which is why Eco terms
Ur-Fascism as racist. Third, in relation to the second point, is <i>pacifism
is trafficking with the enemy</i>…<i>because</i> <i>life is permanent
warfare</i>—be it against the threat of our neighbours, or ISI-sponsored
terrorists within the country – who, then, are killed in fake encounters, for
display to the world. <i>Tehelka </i>journalist, Rana Ayyub’s
<a href="http://www.tehelka.com/tag/rana-ayyub/" target="_blank">exhaustive coverage</a> of the fake encounters in Gujarat is
exemplary in this regard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Fourth, is <i>will to power to sexual matters…</i>this
is the “origin of <i>machismo</i>”, and perhaps, the most important
point insofar as we are looking at the relationship between patriarchy and
fascism. As a woman, a friend of mine once commented, she is uncomfortable with
what sees about the BJP’s rise to power; and as a feminist, I share her
concern: I find it disconcerting too, that Modi, being a part of a
supra-patriarchal institution like the RSS—whose chief, Mohan Bhagwat, <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rapes-happen-in-india-not-bharat-says-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat/313784-37-64.html"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">claimed that “rapes
don’t happen in Bharat; they happen in India”</span></a>—can appropriate the
voice of protests that were witnessed post-December 2012 gang-rape murder (the
supreme irony of Modi being anointed the same day as the accused were given a
death penalty).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">If you require any more evidence, there is none
more clear, or shocking, than <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_E2YNWuMg"><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">this clip</span></a> from Nisha
Pahuja’s documentary, <i>The World Before Her. </i>The clip examines
two contrasting scapes: first, the camp of the RSS’ women’s wing, Durga Vahini,
and the assaults on women and couples in public places, and pubs (the latter by
the notorious Shri Ram Sene); and second, the selection round of the Miss India
pageant. The instructor at the Durga Vahini (women's wing of the RSS) camp goes on record to say that women
are “biologically weaker than men”, and must, therefore, shun any hopes for
gender equality. The more shocking aspect about<a href="http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/its-the-brainwashing-in-vhps-durga-vahini-camp-that-shocked-me-1052559.html" target="_blank"> this brainwashing at the camp, according to Pahuja</a>, is what Prachi, a trainee at the camp, has to say
about her father, (and, thus, the moral-political economy he and the RSS represent):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 2.0cm; margin-right: 28.25pt; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-indent: 14.2pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> “In a traditional family they don’t let girl
child live. They kill the child. So this is the thing. I get angry; I have
quarrels with my dad. But this thing, when it comes in my mind, I feel like
crying… he let me live. That is the best part.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Modi, for all his claims on development, for
all his talks on the “Gujarat model”, ultimately, represents (and, comes from)
the same oeuvre and ideology that is espoused by the Durga Vahini camp
instructors when they claim “women are weaker than men”; by the Shri Ram Sene
when they attack women in pubs; by the Ranveer Sena when they attack Dalits
trying to reassert their rights; and, ultimately, by misogynists like Prachi’s
father, who claim to mould her as “their product”. My stance as a Leftist often
unsettles many of my critics (who happen to be supporters of Modi), inviting
jibes of “Stalinism/Maoism”; but, as a feminist, I have more than enough
reason, and am more than justified, to be critical of him, and the Right. And
I’d dare any apologist to prove so otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The fifth condition of Ur-Fascism is an <i>appeal
to the frustrated middle class</i> – who are (rightly) tired with ten
years of the UPA’s corrupt regime and soft policies on terror, the economy, and
so on. In continuation, the sixth is <i>selective populism</i>,<i> </i>where
the people (in this case, the Hindus they represent) are only a theatrical
fiction. Eco says, “…there is, in our future, a TV or an internet populism, in
which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented
and accepted as the Voice of the People.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Ramachandra Guha’s <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282904" target="_blank">experience with such “Hindutva Hate Mail”</a> – what journalist Sagarika Ghose has termed “Internet Hindu” –
perfectly illustrates this facet. Terms like “Sickular”, “paid-media”, and, my
personal favourite, “anti-national”, are in fast currency amongst these
anonymous handles on Twitter. Nowhere, however, have these anonymous
Twitter handles provided enough proof to counter any arguments, or to back up
the accusations they hurl. And this brings us to the seventh and final
condition of my interpretation of Ur-Fascism: it [a syncretistic faith] “cannot
withstand criticism”. Eco sums up my thoughts, when he says that the modern
community “praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism,
disagreement is treason.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">“Development” and the “Gujarat model” are, for
apologists and supporters of Modi alike, sanctimonious; any criticism of the
same is tantamount to treason. And, they very conveniently forget the fact that
any true development must happen through an informed process, through
scientific argument, and critical reasoning. These are qualities whose glaring
absence is not only conspicuous, but also (I suspect) deleted in the discourse
on Modi: because, unlike capitalism for Marx, the masculine politics of domination
cannot afford to sow in the seeds of its own destruction. It needs to be
fought, and resisted, unceasingly, and without respite. More than anything, a
deeper understanding of patriarchal moral-political economies <i>is
required to reassert, and refashion feminist politics</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Understandably, my argument is too little, and
perhaps, too late, to convince anyone (his supporters, most of all) that it is
a very dangerous place for country to resort to desperation to want an
authoritarian persona as Modi. His persona – for the lack of a better term – is
situated at the intersection of so many discourses of violence and exclusion:
and his elevation as a potential prime minister only escalates some of these
concerns. However, this discourse is not about Modi: he just happens to be the
dominant form of hegemonic masculine in the patriarchal moral-political economy
that the Sangh is projecting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">We must remember that the patriarchal
moral-political economy is more than just one person; it is an ideology, and an
insidious, brutal network of hegemony, dominance, violence and exclusion. It is
a system which valorises a persona like Modi, because for the BJP’s (and the
Sangh Parivar’s) moral-political economy to come to force, it <i>needs a
Modi</i>. An older figure, like Manmohan Singh – or even Advani, for instance
– is spent, exhausted, if not entirely emasculated. Moreover, Modi’s image
gives legitimacy to the underlying fascist tendencies of the political right,
reasserts its core (fascist & patriarchal) values, and constructs what is
perhaps the most powerful, and ideologically virulent, form of the patriarchal
moral-political economy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">And that is precisely why we will need feminist
politics. Always.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Afterthoughts</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">My criticisms of Modi, and the 2002 riots, are in
relation to a particular and specific argument I am making on the nature of
patriarchal moral-political economies. And it stands to reason that any kind of
genocide or mass violence engenders a masculine politics of domination. Of
course, on the other hand, the Congress would represent a different, “softer”
kind of hegemonic system altogether—a more Janus-faced one, as my previous post
argued; one that cannot tolerate dissent, or criticism. This is reflective of a
larger problem of intolerance in the political space—<a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/09/a-governance-of-paranoia.html"><span style="color: blue;">a governance of paranoia</span></a>. However, an objective
measure cannot be adopted for the two forms; and a discursive criticism becomes necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Any counter-argument, stating that Modi and the BJP
represent the lesser evil, and therefore, are the necessary evil, is reflective
of intellectual laziness; and so is defending the UPA’s Janus-faced policies.
Both forms require incessant criticisms. And I believe I have provided enough
critiques on both, in previous posts and on social media platforms.
Understandably, this presents a dilemma for less nuanced minds who tend to see
and organise realties in binaries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In this post, I have, to the best of my abilities,
tried to infuse a degree of analytical rigour, and provided references to back
my arguments. At the end of the day, however, this is a blog post, and lacks
the expansive research required for a more academic work; any suggestions
regarding the arguments are more than welcome. Conversely, I do not make any
claims to being an intellectual; I write. But writing, while not entirely
cathartic, <i>is</i> a political act. And, with that, I stand by the
by-line of this blog, and the feminist adage that has inspired it:<i> the personal</i> <i>is indeed political</i>. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt;"> </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt;">This post is a dedication to the brilliant women,
and men. I admire, and follow on social media; many of them feminists,
activists & enthusiasts, but more importantly, people who value reason
& argument. I am thankful to their engaging debates, exchanges &
criticisms.</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt;"> </span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><i>I am especially thankful to Shubhra Rishi, Ketaki </i></span><i style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Haté</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt;">, </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 24pt;">Vaishali J, Malathi Jogi, Arundhati Bhattacharya, and Vivien D'costa, for their comments, feedback &
criticisms on the earlier drafts of this essay; and to Nolina, for her constant encouragement, support and love. </i></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-bottom: 3pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 11.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-60475634014707966362013-09-29T00:45:00.000+05:302013-12-14T02:40:26.161+05:30The Janus-faced Nature of the Patriarchal Moral-political Economy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">When I </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/12/so-fucking-disappointing-i-tell-you.html"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">wrote </span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">in December of last year, after the brutal gang rape
and murder of the woman who came to be signified as “Nirbhaya”, “Amanat” or
“India’s braveheart”, I was angry. The anger now has subsided, or replaced by a
cynicism of sorts. However, in that anger, I'd written that I wouldn't have any
qualms if the courts give a death sentence to the six accused. In a way, I did
anticipate that. However, now that the four accused (<a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/DelhiGangrape/Delhi-gangrape-Ram-Singh-found-hanging-inside-Tihar-jail/Article1-1024861.aspx" target="_blank">the main accused allegedly hanged himself in jail</a>; the other, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/juvenile-gets-3-years-in-delhi-gangrape-case/article5079092.ece" target="_blank">a juvenile and reportedly the most brutal, will walk away in three years</a>) have been given the death sentence,
there is, I suspect, a deeper malaise, or a sense of unease. And this, let me
clarify, has little to do with the ethics of the death sentence. It has more to
do with the ideology of it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The verdict itself is
not surprising. “Justice”, we knew, would get served – no matter how
problematic its connotations. The country’s reaction to it, judging by the
response on our TV channels and social media timelines, is veering between
sordid celebration of death, and a cautious criticism of the unethical
institution of the death penalty.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In ways more than
one, the verdict has betrayed the spirit of the Justice Verma commission's
pertinent and timely intervention of interpreting and changing the laws that
deal with rapes and sexual violence in India. Writing for <a href="http://www.tehelka.com/why-the-justice-verma-commission-rejected-the-death-penalty/"><i><span style="color: blue; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tehelka</span></i></a>, Revathi
Laul argues that if “we must strive for a less barbaric society that produces
fewer brutes, then our impulse to punish must also come from higher, less
barbaric reasoning...not by descending to something that is, by all measures of
modern day jurisprudence, barbaric.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-23806871"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">But
the recent gang rape of a photojournalist in Mumbai in August</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> – and the s</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/all-five-gangrape-accused-held-police-say-victim-was-made-to-clean-crime-scene/1159844/"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">wift
arrests of the perpetrators</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> (the
incident forced us to reflect back on the Delhi incident), throws us into a
similar quandary. The similarities are striking: the social location of
the victims, and the perpetrators; a decadence of geography, of a city whose
parts are left to ruins; and the moral outrage both cases have
evoked. Therefore, I believe it is time that we ask deeper and more
critical questions concerning the very nature of what I have called the patriarchal
moral-political economy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b style="line-height: 200%;"><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Some notes on the patriarchal moral-political
economy</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In a previous </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/12/they-dont-really-care-about-us.html"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">post</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">, I have attempted to explain what I meant by the
‘patriarchal nation-state’, drawing from the Marxist-Althusserian and
Foucauldian notions of “</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">ideological
state apparatus</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">” and “</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/engl.%20texte/The%20Birth%20of%20Biopolitics%203.pdf"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">governmentality</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">”, respectively. However, that term is somewhat
limited in both its scope, despite its theoretical richness, to analyse the
events that have unfolded in the last couple of weeks. Thus, I find recourse to
the term ‘moral-political economy’ more useful.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">First of all, the
term moral-political economy entails a wider and more fluid understanding of
networks of power in patriarchal societies. The notion of ‘nation-state’ is
limited by what the term represented. With the moral-political economy, that
scope is somewhat widened. Power is thus conceptualised outside the rigid
binary of genders, and is placed in the intersecting discourses of masculinity,
class, caste, religion, ethnicity, social geography and spatiality, media and
representation, knowledge economies, legality, and a critique of institutions,
to name a few. At the same time, there are certain assumptions that are central
to its formulation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">First, is the fact
that there is no one model of the patriarchal moral-political economy; because
its formulation is deeply invested in culture, history and geography, there are
moral-political <i>economies</i>. Each engenders different cultural
aspects, and yet rests on the fulcrum of hegemony and dominance, and
subsequently, resistance and recalcitrance. Second, is that the moral-political
economy is </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Janus-faced"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Janus-faced</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> in nature. The moral-political economy
sustains itself as a hegemonic enterprise; it needs to manufacture conscience
and outrage to legitimate the violence it can inflict on certain bodies – of
both, men and women – that do not conform to it. The idea of “legitimacy” is of
extreme importance here, and is something that I shall deal with later on.
Third, is the category of the masculine. Moral-political economies, much like
political economies, derive their power by investing it in an ideal-specific
category: for socialism, for instance, it would be state, or collective ownership; in
capitalism, it would be profit-motive, private property and a free-market economy. In patriarchal moral-political
economies, I argue, it is the category of the masculine, or more so the dominant
definition of the masculine, which is central in understanding how way power flows, and is configured. The concept of hegemonic masculinity is important in
this regard (more on that later).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">And finally, using
the fulcrum of masculinity, exclusion and hegemony, the usage of the term
moral-political economy allows for the conception of power in both,
meta-structures and micro-networks; a power that flows
through the social body and networks, and at the same time, one that is deeply invested the
real and normative structures of the real political-economy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">However, it must be
remembered that since the very structure of the patriarchal moral-political
economy is fluid and diffuse, nothing can be set in stone. It is as historical
as it is contemporary; it constantly shifts, because it needs dynamism to
sustain itself. And, more importantly, it pivots on exclusion; it pivots on the
operation of dominance, and violence against bodies and spaces; the attacks on
each, legitimated by the need to defend or preserve something - be it the
dignity of women, children, nationhood, or so forth (<a href="http://www.signs.rutgers.edu/content/Young,%20Logic%20of%20Masculinist%20Protection.pdf" target="_blank">what Iris Young calls the masculinist logic of protection</a>). However, while the term
itself refers to an oppressive system, it also engenders within it the scope
for resistance. That is, in its usage, there lies the possibility of exploring
avenues and strategies where it can be resisted, subverted, if not entirely
thwarted. This idea is indebted to the legacy of feminist and Marxist praxis
and, itself, seeks to formulate a post-feminist and post-Marxist one. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">These points,
although incredibly sketchy, are essential in understanding the contemporary
discourse of gender and violence in the country. Not in the least because the
question of violence is very real, and very glaring, but because there is an
ever present danger of public discourse slipping into a space where recourse to
the patriarchal moral-political economy is seen as the only viable option for
safety. The truth could not be any further from that: in fact, it is entirely
the opposite. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Thus, as the events unfold outside Saket Court, the death penalty has acquired immense ideological significance to bolster the legitimacy (of the hegemony) of the patriarchal moral-political economy. What the death penalty – and those in support of it – represents is the </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/janus-faced" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; text-decoration: none;">Janus-faced nature</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"> of the patriarchal moral-political economy. And it is this Janus-faced nature that: a) manufactures and appropriates the so-called 'collective conscience', 'collective outrage' of the people, and b) legitimates violence against the bodies of criminals,<i> not because of the crime they commit, but because who they commit it against</i>; and, finally, c) in doing so, through its various institutions, it creates and reinforces network of hegemony, that defines criminality (transgression), and its (selective, and often brutal) punishment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">The problem of rarity and the legitimacy of violence</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Terming the December gang rape-murder case as
“rarest of the rare”, and seeing the sheer brutality and depravity of the
violence acted up the 23 year-old victim’s body, the Additional Sessions Court
judge, Yogesh Khanna, stated that “</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-13/india/42039813_1_murder-case-vinay-sharma-track-court"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">gruesome
crimes against women are becoming more rampant”, and that is why “we need to
send a message that this will not be tolerated</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">”. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/death-sentence-only-punishment-for-gangrape-convicts-sushma-swaraj-1098385.html"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Politicians</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">, like Sushma Swaraj – </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://kafila.org/2012/12/23/to-the-young-women-and-men-of-delhi-thinking-about-rape-in-delhi/"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">who
called the Delhi victim a <i>zinda lash</i></span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> (or 'living corpse')<i> </i>– have
“welcomed the verdict”, and hope that “it would work as an effective
deterrent.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">While there is more than sufficient evidence to
indicate that death penalties don’t work as deterrent (nor do castrations),
that is not to say that death penalties do not have any effects at all. It is
an existentially warped notion that a sovereign, democratic state, backed by
the will of its people, can mete out judgements in death. As some have put it,
death sentences might offer closure to the families of those affected, but I am
uncertain of the cathartic abilities of the hangman’s noose.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Shuddhabrata
Sengupta's </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://kafila.org/2013/09/13/how-would-you-like-your-death-penalty-steak-rare-well-done-or-medium-rare-arguments-against-the-death-penalty/"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">post
on Kafila</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> dissects the
absurdity of the death penalty, and is incredibly relevant to our discussion on
the moral-political economy, and especially since they engender a very
pertinent question about legitimacy of violence. Sengupta argues that the
notion of rarity in "the rarest of the rare" is constructed by means
of a hypothetical sliding scale of refinement and intensification of cruelty.
He further argues that:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The ‘rarest of rare’ argument automatically
devalues the experience of millions of people, because, on the one hand it
upholds the principle of the severest retribution, and on the other hand it
rations out that (flawed) understanding of justice on the basis of the sliding
scale of the ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ horrors of different crimes. </span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Sengupta's arguments
underscore a very pertinent question about legitimacy of violence. The notion
of rarity also creates a hierarchy of violence that is informed, not
so much by the nature or extent of violence, but by who it is directed against,
how it is directed and to what end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/delhi-gang-rape-india-women"><i><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Guardian's </span></i></a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/delhi-gang-rape-india-women"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Jason
Burke</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> elucidates on
the multiple factors – urban-rural migration, the economic transformation of
Delhi, the aspirations and failures of those who do migrate, and the rising
decadence of urbanity in Delhi – that came together in brutal coordination, and
intersected that December night.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Burke also argues
that one of the striking elements of the case is the similarity of the
background of the victim and the killers. Burke's systemic critique penetrates
and destabilises many assumptions about the December gang rape-murder, and
about the social etiology of rape (after all, rape in India has been described
as an “epidemic”). The perpetrators, he writes:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">“…were thus all representative of a substantial
element of contemporary Indian society. They were semi-skilled and poorly
educated, like so many other products of the country's failing education
systems. They were migrants from the country to the town…There was nothing very
extraordinary about them. Yet within hours they would commit acts that would
prompt outrage across the planet.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">I do think that
Burke’s larger point is a necessary intervention in understanding the operation
of the moral-political economy in the nitty-gritty of urban spaces. However,
for the wider discourse, and for the moral-political economy itself, simplicity
is a very powerful ideological device. And the ideology of the death
penalty seeks to negate this very problematic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">With the Mumbai
Shakti Mills gang rape(s), it might do so again (although its justification of
rarest of the rare will not hold true; partly because the area as a site of
prior crimes; and the victims of those crimes do not have equal access to the
law). What is important in this case, is that the state chooses to act
violently in the name of justice – for women, supposedly. And that’s also
precisely where the patriarchal moral-political economy is Janus-faced.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">It constructs
legitimacy for its violence – in the case of death penalty for rape, violence
against the bodies of the perpetrators. It is also important to note that the
perpetrators in both the Delhi and Mumbai gang rapes were men from lower
socioeconomic statuses, and were partially employed and, more importantly,
prone to violence before (the accused in Mumbai have committed rapes in the
very space before). Cordelia Jenkins, too, cautions us against this demonisation
of the rapists. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/r0i3KBMiXfUx5H8VChVpCP/Lounge-Opinion-Why-its-dangerous-to-dehumanize-the-men-wh.html"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Writing
on the coverage of the Mumbai gang rape, she notes that the problem with the
attitude of dehumanizing is</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">“…that it overlooks the fact that the young men who
did this horrific thing are citizens of this country too, although in our
collective anger and shame it is much easier to ignore that, to paint them as
monsters, evil to the core, or outcasts. Like other kinds of terrorists, it’s
hardest to imagine that they could be home-grown.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In constructing the
identities of the accused – as “footloose migrants”, “north-Indians”,
“Biharis”, “Bangladeshis” – the violence against their bodies is legitimated.
Any claims that the perpetrators might have citizenship are forfeit – more so,
denied to them; they are dehumanised, demonised, and are put on the gibbet for
society’s collective violence (the death penalty backed by sovereign will) to
act on them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">This ideology of the
death penalty – the legitimation of violence through dehumanisation – is, also,
a problem of the meta and micro structures of the moral-political economy that
I mentioned in the beginning of this essay. The court’s verdict, and the “collective
will” it represents, is the operation of the ideology in but one space, and one
form of Janus-faced nature, of the moral-political economy. Informal, normative
institutions that are outside the domain of civil society are as much a part of
it. And that is precisely why I think it is important to place the violence
inflicted by institutions like Khap Panchayats in the same discursive
framework. The “honour killings” perpetrated by the Khap Panchayats, especially
in the state of Haryana, while not directly concerned with rape (I would keep
the rapes of Dalit women by high caste men separately), functions on a similar ideology
of punishing transgression. While many object to the term “honour killing”, I
retain it precisely because it articulates the doublespeak of legitimacy: the very
act of transgressing the normative patriarchal lines of caste, and caste
endogamy, dehumanises the victims, to the extent of family members brutally murdering
them. Thus, in the brutal landscape of gendered violence, the legitimation of
violence and death echoes the sentiments of the legal (and ironically backed by
our structures of governments) death penalty – that it is meant to set a
precedence; in both cases, the “collective will” is invoked, defended and
preached. Death sentence becomes the necessary evil. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Thus, the
Janus-faced nature of the moral-political economy certainly is not limited to
the (legitimated) violence enacted on the bodies of male perpetrators by the
masculine state; it includes the bodies of all those who dare transgress the
notion of legality and normativity (for instance, of caste endogamy). The
problem of the masculine, thus, is central to the understanding of the
patriarchal moral-political economy, for which we must take recourse to
understanding the problematic of masculinity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Hegemonic masculinity, masculinist protection &
gendered violence</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The intersection of gender, space, social and
economic capital, and violence articulate a network of hegemony, that is best
articulated by the notion of</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Hegemonic%20masculinity"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> hegemonic
masculinity</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">, and by its
extension, the logic of masculinist protection. The definition of the concept
of hegemonic masculinity offered by R.W. Connell is:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">“The ability to impose a particular definition on
other kinds of masculinity… [it is] rather, a question of how particular groups
of men inhabit positions of power and wealth, and how they legitimate and
reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Connell also states that there is a necessity to
recognise the complex interplay of between gender, race and class. ‘Hegemonic
masculinity’, thus, “is not a fixed character type…it is rather the masculinity
that occupies the hegemonic position in a given pattern of gender relations, a
position always contestable.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The merit of this
concept is in the formulation of a theoretical framework that states that <i>the
relationships within genders are centred on, and can be explained by, the
relationships between genders</i>. The idea of hegemonic masculinity, when
looked at from the wider perspective of the patriarchal moral-political economy,
allows us to see the multiple, intersecting (and problematic) lines of justice
and injustice in the terrain of rape and sexual violence against women in
India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The power entailed in hegemonic masculinity, then,
allows rapists to display both, a sense of impunity – that they destroy the
personhood of the victim, robbing them of agency, and thus, of dissent, too;
and, a sense of entitlement – that by the virtue of them being men, they can
lay claim to the bodies of those the weaker sex (but not always, female). These
two ideas are inextricably linked in patriarchal moral-political economies. The
death penalty, in this case, is an extension of that logic of punishment. The
punishment given to the accused (in the Delhi gang rape-murder, and the Shakti
Mills gang rape), then, can be seen as one for them transgressing their spaces,
and perhaps, less for the crimes they committed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The revelations
about the </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/355141/039gang-raped-same-men-shakti.html"><span style="color: blue; letter-spacing: 0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-IN; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">prior
rapes committed by the perpetrators in the Shakti Mills compound</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">, too, speak volumes about how the moral-political
economy operates. The photojournalist was not the first one assaulted there.
The other victims – a rag picker, a sex-worker and a transgender – were raped
there before. But their complaints were not registered by the police; in fact,
some of them were insulted by cops. The same can be said about the countless
rapes of Dalit women in Haryana, or women like Manorama, who were raped by the
Armed Forces. It is because, in the moral-political economy, the bodies of its
victims do not warrant protection from (and against) the state and other
normative institutions of governance; because they are, in a tragic case of
irony – like the accused in urban India – not seen as citizens, let alone
“India’s daughters”; the violence against their bodies – irrespective of who
inflicts it – is erased, and they exist only as that: bodies that lack agency,
or autonomy (although their struggles are very real, political, and at times,
ameliorative). Their erasure from the discourse of the moral-political economy
allows them to exist as epitaphs, for polemics such as the one I write; they
exist as motifs, which we use to criticise the state, patriarchy, and so forth;
nothing more and, unfortunately, nothing less.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">At the same time,
rape engenders the very same patriarchal moral-political economy’s attempts to
crush dissent, and manufacture legitimacy for, and from, it. People who very
rightly raise the question of justice in the numerous rape cases by the Indian
armed forces in the North East, legitimated by the Armed Forces Special Powers
Act (AFSPA), miss out the insidious operation of the ideology of rape (and its
punishment): the difference that is drawn between rape-as-punishable-by-death,
and rape-as-punishment. This contradiction is at the heart of the Janus-faced
nature of patriarchal moral-political economies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Acknowledgments:
</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">There are a number of people I would like to thank,
who in many ways helped me build and defend the arguments I present in this post.
First of all, a big thanks to Vaishali J, Ketaki Haté, Malathi Jogi, and Vivien
D’costa, for their suggestions and comments on the older draft; to Nolina Minj,
for her constant support, encouragement, motivation and love. And, to Shubhra
Rishi, for the sustained discussions that have now spanned months.</span></i></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-41063514914747363182013-06-10T20:24:00.002+05:302013-08-31T09:49:51.567+05:30On censorship, surveillance and dystopia<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">Cynics often take stances that are dark, pessimistic and leave little room for
what sociologically could be called an ‘agency’-based approach. Censorship is
one such area. Invocations of Orwell’s </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">1984</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">, Huxley’s </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">Brave
New World</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">,</span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"> </i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">conspiracy theories, surveillance societies, are
inevitable and unavoidable. Reality, however, to disappoint many, is far more
complex and nuanced than ‘governments-out-to-get-us’. But then again,
governments </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">are getting us</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">—artists, journalists, or activists, who
express dissenting opinions, or upset the status-quo; people who question
governments and regimes—both, dictatorships and democracies. The media and
culture industries are stronger and more insidious than ever: not only are they
manufacturing consent, they also manufacture conscience, often from a moral
high-ground. Conversely, there’s also a new wave of media that destabilises
these assumptions, with credible and commendable critiques. The picture, to put
it in simpler words, is horribly complicated. And because </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 32px; text-align: justify;">we’re very used to a debate configured in binaries, </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">his often disappoints cynics and
their critics.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Last Thursday night, I
had the opportunity to attend a panel discussion on <a href="http://asiasociety.org/india/events/censorship-society" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">'Censorship and Society', organised by Asia Society India
and OPEN magazine</span></a>. The panel, moderated by Supreme Court advocate,
Madhavi Goradia Divan, consisted of brilliant speakers, like Mahesh Murthy,
Neville Taraporewalla and Anjum Rajabali. Thus, their expertise ranged from
media laws, new and social media, scriptwriting, and cinema. The arguments,
therefore, covered a diverse range of topics, many of them discussing the
nuances of the right to free speech, freedom of expression, and the right to
information, and, of course, the media.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">However, this post
is not a report of last night’s debate; although, many of the arguments from it
shall be the foci of my analyses of censorship, it shall not be limited to the
same. In the following segments, I will review some of the pertinent points
from last night, and proffer analyses of points which the panel missed out, or
did not engage with adequately. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">I</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In India, in the past year or more, we have seen an
insidious culture of censorship and surveillance. Last year alone, several
cases have highlighted this:<a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/outrage-over-professor-s-arrest-for-posting-anti-mamata-cartoons-197127" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"> a Jadhavpur University professor
was arrested for circulating a satirical cartoon on Mamata Banerjee</span></a>;
<a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/outrage-over-cartoonist-aseem-trivedi-s-arrest-on-sedition-charges-for-mocking-the-constitution-265085" target="_blank">Aseem Trivedi, an activist-cartoonist with India Against Corruption, was charged with sedition for “disrespecting” the national emblem and Parliament;</a> in November, <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/two-women-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-mumbai-shutdown-granted-bail-294239" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">two young women from Palghar were
arrested for criticising the virtual shutdown of thecity following Shiv Sena
leader Bal Thackeray’s high profile funeral</span></a>. At the heart of these
cases was the infamous <a href="http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/govt-modifies-sec-66-of-it-act-facebook-comment-actions/1/190257.html" target="_blank">Information Technology Act (2008), and the equally infamous Section 66 A</a>—which according to Divan, is “grossly disproportionate”.
The “phenomenal diversity” of the media and the internet, she said, presents a
paradox: it is both a liberating medium and an inhibiting one. According to
Neville Taraporewalla, while the new hyper-media in India is “extremely
volatile”, we still are “a pretty free country”. The need to adapt to these new
environments, he felt, is still very important. Mahesh Murthy </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 200%;">said that, with the IT Act and liability act, the government has potential deniability as individuals can now decide what is offensive and may issue takedown notices for the same. </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 200%;">In most cases, the question is largely about power and political clout, rather than hurting the sentiments of people.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 200%;"> Earlier this year, Murthy </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/maheshmurthy/posts/10151512123087138" style="font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;" target="_blank">was charged with defamation along
others, by IIPM head Arindam Chaudhury, for posting critical opinions against
the institute</a>.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Anjum Rajabali, who
wrote the scripts for movies like <i>Aarakshan</i>, <i>Rajneeti</i>,
and the critically acclaimed <i>The Legend of Bhagat Singh</i>, suggested
that we be more passionate about our liberties and expression. He cited the
cases where films in India have been banned, or censored often under the threat
of violence made by fringe groups. In many cases, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/vishwaroopam-ban/article4365924.ece" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">like Kamal Hasan’s <i>Vishwaroopam</i></span></a>,
films are banned even when passed by the CBFC. He said that the film community
is a fairly strong and powerful group; but producers, instead of challenging
these calls for bans and censorships, immediately buckle. The government
defending the peoples’ liberties, he said, is a pipe dream</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Censorship, then, covers a myriad range of issues
and concerns, and it’s nearly impossible to give justice to—or even list
out—all of them. From the panel’s discussion, however, it seemed clear that
Murthy and, to a lesser extent, Taraporewalla, were of the notion that we don’t
need censorship. Murthy’s arguments included the idea that more repression
would lead to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Streisand Effect</span></a>. We,
according to Murthy—and this included politicians, public, fringe groups,
etc.—need to “develop thicker skins”; that we “need to protect ourselves from
offense”, and not expect the state to do so. Murthy, in my opinion, explained
instances of censorship as aberrations: how imbalanced and immature society, and the political class is, to react to criticisms (to his credit, he also said that no
society is ever mature). However, this is problematic on two accounts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Firstly, the media is
deeply political; access to media, and the access to representation itself is
imbalanced, warped and contingent (this was made clear by Rajabali’s response
to Murthy). So, to suggest that Muslims should not take offense at drawings of
the Prophet ignores the complex geopolitical configurations in which debates on
Islam are embedded and embroiled in. It is, also, a hegemonic system: Muslims
may not have equal access to representation without reductionist debates
defining what Islam is and how violent it is (see, as an example, <a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/573-islam-is-a-religion-of-peace" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">the Intelligence Squared debate ‘Islam
is a Religion of Peace’</span></a>, especially Maajid Nawaz’s interventions).
One need only look at ground breaking studies on media and culture industries,
like Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s <i><a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Culture Industry</span></a> </i>or
Noam Chomsky’s <i><a href="http://books.google.co.in/books/about/Media_Control.html?id=IQR3X9KwR44C&redir_esc=y" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Media Control</span></a></i>, <i><a href="http://books.google.co.in/books/about/Necessary_Illusions.html?id=VT3NFACu8IsC&redir_esc=y" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Necessary Illusions</span></a> </i>and <a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Kv_-bvCqgrEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=manufacturing+consent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JhKqUbS1NcuikgXL4oCYAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=manufacturing%20consent&f=false" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Manufacturing Consent</i> (co-authored by
Edward Herman)</span></a>, for an understanding of how imbalanced, misplaced
and biased media representation can be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Secondly, with the
advent of the new media, conventional media has come under intense scrutiny. As
Murthy pointed out, the new media (which, he claims is us) has outmoded the
conventional media; far more Indians now rely on the web for information
dissemination, and access to it; express their opinions on it, and so forth.
Thus, any critique of media in the 21<sup>st</sup> century <i>has to
be a discursive critique</i>, not an objective one. With the sheer complexity
of the media, this task has become difficult, if not entirely impossible. And
formulating a critique of this shall be my concern in the proceeding
paragraphs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">II</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">According to the <a href="http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia.htm#in" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Internet World Stats,as of June 30, 2012, there are around
137 million internet users in India, which is 11.4% penetration</span></a>. And
it is only a specific demographic group that has access to the internet, and
thus, avenues for representation. Critics of the social media often point this
out, but my concern here is with the quality of user generated content. Of
course, with limited resources, I can hardly construct trends. But this does
not change the fact that there is a <i>lot </i>of hatred, anti-Muslim
and anti-Dalit sentiments, misogyny out there on the web.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">For instance, the
recent phenomenon of ‘Internet Hindus’, and steady rise in Hindutva, is a case
in point, <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282904" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">brilliantly highlighted by Ramachandra
Guha in his book <i>Patriots and Partisans</i></span></a>. Misogyny is
another worrisome trend. Two particular cases come to mind. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-22378366" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">A report on BBC Hindi revealed how journalist and CNN-IBN
news anchor, Sagarika Ghose and women’s activists, Kavita Krishnan and Meena
Kandaswamy were victims of sexist and misogynistic attacks online</span></a>.
Ghose, who was abused on Twitter by right wing nationalists, was called a “high
class prostitute”; Krishnan was speaking at a Rediff.com online discussion when
someone with the handle @RAPIST posted abusive comments, and asked where he
could “rape her using a condom”. Despite the harassment, the chat was not moderated
and the handle was not blocked by the site administrators. An apology was later
issued to Krishnan (I urge you to read Anja Kovacs' post on <a href="http://kafila.org/2013/05/02/rediff-and-rape-threats-what-rediff-could-have-done-to-support-kavita-krishnan-target-of-online-abuse-anja-kovacs/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">what Rediff could have done to support
Kavita Krishnan against rape threats</span></a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">A plea for more
censorship in these cases is very problematic, and often unfeasible. For one,
what would constitute censorship here: the fact that members of the public are
trying to censure women? Or that we, the more liberal, secular voices, want
more regulation? Both these questions only deal with the symptoms: the latter
is difficult because most abusers use anonymous profiles or handles, which are
notoriously difficult to track. Moreover, the fact that the police and law
enforcement agencies simply do not care exacerbates things. Tragically, this
leads to public intellectuals and journalists, like Ghose and Krishnan, to
self-censor. It is unacceptable that any self-respecting activist or writer,
irrespective of their gender and political leanings, ignore such slander and
threats, or “have thick skins”, as Murthy suggested.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The deeper problem
here is that there is no discipline in using the new media and the internet.
While we may celebrate anonymity and anarchy on the web, every time a group
like Anonymous or Op India hacks a government webpage (merely a cosmetic
exercise in my view), there is no deeper or meaningful engagement with the
politics of the internet. Most comments on websites like CNN IBN, or NDTV, or<i> Hindustan
Times</i> are trolls, often lampooning the “sickular” nature of writers
and journalists. If, as Murthy put it, the internet is a mirror to society, then
we are, largely, a very awful society, no?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">III</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The semantics of censorship, then, can configure
our debates and discussion in limited ways. Not that this was a major flaw in
the panel; it would be ridiculous to assume that. But it is also equally important that
we pay attention to the theme of surveillance. Hugely popular in sociological
and cultural studies literature, the theme of surveillance and policing gained
prominence with the influential works of Michel Foucault, <a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/disciplinepunish/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">mainly his book, <i>Discipline and Punish</i></span></a>.
The radical notion proposed by Foucault was using Jeremy Bentham’s ‘<a href="http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/disciplinepunish/section7.rhtml" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">panopticon</span></a>’ as a metaphor
for the policing everyone engages in. Thus, peoples’ sexualities, their health,
opinions, and other facets come to be policed by soft institutions, like the
market, the health and medical industries. It is important to note that
Foucault was wary of configuring panopticism and surveillance in rigid
binaries; power, for him, is fluid, and exists in micro spaces and
“capillaries”, and wherever there is power, there is also resistance to it.
Thus, he recommends that we “cut off the head of the king”; that is, look at
power configurations as more fluid and complex, rather than emanating from one
particular source, like the government or oligarchies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Following Foucault,
surveillance, then, has a lot of ramifications for debates on censorship: one,
there is both abject apathy and brutal repression on the part of the state in
defining what dissent or offense is, which influences its response: thus, the
women at Palghar were arrested promptly, but women who file complaints receive
no action altogether. To put it in simple words: ‘society’ should be as much
the subject of interrogation, as ‘censorship’ is.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">In an earlier <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/09/a-governance-of-paranoia.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">post</span></a>, I had argued that the
arrests of Aseem Trivedi and the Jadhavpur University professor, and the
government’s crackdown on the protesters in India Gate after the brutal
gang-rape and murder incident, are the result of (what I called) a ‘governance
of paranoia’. That is, politicians’ and the political class’ fear of dissent is
fuelled by the fact that political leadership in the country has become
fragile, tenuous, and must reassert, <a href="http://www.lacan.com/zizdesolationroad.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">to use philosopher Slavoj Žižek’s terms, “that the emperor
is clothed”</span></a>. In simpler words, the information society we are living
in is more opaque than transparent; information is more readily accessible than
its credentials. This makes slander a great political tool. Unfortunately, the
real victims of slander—Ghose, Krishnan and the millions of other women—are
conspicuously left out.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">The debate, thus,
must focus on not if we need more or less censorship and regulation, but
critically examine the dynamics of the same. That is, we must
constantly be wary of censorship/surveillance of freedom of expression, <i>and</i> of
censorship/surveillance <i>of our access to information</i>. It is in the latter that
we are often failing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Education and
pedagogy are areas where censorship is most operational. One reason for this,
perhaps, is because the link between pedagogy and propaganda is most direct: we
saw this in Nazi Germany. <a href="http://capiconf.uvic.ca/rst.php?id=69&op=show_meta&cf=5" target="_blank">China is experimenting on this presently</a>; even in
India, the teaching (and writing) of history often reasserts moral values
rather than a critical interrogation of the same. But who is it that decides
what students should study and what they should not? More importantly, on what
grounds are these decisions made? This question: of censorship in education,
was the one I posed to the panel. Unfortunately, their response was less than
adequate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">There are three
particular instances I had in mind while framing my question: one, the Yuva
Sena-led protests following which the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/mumbai-university-removes-mistry-book" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University
deleted Rohinton Mistry’s <i>Such a Long Journey</i> from the English
Literature curriculum</span></a>; two, Mamata Banerjee’s move to <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mamata-to-ban-marx-engels-from-history-syllabus-/933496/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">delete references to Karl Marx from
the state board texts</span></a>, and <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/mamata-banerjee-bans-english-dailies-west-bengal-libraries/1/179833.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">banning English language dailies from
libraries in West Bengal</span></a>; third, a more general point, that is,
assault against scholars for “offending sentiments” rather than the nature or
credibility of their work. The examples of the <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-31/news/31266502_1_visa-historian-cancellation" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">GoI denying historian Peter Heehs'
visa renewal</span></a>, and the <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2004-01-09/pune/28334133_1_bori-sambhaji-brigade-shrimant-kokate" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Sambhaji Brigade’s ransacking of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute</span></a> also come to mind. Of
course, I concede that I only mentioned the first example, which informed the
responses of the panellists.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Nevertheless,
Neville Taraporewalla’s reply, where he said we need to agitate more, and,
curiously, that we have failed the Anna Hazare movement, was completely beside
the point. (In my opinion, the Anna Hazare movement failed itself; as did Anjum
Rajabali, if I remember correctly. Do read this <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2011/08/theres-lot-being-said-and-done-in-india.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">post </span></a>I wrote during
the peak of the movement). Madhavi Divan’s response was more articulate, when
she said that we need to speak up against such street censorship. However,
Mamata Banerjee’s ban on Marx and the newspapers was not street censorship; it was one initiated
by the political executive. So was the <a href="http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=246355" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">detoxifying of syllabi by Arjun Singh in 2004</span></a>.
And, if you bear with me, so is the Delhi University’s ambitious plan of the
four year undergraduate programme (FYUP)—and I say so because not only does
this overburden students with less-than-required courses, but because the poor
quality of the same would fail to instill any sense of criticality in
them (<span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://kafila.org/2013/05/22/in-search-of-a-liberal-education/" target="_blank">see Gautham Bhan's excellent review of
the FYUP</a> on Kafila</span>). <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">IV</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">As with most discussions I’ve had the fortune of
attending, this one, too was enlightening. Certainly, there were several
perspectives I came across, many of which I wasn’t aware of, or never
considered. At the same time, I was also fortunate enough to find an engaging
forum to express and apply ideas I already had.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">On a more personal
note, censorship is something about which I have very strong sentiments: not
because, as someone aspiring to be in the expressing-ideas vocation, I wish to
ensure that the creeping political influence is kept in check. But, because by denying access to newer ideas, and spaces for debate and discussion, I believe that
we’re inching closer to a kind of dystopia—or, <a href="http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/102/fukuyama.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">as Francis Fukuyama would have it, a tale of “two dystopia”</span></a>—where our
opinions and ideas would either lead to persecution, or self-censorship, both
of which are unacceptable to me. For, as I mentioned earlier, it’s not only the
censorship of opinion/expression that we must be worried about, but also that
of our access to informed, free, and credible opinions and ideas. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.05pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm -14.3pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">Notes & </span></i></b><i style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><b>Acknowledgements</b></span></i><b style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">: </span></i></b><i style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">For the comments made by the panelists, I have, to
the best of my abilities, provided quotes, and summaries of the general gist of
the discussions. And I take full responsibility of any misquotes, and am more
than willing to change them, if credible corrections are pointed out. My
arguments, of course, are my own, and I believe I have done enough to specify
the same. </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm -14.3pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">There are several ideas, some covered by the panel and some not, that I
have missed out entirely; for instance, Wikileaks, the on-going trial of
Bradley Manning, or the United States government’s incessant surveillance of
journalists, and even the debate on copy-right infringement and intellectual
property rights (<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/03/2013317104829368899.html" target="_blank">like the Delhi University photocopying case</a>). These examples clearly can, and need to, be addressed by any
discussion on censorship. </span></i><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm -14.3pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<i style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt; line-height: 200%;">I am thankful to Nolina Minj, Malathi Jogi, Natasha Patel and Alex Thomas for their reviews of this essay. Unfortunately, due to certain logistical constraints, I haven't been able to make the all changes they recommended. I shall do my best to do so in the next blog update.</span></i></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-91391517775393592472013-01-09T17:54:00.000+05:302013-12-11T17:31:37.059+05:30A Culture of Violence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Let's
face it: are we really <i>that</i> surprised with the shameless
levels of misogyny on display on our TV screens, and on our Twitter and
Facebook feeds? I mean, we <i>know</i> it's that bad, and probably,
this just scratches the surface (<a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/rape-sexual-assault-fresh-s-politicians-said/313794-3-244.html">a <i>very</i> large
surface, as this post by CNN-IBN illustrates</a>). Of course, what's happening
is that the polemic against politicians and the political class in general is
strengthening, and so is the sense of repugnance against the same – which has
already quite mature in India in the course of the last few years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">After
Abhijit Mukherjee's statement on “dented-painted women”, it was the RSS Chief,
Mohan Bhagwat's turn, whose statement – that “rapes don’t occur in Bharat, they
happen in India” – is at the focus of outrage by the liberal media (<a href="http://tehelka.com/ashis-nandy-says-bhagwat-is-right/">A claim which, not
very surprisingly, has merit according to sociologist Ashish Nandy, who
sees a connection between modernisation, globalisation and violence against
women</a>). Now, I’m not comfortable arguing in the realm of
mythology; <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/07/i-was-filled-with-disgust-when-iheard.html">I've</a><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/07/i-was-filled-with-disgust-when-iheard.html"> argued
elsewhere that doing so deflects, and obfuscates the question and the nature of
real violence faced by women</a>. Not only is the recourse to mythology
pointless, arguing on the same place with idiots like Bhagwat, or Asaram Bapu
(who claimed that <a href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/asaram-joins-girls-are-responsible-for-rape-bandwagon-stirs-a-row/314437-3.html">the
girl “was at fault” as she“did not plead sufficiently” to the rapists or call
them “brothers”, for them to stop</a>), or Ramdev (um, do I need to cite
anything?), is ultimately futile because a reasoned argument cannot displace
their obscurantist logic. I would recommend that you read <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/SagarikaGhose/Time-to-make-a-choice/Article1-986871.aspx">Sagarika
Ghosh's column on the struggle between modernity and such obscurantism in
today's edition of Hindustan Times</a>; it articulates this argument far
better than the scope of this post.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In
my opinion, the RSS (and its lackeys, like the VHP) are among the most
regressive, violent, and at the same time, robustly organised ideological
instruments in the country today. And so are institutions like Jamaat-e Islami
Hind, or Asaram Bapu’s spiritual-commercial enterprise. While, on the one hand,
religion <i>per se </i>really has nothing to do with things, insofar
as we look at it in the realm of the secular, democratic nation-state; on the
other, it is difficult to overlook the fact that religion <i>is </i>among
the several governance mechanisms that form the ideological basis of the
patriarchal nation-state and moral-economy (<a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/12/they-dont-really-care-about-us.html">I’ve
briefly elaborated what I mean by governance in an earlier post</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Women
in such conditions are organised in a descending order, based on their supposed
“virtues”. At one point, it seems inevitable that these patriarchal ideologues
would make such absurd, but politically virulent statements; because such
institutionalised and ideological misogyny are required to establish the domain
of control in the patriarchal moral-economy. This is not to suggest that men
and masculinities are not policed; of course they are. But the paradox is: the
misogynist then becomes the embodiment of the hegemon; the basis of defining
masculinities (or <i>a</i> masculinity, in particular) is hinged on,
and operationalized in, the acts of violence against women. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">While
this polemic against the political class is a step in the right direction, and
is entirely justified, what it does, I believe, is limits our interrogation of
misogyny, patriarchy, sexism and violence – forms of oppression which happen to
be far more pervasive, virulent and often, invisible to the public discourse(s)
or anti-political polemics. This is the misogyny of the everyday life; a
culture of violence, real, symbolic and otherwise, which women from across
classes, castes, and spaces face. A kind of violence practically <i>everyone </i>engages
in, including, I suspect, some of the polemicists. Now, as tempting as it is, I
wouldn’t go as far as calling this hypocrisy. ‘Hypocrisy’ would mean double
standards, and at least an element of volition. Sure, a lot of
politicians are hypocrites (a professional requirement these days, in my
opinion), but the kind of double-sidedness I’m talking about is incredibly
nuanced, invisible and pathological (and, most importantly, not seen in
dichotomies); it is embedded in our language, it informs our responses, colours
our perspectives. Political misogyny is, to use a cliché, only the tip of the
iceberg.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://kafila.org/2013/01/08/male-students-female-teachers-and-patriarchy-in-the-classroom-snehlata-gupta/#comment-39486">Snehalata
Gupta, writing for Kafila, puts forth a pertinent and critical perspective in
her discussion on patriarchy in the classroom</a>. Gupta, who is a teacher at a
co-ed in Delhi, recounts an incident when one of her 'difficult' male students,
all of 16 or 17 years, suggested that she wear a dupatta in class. Her not
doing so, explained the boy, “embarrassed” him and his male classmates –
something she termed a "blatant show of patriarchal arrogance". The
incident, in my opinion, is ubiquitous and far more common than just this
one post. There are certain elements that I'd like to borrow from Gupta's
reflexive post in an attempt to understand what I mean by the pervasiveness of
patriarchy: namely, the male gaze, peer group socialisation and the
operationalization of patriarchy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The
‘male gaze’ is an overused term in sociological lexicon, but in popular
discourse, it is very rarely understood. Not only does the gaze have a policing
or a predatory function (the Foucauldian surveillance), it is also an
articulation of the misogyny I was harping on about. The term ‘objectifying
women’, as overused as it is in our references to Bollywood and “item numbers”,
is more than just reducing them to objects of sexualised desires (there is a
variety of literature, for instance, that argues for an agentic function in
such objectification; most of the discussions on <i>The Dirty Picture</i>,
for instance, encapsulate this). The gaze then is, as I mentioned before, an
operationalization of misogyny; a brutal way of policing: (a) sexualities, especially
of women (and men) exercising sexual freedom; (b) the process of socialization,
which essentially indoctrinates children into patriarchy, as Snehalata Gupta’s
post so clearly illustrates; and finally, (c) of ensuring that the patriarchal
moral-economy functions through such surveillance mechanisms: the gaze itself
being one, <a href="http://kafila.org/2013/01/04/rss-rapist-suraksha-sangh-rapist-security-society/">and
the more well-known examples are what Shuddhabrata Sengupta has called “eminent
Bharatiya moustachioed misogynists”</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I've seen
such misogyny being operational in the last few years of my schooling.
There wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, any serious or untoward
incident; but what many of us consider trivial, are actually very strong
symptoms of the kind of pervasiveness of misogyny that I am trying to explicate
in this essay. For instance, I recall vividly how the consumption of porn, and
what <i>kind </i>of porn, defined the sort of male you were; girls
were encoded on the basis on their bodies; the classes were segregated almost
with religious zeal (I was in a Catholic school, yes); any casual interaction
with the opposite sex, if not an opportunity to ‘score’ (I use the term despite
its value-laden nature) was, well, looked at as a wasted opportunity. Sure, a
lot of this can be called a part of growing up, or adolescent fantasies –
something many have indulged in, as well. But there is a problem in trivialising
misogyny or rape, especially under the adage of “boys will be boys” or such
codswallop. <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013196593764169.html?utm_content=automate&utm_campaign=Trial6&utm_source=NewSocialFlow&utm_term=plustweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount">Michele
Weldon's article on al-Jazeera, for instance, discusses the way in which
community efforts, the family and cultural shifts can prevent sexual violence,
in the aftermath of the rape of a sixteen year-old girl in Ohio by two local
football stars.</a> What was staggering, she writes, was the way the
perpetrators bragged on about them violently subjugating the girl. In her
analysis, Weldon writes that “no mother wants her son to grow up to be a
rapist, just as no mother wants her daughter to be raped”. However, she
concedes that her naive notion of the family being able to prevent sexual
violence is flawed; a scepticism I share as well, after having met many amiable
parents whose kids were, to put it politely, “difficult”. The production of
misogyny and violence, therefore, is not localized to one site; peer groups,
class stratification, the media, etc. form a network of the patriarchal
moral-economy. Any alternatives focusing on rectifying faults in family and/or
education are problematic because it assumes that there could be
alternative; an alternative that requires the destabilization of the
patriarchal moral-economy, of which socialization and education is but a
microcosm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">That
said, I also have a problem with our excessive emphasis on misogyny, which by
definition is a strong dislike for women. The female object, therefore, is the
central focus of misogynistic discourses, and of those trying to interrogate
it. However, the fact that many, including myself to an extent, have taken for
granted is the gender dichotomy implicit our critiques. Many have argued that
there is a continuum of gendered violence of which gays, lesbians, transgender
people are as much victims as are women (again, a fissured category). This is
something the polemicists have ignored completely; except perhaps, the token
Gay Pride marches. ‘Misogyny’, then, is a limiting term insofar as we assume
there is a stable category of a biological female. Violence against women is
very, very real; but so is the violence against people labelled as ‘sexual
minorities’. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_performativity">Following
Judith Butler’s highly influential idea of gender performativity</a>, it is
possible to argue that violence is indeed located in a gendered continuum; a
network of power relations among social groups, relations of dominance and
subversion. But this happens to be a domain that is entirely absent in our
public discourses and polemics; sure, there has been a lot of discussion on homosexuality
after the decriminalization of Section 377 in 2009, or in the collective
efforts of many civil society organisations fighting for equal rights of gays,
lesbians and transgender people. But these discussions are seldom articulated in the space marked off as ‘violence against women’, or ‘justice for rape
victims’.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Women aren't the
only victims of patriarchal violence; the culture of violence is virulent, and
operates on many different terrains; victimizes many different people; and
thus, as a public, already galvanised, I feel it is imperative that we adopt a
stance that does not exclude other marginal voices. However, our failure and,
I’m afraid, our reluctance, to have done so reflects a deeper problem; a
problem of the culture of violence; a problem that we must identify and
address. Any interrogation of this culture of violence, of this
institutionalised misogyny, of the patriarchal moral-economy, requires a
sustained engagement with these problems, and our first step in this direction
is to acknowledge that the problem runs far, far deeper than just politicians,
and right-wing, fundamentalist outfits.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Acknowledgements: </span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">First
of all, to Natasha Patel, for patiently reading this, as well as many other
drafts in the past, for humouring me and never faltering on feedback; to
Tasneem Kakal, for her pertinent comments (some of them on my bad grammar); and
to Shubhra Rishi, who I cannot seem to thank enough.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-74844441450702529812012-12-31T21:17:00.000+05:302012-12-31T21:19:43.347+05:30A plea for positive cynicism. Oh, and a happy new year, too.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I spent the last 45
minutes looking for a 1.5 liter bottle of Coke. Shops around here, for some
reason, are loyal to Thums Up. Of course, to the average Badlapur resident, it
doesn't quite make a difference; especially tonight, as many people aren't that
pedantic about which soft drink they're going to mix their alcohol with – Thums
Up is the preferred one, I hear. No wonder.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Nevertheless,
my frantic, and not to mention pedantic, attempts led to one tiny shop which
did sell Coke. In Twitter lexicon, this warrants the hash-tag
#firstworldproblems. And now, as I stare at the half-empty glass, waiting for
some relatives to pop over, I'm contemplating the past year. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">It's
been a tradition of sorts, for me, to write a cynical rant every New Year’s eve
for the last two years. The first time, I was alone at home, with no alcohol;
the year after, I had a little too much alcohol in me, and a lot of repugnance.
This time, right now, I mean, I'm sober. Very disillusioned, and undergoing
what may, in the jargon of social sciences, be termed as an epistemological
crisis. While the rest of the country's either preparing for a New year's party
(except the Indian Army. Such honourable fuckers, these guys are, I tell you)
or kicking up a big fuss about Honey Singh's party in some hotel in Gurgaon
that I can't remember. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">You guessed it right,
this post is about the larger issue that has gripped the nation for the
last few weeks, at least: the question of violence against women – a quilted discourse,
pinned by the brutal gang-rape and murder of a 23-year old physiotherapy
student in Delhi. I was angry when I read about it, when I read about the sheer
brutality of the incident, and a host of other such incidents; I’m still angry,
frustrated even – which is one of the reasons why I haven’t been able to be my
usual cynical self in dismissing the protests in the aftermath; protests that
were met with an equal brutality meted out the Indian state, especially the
Delhi police. 2011 had seen protests too, led by the messianic figure of Anna
Hazare (who has, predictably, demanded death penalty for the rapists); heck,
there were cosmetic protests even in Bombay itself, just after the incident.
But when I saw people, who are very well my peers, in the tear gas-infested streets,
wet and beaten, I realised, like Sam Gamgee in <i>The Two Towers</i>, that there is good worth fighting for. Sure, I
disagree with the calls for castration and death penalties – these demands are
fascist; but so was the way in which their voices were brutally crushed by the
state. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Of
course, I’ve said the very same things before, and I wouldn’t want to bother
you with any more of it. But there’s one thing that has been rather
over-powering, something which is bothering me for quite some time now; the
cause, if you will, of my current epistemological crisis. My “presumed superior
knowledge and intelligence”, as someone succinctly pointed out, has failed me.
Another implied that I was “intellectually bankrupt”. Of course, I’m not taking
these claims seriously; I have that much faith in my training. But truth
remains, despite my intelligence, and my impressive bibliography (or so I like
to think), I feel utterly disillusioned; any intelligible comment (again, or so
I like to think) gets drowned in the din and clamour of popular discourse. Of
course, it’s a different thing that I, following the prolific and verbose Justice
Katju, consider most people to be idiots (unlike him, I’m sceptical of
numbers). Truth is, there is no intelligence in public discourse today: we’ve
got a media that manufactures conscience; a political class rooted in anti ideology,
hypocrisy, apathy; a public that is very good at making emphatic calls; and, of
course, Arnab Goswami, without whom, verily, our nation is doomed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">We’ve
witnessed a culture that displayed a morbid fascination with death – the vast (and
shameless, if you ask me) outpouring of eulogies after Thackeray’s death (I
mean, did you see/hear Arnab Goswami weep during Bal Thackeray’s funeral?), and
the celebration, literally so, after Kasab’s hanging. In other news, the fourth
anniversary of 26/11 was a dull affair; this time, surprisingly, they hadn’t barricaded
the memorial at VT (Kasab was hung days after this, actually). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">So,
where am I going with this? Yes, I’m bitter, repugnant and cynical (and,
surprisingly, sober). Maybe, people commenting on my presumed intelligence and
intellectual bankruptcy are right. I have a friend who, of late, has been
bothered by the fact that I don’t have any clear political leanings. “You’re
not a capitalist, nor a socialist; neither are you right-wing, nor an atheist.
What…are you?” My answer usually involves complex sociological jargon which,
actually, doesn’t quite amount to anything substantial. But tonight, I think I
may have an answer for him. I am a positive cynic. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Partly,
because one of my friends on Twitter commented that no one else he knows really
lived up to their Twitter handle (something I found incredibly flattering;
thanks, Bob!). But mostly because positive cynicism, as an intellectual space,
really sums up my epistemological leanings: which is, well, disillusionment (that
also happens to be my current existential profile). By positive cynicism, I
mean a condition wherein I avoid both the naivety and radicalisation of political
views. Sure, I punch holes in people’s arguments, and alternatives, more so;
but that is an important job; a mission to civilize, as Will McAvoy of HBO’s <i>The Newsroom</i> put it. I’m not backing
away from taking political stances, either, mind you. If I think castrations
are not the answer, I believe I have sufficiently defended that stance. I’m not
in the vocation of giving solutions, either. My training in anthropology doesn’t
quite allow for that so easily. But I may be able to tell you where an
intervention would fail, and where it might succeed. You see, that’s the
brilliance of anthropology. That it’s rooted in a deeper problem, a constant
epistemological crisis; that it blends scepticism, analytical rigour,
scientific method, abstraction – all disparate elements, if you observe from
afar – so brilliantly. Yes, I’m disillusioned by the narrow confines of
traditional academia; but that’s changing now; the sociological imagination has
become more diverse, more analytical, more empirical. And that is something I
am looking to be a part of. That is where I see positive cynicism heading. A
critical sphere, akin to the Frankfurt School’s endeavours (apologies for the
umpteen references). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Ah,
well, I’ve said too much. And I’ve realised that this post isn’t nearly half as
repugnant and bitter as the previous two New Year’s eve ones. The relatives are
about to arrive soon and I’m on my second glass of Coke now. I think I need
something stronger. Alcohol does wonders for disillusionments, I’ve discovered.
Let’s see if it has the same effect on epistemological crises. The world didn’t
end, and we’re going to have to make do with this one. Oh, and before I forget,
happy New Year, and have a brilliant 2013 (#sarcasmintended).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-13818839638527268082012-12-25T11:01:00.000+05:302013-01-23T00:45:15.217+05:30"They don't really care about us."<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b>Note: </b>This post is a follow-up to an earlier post </i>(<a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/12/so-fucking-disappointing-i-tell-you.html" target="_blank">click here</a>)<i>, wherein I've made certain preliminary arguments on the Delhi gang-rape & murder incident. </i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">A thought has been bothering me for quite some time
now: I’m not sufficiently anti-establishmentarian enough; that, after a point,
I’d still be willing to invest whatever little bit of faith I have in my
reserves in the machinery of the state, rather than ideologues, demagogues and
the so-called civil society. That illusion has shattered.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">It’s been about a week since I have been angry and
outraged at <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Delhi-gang-rape-victim-battles-for-life-bus-driver-arrested/Article1-974158.aspx"><span style="color: blue;">the brutal gang-rape of a 23 year-old physiotherapist in
Delhi, and an equally brutal assault on her friend</span></a>. I’m still angry,
and I want to be. But when I saw cosmetic protests organised at my college just
the other day, or when I heard a clamour for death penalties and castrations on
the social media, or when I saw politicians and celebrities and
god-knows-who-else behave like they’re freaking PhDs in dealing with violence
against women, I was disillusioned. The state, I knew very well, was as
indifferent as hell. And as <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-rape-why-women-will-be-continue-to-be-raped-in-india-part-2-565643.html"><span style="color: blue;">Vivek Kaul so rightly wrote,</span></a> the only reason
why the six perpetrators have been arrested – <a href="http://www.enewsinsight.com/news-updates/all-six-accused-in-delhi-gang-rape-case-nabbed/"><span style="color: blue;">despite the Delhi Police Commissioner’s claims of the blind
case being solved in record time</span></a> – is because the perpetrators
were not some politician’s kids, nor were they associated with any political
outfits; neither were they cops, nor army-men; or anyone on a very long list of
people who will never be held accountable for the crimes they commit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">That’s the first failure. Unfortunately, there have
been several more, far too many for me to articulate in this space.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Three problems</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Three things that have bothered me, more so with
respect to the aftermath of this incident: The first of course is the way in
which the media manufactures conscience and outrage (my incredibly crass
interpretation of <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Chomsky’s “propaganda model”</span></a>; I refuse to call it
the “press” or “journalism” because those values, I believe, are entirely
absent in public discourse). The industrial nature of the news media requires
this manufacturing of conscience; it doesn't care about causes. It
happened with the <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/amboli-murders-ensure-quick-deterrent-punishment-says-cm/872954"><span style="color: blue;">deaths of Keenan and Rueben in Amboli last year</span></a>;
with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Guwahati_molestation_case"><span style="color: blue;">Guwahati assault earlier this year</span></a>; and now, the
Delhi gang-rape incident. I’m not commenting on the good or bad of reporting:
clearly, some channels and papers are providing exceptional coverage of the
incident. But very few manage to break away from this discourse of
manufacturing conscience. However, since I've dealt with this issue
sufficiently, I shall not bother the reader with any more polemics against the
media.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">My second problem is with the ideological response
to the incident, primarily by politically motivated groups – like the BJP, or
the ABVP, or Kejriwal’s Aam Admi Party – they have, all of them, hopped on to
the “dissing-the-government” bandwagon. For them, essentially, this
case isn't any different from the FDI in retail, the 2G spectrum
allocation scam, the coal block allocation scam, or any of the UPA’s other
bluders, for that matter: they are at India Gate to garner political mileage.
This is political posturing at its worse, and its most crass levels. In a
Kafila, post arguing against this political double standard-ness, <a href="http://kafila.org/2012/12/23/to-the-young-women-and-men-of-delhi-thinking-about-rape-in-delhi/"><span style="color: blue;">Shuddhabrata Sengupta</span></a> decimates Sushma
Swaraj’s callous comments on the nature of the crime; Swaraj, who said that
rape is “worse than death”, and the victim was “<i>zinda lash</i>” or a living
corpse, Sengupta argues, is actually “endorsing the patriarchal value system
that produces rape”, and that she and the rapist “are in perfect agreement
about the worth of the life of a rape victim”. <span style="color: blue;"><a href="http://kafila.org/2012/12/23/rape-cultures-in-india-pratiksha-baxi/">In another Kafila article, P</a>ratiksha Baxi</span> argues
that the right-wing politician is “not concerned with how a strident Hindu
nationalism is built on the violated bodies of women”. No one in the BJP (or
anywhere else, for that matter) cared sufficiently about Dalit girls being
raped and set on fire in Haryana; or when women in the North East, like
Manorama, continue to raped, molested and killed by army men and paramilitary
forces; or in the Naxal-affected areas, when policemen are engaged in custodial
rapes; or when politicians and their goons get away with rapes, and get elected
into parliament. Unfortunately, rape is reduced to the violation of the woman’s
honour; as an aberration to the normalcy of things, where ‘normal’ is defined
as a state where women and marginalised groups blindly accept their
exploitation and maintain the status quo.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Third, and finally, I have a problem with the <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/cheat-sheet/protests-against-delhi-gang-rape-turn-violent-at-india-gate-308818"><span style="color: blue;">state’s violent action against the protestors at India Gate</span></a>.
Make no mistake, I’ve never taken warmly to protests, marches, vigils and all
that; there’s a deep sense of scepticism I have towards “well meaning” civil
society action; but a deeper sense of disillusionment at the failure of
governance: <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/09/a-governance-of-paranoia.html"><span style="color: blue;">something </span></a><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/09/a-governance-of-paranoia.html"><span style="color: blue;">I've</span></a><a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/09/a-governance-of-paranoia.html"><span style="color: blue;"> called a governance of paranoia</span></a> –
wherein the political (and powered) class is informed by illogical reactionism,
and not a coherent ideological standpoint. This is not to suggest that the
problem is merely anti ideological. It is the failure on the part of
ideologies, and modes of governance to adapt, to say: “We were wrong”. Because
it is precisely this posturing, this ambivalence in governance, this resistance
to acknowledge the truth that “the emperor <i>has </i>no clothes”, is
what maintains the illusion of power. I concede that this argument is
incredibly complex, but I shall attempt to deal with it further on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Disparate discourses</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">There is a parallel I see in the Delhi police commissioner,
Neeraj Kumar’s, insistence on not acknowledging the fact that the police
screwed up at India gate (and on several occasions in the past), and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/american-idyll-the-nra-an_b_2302629.html"><span style="color: blue;">in the National Rifle Association’s unapologetic stance
(summed up with the ridiculous reasoning: “Guns don't kill people, people do”</span></a>)
in the aftermath of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-shooting_n_2306479.html"><span style="color: blue;">the Sandy Hooks shooting massacre in Connecticut</span></a>,
just over a week ago. These are disparate incidents, separated by thousands of
miles and, on the face of it, have no commonality. Yet, I believe that they are
deeply connected. For one, the brutality of shootings and rapes are borne
directly by marginal groups, in this case, children, students, and women –
groups that require the state’s protection, by any standard of liberal
democracies. Secondly, and unfortunately, both the United States government and
the Indian state have, time and again, <i>refused</i> to acknowledge
the chronic nature of the problems of gun-proliferation and shootouts, and
rapes, respectively; nor have they offered any long term solutions; from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRFsIbyIfbQ"><span style="color: blue;">President
Obama’s teary eyes</span></a> to <a href="http://www.emirates247.com/news/delhi-gang-rape-indian-pm-manmohan-singh-s-theek-hai-gaffe-sets-twitter-on-fire-2012-12-24-1.488541"><span style="color: blue;">Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s incoherent and, ultimately,
inconsequential mumbling</span></a>, the state, in both cases and countries,
has simply sidestepped the issue, proffering only symptomatic solutions and
empty rhetoric. Right-wing ideology and patriarchy are powerful ideologies, no
doubt. However, that fact that a sovereign nation should so consistently fail
to keep both in check is staggering, unless, of course, there is a deeper
problem in the very nature of governance itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">What we've got here, is failure of governance</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Clearly, I’m disillusioned with both major parties
in this struggle: the protestors, and the state. My scepticism of the Delhi
protests is informed by two major ideas: <a href="http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=79"><span style="color: blue;">one,
is the criticisms levelled against civil society by the Slovenian philosopher,
Slavoj Žižek</span></a>; and <a href="http://kafila.org/2012/03/31/politics-political-society-and-the-everyday/"><span style="color: blue;">idea of the “political society” formulated by the subaltern
studies scholar, Partha Chatterjee</span></a>. While Žižek’s criticisms are
founded more on the ideological nature of civil society in his native Slovenia,
Chatterjee, being much closer to home, offers more relevant insights. That the
nation is following the India Gate protests so closely; that many such protests
are being replicated across the country, in Bangalore, in Mumbai, and other
cities, is what Chatterjee calls the domain of the “civil society”. Opposed to
this civil society is the “political society”, i.e., the social groups like
Dalits, de-notified tribes, slum dwellers, who negotiate with governing
agencies, usually bureaucrats, low level civil servants, but people who
exercise considerable power at the micro-level (my apologies to Partha
Chatterjee for reducing his arguments to this dichotomy, but I've done so for
the sake of better comprehension). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">I’ve had the chance to observe such negotiations
first hand on several research projects: where people living in <i>bastis</i> spend
every day without the certainty of work, or that their makeshift houses would
be standing by the time they get home from work. There have been many incidents
of rapes in similar areas across the country, most of them usually go
unreported, or are a column in newspapers which dedicate full pages to
advertisements. Things are worse in states like Orissa, or the North East,
where atrocities are carried out against women like clockwork. The brutal
nature of the crimes against these women, many of whom brave tremendous odds to
fight for justice (<a href="http://kashmirprocess.org/reports/shopian/toc.html"><span style="color: blue;">for instance the International People’s Tribunal on Human
Rights and Justice in Kashmir has done commendable work in the Shopian
murder-rape case</span></a>), does indeed unite them in a discourse of
resistance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Despite of all my cynicism and scepticism, I
empathised with the protesters at Delhi; while I do not endorse their views, I
do share their anger, their frustration, their angst and their fears. From the
ground at Raisina Hill and India Gate, <a href="http://nilanjanaroy.com/2012/12/22/notes-from-raisina-hill/"><span style="color: blue;">Nilanjana Roy</span></a> and <a href="http://kafila.org/2012/12/23/police-violence-and-a-government-in-hiding/"><span style="color: blue;">Aditya Nigam</span></a> wrote that the protestors were
anything but violent in the initial phase, and that they did wish to engage in
dialogue with the administration, before the police started lobbing tear gas,
that is. Why, then, did the administration, in this case, the Delhi police, not
engage in dialogue with the protestors? Why must the Indian state’s response
always oscillate between abject apathy and excessive brutality? I suspect it is
because the very nature of governance, as I mentioned before, is based on
the <i>insistence</i> that the emperor <i>is</i> indeed
clothed – <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/cheat-sheet/delhi-gang-rape-protesters-being-removed-forcibly-at-india-gate-section-144-imposed-308770"><span style="color: blue;">and the Indian state insists on insisting with tear gas,
water cannons, lathi charges and Section 144.</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">I understand I've not been very clear about what I
mean when I say a "patriarchal nation-state" or
"governance". Let me address this ambiguity. First of all, with
respect to the nation-state, many greater minds before mine have argued that
the very nature of the modern nation-state is patriarchal, i.e., it values a
particular class of citizens over others; in the West, it's exemplified by the
WASP - White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male. In India, <a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HWi-S1ZAdOgC&q=undesirable#v=snippet&q=undesirable&f=false"><span style="color: blue;">as the authors of </span></a><a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HWi-S1ZAdOgC&q=undesirable#v=snippet&q=undesirable&f=false"><i><span style="color: blue;">Why Loiter?</span></i><span style="color: blue;"> <i>Women
and Risks on Mumbai Streets</i></span></a><a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HWi-S1ZAdOgC&q=undesirable#v=snippet&q=undesirable&f=false"><span style="color: blue;"> have argued</span></a>, it is the upper caste, upper
class, heterosexual, Hindu men who form the top section of this hierarchy.
Women, Dalits, lower caste men, Muslims (young men, in particular), gays,
lesbians, transgenders, <i>hijras</i>, and a host of other categories
constitute the "undesirable" body, in a descending order of
undesirability. The patriarchal nation-state discriminates against these very
groups, by policing them, by marginalising them. And this is an
anathema to the very idea of modern, sovereign liberal democracies. And by
governance, I mean not just the official mechanism of the state, but, <a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm"><span style="color: blue;">following the French Marxist scholar, Louis Althusser's
"ideological state apparatus", includes the official state mechanism,
the institutions of the family, ideology, religion, media and so forth</span></a>.
In a patriarchal-nation state, these elements, these parties come together to
form a virulent discourse of exclusion and belonging; of policing and punishing
it's members; of fear and false consciousness (<a href="http://www.lacan.com/zizdesolationroad.html"><span style="color: blue;">which, Žižek or
Sloterdjik would argue, is actually the peoples' cynical acceptance of the fact
that they <i>are </i>being fooled</span></a>). Perhaps, there
is a problem in my usage of the term "governance" itself, which
assumes that there can be an <i>ideal </i>mode of governance, that
is, in the liberal democratic sense. The assumption, I am realising now, is
certainly ill-founded, as both Althusser, and the French social theorist,
Michel Foucault (<a href="http://www.thomaslemkeweb.de/engl.%20texte/The%20Birth%20of%20Biopolitics%203.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">particularly his works on governmentality and biopolitics</span></a>)
would agree.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Rape, then, <i>is </i>a political tool
against dissent: it is an articulation of violence, of intolerance, of the
severest insensitivity; of patriarchal governmentality’s recourse to
extrajudicial means to crush any and all levels of transgression, political,
social, or otherwise. Delhi police’s action against the protestors at India
Gate was rape; it was an assault on democracy; it was a step into a fascist
future, right alongside the demands for death penalties and castrations; it was
an act of violence which endangers not just women’s safety and rights in our
country, but that of citizens’ altogether; particularly social groups which do
not have access to media coverage, let alone the posturing of political
parties, or the sympathies of the general Indian public. And the failure to
acknowledge the fact that rape <i>is </i>a problem - that it is <i>not </i>about
sex; <i>nor </i>is it about "men assaulting women", or<i> </i>about
morality; that it <i>is</i> used to further political agenda, to
silence dissent, to obfuscate the nuanced nature of violence, is a muted
justification and a shameless vilification of rape.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">“They don’t really care about us”</span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">The patriarchal nation-state, the elite civil
society and misogynistic political ideologies, by their nature, are inimical to
the discourse of women’s access to rights, to address the burning issue of
violence against them. Violence against women, in this case rape (‘women’ being
incredibly fissured category) is either a political tool itself, or is of
absolutely no concern to the parties I mentioned above. Women claiming to speak
for women, like the BJP MLAs, propagate the patriarchal ideology of
subordination of women by placing a price on their honour and chastity;
families would seek to police women, restrict their mobility; the state, as we
have clearly established, fails on so many levels – failing to ensure
protection, and at the same time, violating it; civil society, on the other
hand, is limited by the very narrow nature of its interest; and as for
academia, well, I certainly can vouch for the feeling of helpless that has
gripped me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Who, then, speaks for the women? Who cares for
them? Are women, as many feminist scholars argue, merely property in the
patriarchal political economy? – To be terminated as a foetus, or be killed
before they have a chance to live? – That raped women, or those who exercise
their sexual freedom, are “damaged goods”?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">At this point, I have nothing better to offer than
a handful of these questions: questions that I hope someone would answer; or,
more importantly, that someone would <i>ask</i>. Personally, I have no
hopes for an answer. I am angry, and at the same time, I am reflecting back on
my masculinity, on the assumptions that society has thwarted on my gender.
Unfortunately, I do not know how many men out there are doing so. Responding to
my previous post, one of my professors suggested that rape is a man’s
burden…that there is actually soul searching to be done by every man, because
at some point in our lives we have all done violence to women. I want to disagree
with this, but I <i>know </i>that I can’t: for, not speaking
against injustice is also to exacerbate it, if not to partake in it. That is
one of the reasons why I write. But, if ever the process of writing was
cathartic, it has now ceased to be so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24pt; margin-top: 12pt; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">Acknowledgements: </span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;">First
of all, I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who read, and
commented on, the earlier post: their comments and responses have been
incredibly motivational. To Shubhra Rishi, for once again being critical and
supportive, and for the engaging discussions over GTalk; to my teacher, Fr.
Joseph, to whom I am indebted for the sociological nature of my arguments; to
my class mates, particularly Natasha Patel, Tasneem Kakal and Simone Salazar.
And, finally, to Runcil Rebello, Achyuth Sankar and Anubhav Dasgupta for being
such avid readers, and for all the 'Shares' and 'Tweets'.</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; letter-spacing: 0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-top: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-14090555205259274362012-12-21T23:02:00.000+05:302013-01-12T00:20:15.849+05:30"So fucking disappointing, I tell you."<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I
was filled with a deep sense of disgust, repugnance, loathing and anger when I
read about the <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Delhi-gang-rape-victim-battles-for-life-bus-driver-arrested/Article1-974158.aspx">brutal
gang rape and assault of the 23 year-old physiotherapist and her friend, aboard
a moving bus in Delhi</a>. I was, and I still am, indignant, as my hands shook
when I read about the <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-gangrape-doctors-say-injuries-indicate-rapists-were-psychopathic-561180.html">the
inhuman and brutal nature of the crime</a>. I cannot, however, give into anger.
I wish I could – and god knows, I <i>want</i> to. But I simply can’t. One
reason is because being angry feels good, but the feeling’s cosmetic; secondly,
regrettably, I came to terms with just how inured we have become, socially and
culturally, to such issues. Sure there’s a lot of media outrage, blood-lust and
cries for vigilantism out there – but, where was this “outrage” <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Chandigarh/3-more-rapes-in-Haryana/SP-Article1-957545.aspx" target="_blank">when Dalit girls were raped, and brutally assaulted/murdered in Haryana only just a month back</a>? – <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-16/india/34497488_1_khap-panchayat-haryana-khap-haryana-s-jind">When
Khap Panchayats ludicrously suggested that early marriages and stopping
consumption of chow mein would magically stop rape</a>, as these measures would
address the uncontrollable sexual urge among the men? – Or when <a href="http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=778244">Mamata Banerjee
claimed that free interaction between boys and girls, who hold hands in public,
leads to rape</a>? – <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/mobile/report.php?n=1483033&p=0">When three
children were raped, murdered and their bodies disposed-off in the Nehru Nagar
slums in Mumbai</a>?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Manufacturing
conscience, manufacturing outrage</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Clearly,
we need the outrage. But the problem is: this is <i>manufactured </i>outrage. A
cosmetic, placatory mechanism, much the same way such outrage and sympathy was
manufactured in two other high-profile cases in the last year, namely <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/amboli-murders-ensure-quick-deterrent-punishment-says-cm/872954">the
Amboli double murders</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Guwahati_molestation_case">Guwahati
sexual assault incident</a>. Our conscience, our sympathies, despite the
sincerity, are farcical, misplaced and superficial; in an <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/07/i-was-filled-with-disgust-when-iheard.html">earlier
post</a>, I’d argued that unless we discuss the problem of violence against
women, be it rapes, molestation, assaults, or whatever, and <i>not
</i>tangential issues, there would not be any real move towards addressing this
issue. For a moment, I thought we were beyond that. I was wrong. With respect
to the Delhi gang rape, there’s a clamour for justice, and justice, in this
case, is loosely translated to two things: either hang the perpetrators, or
castrate them. I have a problem with both these suggestions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Why
“killing/castrating the bastards” would not help</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The
death penalty debate is the single most divisive issue that I’ve come across in
the last few days, especially since <a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/hang-me-to-death-delhi-gangrape-accused-in-court-563020.html">one
of the accused requested that he be hanged</a>. One side argues that death
would give the perpetrator “an easy way out”; instead, they must be made to
suffer, either through life imprisonment, or, as <a href="http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/09/castration-as-punishment-for-rapists-a-probable-solution/">this
radical post</a> suggests, be castrated. This side adds that death
penalties have, and can never be effective deterrents. The castrationists (I
believe no term would suit them better), however, think that the prospect of
having their “balls cut off” would inspire fear, and ergo, at least to a point,
prevent rapes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I
have no intelligible response to this hogwash. But let us evaluate the
problems posed by the castrationist argument, shall we? Most glaringly, it
completely ignores the more discursive nature of gendered violence (something
I’ve discussed below). For one, the plea for castration is based on
retribution: “do the same thing to them that they do to the woman”. How does
this logic, functionally speaking, differ from a death penalty?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-rape-why-women-will-be-continue-to-be-raped-in-india-part-2-565643.html">Vivek
Kaul, I believe, presents a convincing argument in destabilising this misplaced
assumption</a>. He’s right when he presents his scepticism regarding the efficacy
(and therefore, misuse) of chemical castration. In my opinion, it certainly will not serve as
a deterrent: sure, rapes may stop or reduce; but instances of acid-throwing could increase,
or murders, for that matter. What about human trafficking? Or marital rape? Custodial rapes? Sexual assault by armed forces? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">And
to push absurd castrationist claim further: what’s to say there wouldn’t emerge a
pre-emptive mechanism? – Based on skewered data, the state could
formulate a demographic group most likely to commit rapes (which, I’m assuming,
based on how people have unproblematically pointed out the region from where
the perpetrators of the Delhi rape incident hail, would reflect of such
essentialism), and then proceed to castrate them before they have to
opportunity to rape anyone. Or, as Kaul suggests:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 35.45pt; margin-right: 14.05pt; margin-top: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">“More
often than not they will get hold of some random guy (the homeless, the slum
dweller or probably just about the first person they can get their eyes on)
beat the shit out of him and get him to confess to it.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Thing
is, last I checked, we were still a democracy, and have not yet descended into
fascism. Philosophical considerations aside, can rape be attributed to just a
badly essentialised biological drive? Can there be a social etiology of rape?
And, if we do, miraculously, arrive at one, how different is this diagnosis
from the archaic Khap Panchayat fatwas (apart from being inverted, that is)?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The
death penalty, I know, is far more problematic. Commenting on a Facebook post,
I suggested that such crimes against women be dealt with “extreme prejudice”.
Of course, people took it to mean that I was advocating the death penalty. But
before the connotations of my comment are dissected, let me defend my argument
here. I am not condoning the death penalty: I think there’s something
incredibly wrong in a sovereign, democratic state, backed by the will of the
people, meting out judgements in death; nor am I partaking in the popular
bloodlust and calling for vigilantism. By “extreme prejudice”, I mean to
suggest that we break the hegemonic nature of judicial process; one way to do
so, is by shifting the burden of proof from the victim/survivor to the
perpetrator. For too long have politicians, community leaders, bureaucrats,
police officers and what-nots shifted the blame of sexual assault on the women,
for “provoking rape”, or “consenting to it”; that rapes are “political
conspiracies”, or simply, that the victims are “prostitutes” (<a href="http://tehelka.com/the-rapes-will-go-on/"><i>Tehelka, </i>in their April edition, exposed how cops
and officials in the Delhi NCR region, callously and shamelessly attributing the blame for rapes squarely on women</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Would
you expect justice, <i>any</i> form of justice, in such a warped,
misogynistic society? Where the law and public discourse is rigged to
discriminate against women at every turn? I think not. That said, even with
superficial polemical pleas for “justice”, we are looking only at retributive
justice. Hangings, castrations, tougher sentences, lynching – where does the
victim figure in all of this? Unfortunately, no matter how much the public
clamours for “justice”, no matter how vile their bloodlust is, unless and until
our notion of justice can be ameliorative for the victim, and for women at
large, such posturing, such polemics are pointless.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In
this context, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/executing-the-neighbour/article4218247.ece" target="_blank">Nilanjana Roy presents a strong case against the death penalty</a>.
Since 90% of rape cases in India are perpetrated by people known to the victim,
if we do push for the death penalty, it would, she suggests, be “executing the
neighbours”. The scenario certainly is frightening. It’s one thing to demand
that a relatively obscure perpetrator be hanged; it is, <a href="http://www.mid-day.com/columnists/2012/dec/211212-opinion-Shilpa-Phadke-Thinking-about-cities-and-violence.htm" target="_blank">as Shilpa Phadke suggests, a policing of not only women, but
also of undesirable bodies (i.e. lower class/caste men, Muslim men, the ill-defined 'Biharis') in the urban space</a>. As callous as it sounds, no one cares about
them until they “invade” or “violate” our spaces and rape “our women”. Kaul’s scepticism (and mine, too), I believe, is sufficiently vindicated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Are
death sentences, then, the answer? Honestly, I don’t know. Because, if I am
making a plea for “extreme prejudice”, I am arguing that the law function
impartially (irrespective of how problematic that may seem in reality). This
isn’t optimism, mind you. It is, for the lack of a better term, a necessary
evil. I certainly do not, and cannot, subscribe to the belief that recourse to
extra judicial means is the only effective answer. And for those who think
death penalties would not act as deterrents, I know they won’t. But, since they
are legal as of now, if a court of law, with due legal process, delivers a
verdict in a case as brutal as this, I certainly have no qualms if the courts
gave a death sentence to the accused. That said, I will <i>not</i> sign
a petition which <i>demands</i> a death penalty for them. If,
conversely, there’s a petition to repeal the death penalty, I will sign it,
I’ll vote on it. But, as problematic as it is, I choose not to make misplaced
moral judgements regarding the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The
game is rigged</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">While
sexual assault is, I reiterate, but one aspect of violence against women, it’s
important to consider the more discursive nature of the same. Rape, defined
broadly as non-consensual, penetrative sexual intercourse, is but one form of
gendered, sexual violence. There’s no consensus in the definition of rape.
Sure, the modifications in Indian rape laws, may be looked at as a step in the
right direction (<a href="http://ncw.nic.in/PDFFiles/Amendments%20to%20laws%20relating%20to%20women.pdf" target="_blank">click here</a>); but, with corresponding changes in the legal
mechanism, like the Evidence Act, these moves fall woefully short of their
potential. In most cases, though, they are an abject failure.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Patriarchal
hegemony and structured misogyny are, and I can’t underwrite this any more than
what I already have, very nuanced and incredibly brutal systems of oppression.
This does not mean that perpetrators of any crime against women are acting
purely in submission, to a force beyond their control. Patriarchy exists in
practice. It exists, and it manifests itself every time a woman is denied
access to public space, every time she’s a victim of acid-throwing, of
battery, murder, sexual assault etc. And these instances, these enunciations of
patriarchy and misogyny, these acts of gendered violence (although, following
Judith Butler, one could argue that <i>all </i>violence is gendered), I believe,
constitute violence against women. Would castration or the death penalty stop
anything? I’m afraid not. It’s far more deep-seated. Maybe, as many advocate,
we need long term plans, or as one person suggested: “As labour force
participation increases, sex ratios should self-correct via a positive feedback
loop”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Although
I agree with a considerable portion of them, and a bulk of my academic work
focuses on the critical analysis of hegemonic masculinity, I’m not entirely
optimistic about such long-term plans; not with the kind of reality we are
witnessing today – the callousness, the ignorance, the disinterest, the
selective reporting, the selective protesting, the manufacturing of conscience
and outrage by the media, to name a few. I was wrong to assume that the issue
of women’s safety, of violence against them, has shed considerable hogwash from
the time of the Guwahati incident. It has not. If anything, it has gotten
worse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The
polemic remains the same</span></i></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">We
have heard this polemic before. Every time gory visuals flash on our screens,
every time we are tagged in badly composed Facebook posts, or asked to wear
black to “protest against the Delhi rape case” (regrettably, though not
unsurprisingly, one might ask: which rape case? Yes, that’s how bad things are), I
grow more and more disheartened. The polemics, essentially, are templates: to
arouse anger, fear, disgust, outrage and what not. Petitions demanding death
penalties are shared; previous cases become statistics; new ones occupy more
column inches, and then fade away.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">And
it gets us nowhere. It does nothing to ameliorate the brutality inflicted on
the woman. <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NamitaBhandare/survivors-not-victims/Article1-937312.aspx#comment-665925131" target="_blank">Namita Bhandare, in an insightful piece written after the
series of rapes of Dalit girls in Haryana, argues that women who survive any form
ofviolence, in this case, rape, are survivors and not victims</a>; that they
deserve justice, and not sympathy. I couldn’t agree more with her proposition.
But when you hear about survivors, <a href="http://m.ibnlive.com/news/i-am-socially-ostracised-kolkata-rape-victim/311289-3.html" target="_blank">like the woman who was raped in Calcutta earlier this year</a>,
(the one Mamata Banerjee alleged was a political conspiracy to malign her
government) living in penury, stigmatised, marginalised, with absolutely no
support system, I am…disheartened. Then you have people like Dhoble raiding
bars and pubs, supposedly busting prostitution rackets, while women are
assaulted in broad daylight, and callously labelled prostitutes by his
counterparts in Delhi. I don’t care if they are in different states; they <i>are</i> the
fucking system. And then I am asked to change my display picture to show
solidarity, or wear black to college, attend a march or partake in some other
cosmetic exercise. So fucking disheartening, I tell you. When people ask me,
with my “presumed superior knowledge and intelligence”, for an answer: I
inevitably disappoint them. Hell, I <i>want</i> to be optimistic; I <i>want</i> to
believe that there’s a solution. But more than the seemingly increased cases of
violence against women, it is the bullshit that follows these incidences, or
the apathy and lack of coverage that disappoints me. Just today, a friend of
mine said that no matter what we discuss in class (which is a niched space, she
added), or what the public thinks: all this makes no difference to her every
time she “goes out there”; she has to deal with the stares, the comments, the fear. I had no response. I just hoped that she had a safe
journey back home. Fortunately, I thought, at least she was travelling with her
brother. The very next moment, I hated myself for thinking so. And I’m not feeling any
better since, as I write an incredibly unsatisfying ending to what will be
added to a long list of inconsequential ramblings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">So
fucking disappointing, I tell you.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Acknowledgements</span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">:
I am grateful to Shubhra Rishi for her critical comments on the earlier draft
of this essay, and for being so encouraging and supportive even otherwise; to my classmate,
Shakti Nambiar, for the engaging discussions in our gender studies class, as
well as for elucidating the nuances of rape laws in India, and for bring forth
perspectives that I'd have otherwise ignored. And finally, I am indebted to
Simone Salazar for pointing out the several flaws in my reasoning; her
criticisms have always been helpful.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-80290042440533054472012-12-09T23:06:00.000+05:302013-01-15T00:47:10.816+05:30A plea for Indian Liberalism? Rethinking the Left’s role in the Liberal Exercise<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 14.05pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 14.05pt; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I
don’t think I’ve called myself a liberal. I am, I believe, rooted more in the
neo-Marxian tradition of Marcuse and Althusser; unabashedly Foucauldian in some
sense, and a huge fan of Žižek. There are, of course, other intellectual
strands that have inspired me, and continue to do so; in many ways, I’m still
in my formative years. That said, I’m not a Leftist: I do not believe that the
Left would (or far less, could) achieve a working version of a Marxian utopia.
And I certainly am not on the Right. So, I guess that makes me a <i>de
facto</i> liberal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Last
night, I had the opportunity to listen to one of India’s foremost and widely
respected intellectuals, and an unabashed liberal, himself: Ramachandra Guha. I
had, for quite some time, been anticipating his lecture,<a href="http://www.goethe.de/ins/in/mum/ver/en10199180v.htm"> ‘The Rise and
Fall of India’s Liberal Tradition’ at the Max Mueller Bhavan, Mumbai,</a> especially
after having reading<a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282904"> an
excerpt from his latest book, <i>Patriots
and Partisans</i>, in the <i>Outlook Magazine</i>.</a> Unlike the
Left’s (that is, the CPI(M)’s) practised archaic polemic against the state, or,
for that matter Kejriwal’s anti-corruption rhetoric, Guha’s opinions have
always been a curious blend of sociological analysis and are, as he claims,
polemical.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">This
essay isn’t a review of Guha’s lecture. Here, I borrow some of his most
influential thoughts from last night, to argue out a different conception of
Indian liberalism, positing my ideas of challenges and limitations. I am, of
course, deeply indebted to Guha for entertaining my rather long question in the
Q&A segment – something which shall form the basis of my present argument.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Guha,
as the title of his lecture goes, began speaking of the rise of India’s liberal
tradition – tracing a genealogy from Ram Mohan Roy, to Gokhale, Tagore, Gandhi,
Ambedkar and Nehru, to his teacher, Dharma Kumar. He then traced the major
threats to Indian liberalism in the post-Independence era – the first, being
the Hindu Right-wing extremism, exemplified by Ghodse’s assassination of
Gandhi; and the second, the radical Left-wing extremism which, Guha claimed
eloquently, never had any fondness for the Indian state in the first place. In
the 70s, however, there was another threat. The threat from the democratic
centre, Guha argues, began with Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian rule, culminating
in the Emergency years, and finally, the rise of dynastic politics in India –
which, Guha suggests, impeded the governance mechanism, the bureaucracy and
public institutions, most of all. Increased arbitrariness and violence by the police
and armed forces in conflict zones, too, was and does, constitute a significant
threat to liberalism in India (Guha's essay <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?223448">'The Absent Liberal', in
the </a><a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?223448"><i>Outlook
Magazine</i></a><i> </i>provides the context for his this argument).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Guha
ends up underwriting more problems than he does in resolving them – something I
admire about him, and a position, which I believe, is rooted in his training as
a sociologist. And it is in this respect that he has no qualms making a polemic
for liberalism – which, he argues, must reclaim patriotism from the Hindu
Right-wing chauvinists. Increased dialogue and a more dynamical political
process, he suggests would help assert liberalism in India, where people aren’t
reduced to being “useful idiots” (in Lenin’s terms), or apologists. In this
regard, Guha is incredibly patriotic, rejecting any label of “global
citizenship”. Liberalism’s strength, Guha asserts, is its incremental nature;
the fact that it never remains tied to an ideology, like the radical Left and
the Right, rejecting any claims of creating a utopia. It is precisely this
criticality, I believe, that allows Guha to posit the democratic centre as a threat
to liberalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In <i>The
End of History and the Last Man</i>, <a href="http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm">Francis Fukuyama, working extensively
with Hegel's dialectics, argues a very strong case for liberal democracies</a>:
with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have,
he suggests, arrived at the end of history in the Hegelian sense. Of course,
Fukuyama’s arguments, as we read them twenty years since he made them, do
appear to be weak, if not entirely naïve. The crisis in the Balkans, ethnic
cleansing and genocides in Africa, the United States’ invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, its rising debt crisis, the resurgence of the radical Right, like
the Tea Party Movement, or the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United
States, and a general increase in parochialism in other parts of the world,
China’s rise as a dominant global power, to name a few. In this respect, I am
undoubtedly more inclined to a Marcusian-Althusserian critique of the
capitalist/neoliberal political economy than what Guha seems to suggest –
which, in his terms, would be Left-leaning liberalism, but liberalism
nevertheless.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Clearly,
then, with the concerns Guha raises, Fukuyama’s arguments do not hold very
well. Liberal democracies may well be the dominant political-economic paradigm,
but with the threats from the democratic centre itself, from multinational
corporations and unregulated capitalism, there’s a lot Fukuyama left
under-theorised (to no fault of his own, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/12/highereducation.news">as he
did revisit his arguments in </a><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/12/highereducation.news"><i>Our
Posthuman Future</i></a>). Although Guha’s arguments for Indian liberalism are
incredibly contextual, hinged on his idea of reclaiming patriotism, in my view
rethinking liberalism requires a more discursive, global engagement. In
defending my stance, however, I take recourse to another of Guha’s suggestions:
that there’s a lot the world could learn from Indian liberalism as well. Indian
liberalism, Guha argues, moves beyond the narrow rubric of economic
organisation. India’s pluralism, its diversity, its cultural heritage – the
fact that as the world’s largest democracy we’ve achieved so much, stands as
testimony to the strength of Indian liberalism. Sure, there have been problems
with democracy, many from outside, and some from within; but Guha’s faith in
the rule-bound, impersonal public institutions is something I cautiously
share. <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/10/subversive-scribblings.html">Žižek,
whom I cited in a previous essay</a>, also expresses similar views, mostly
stemming from <a href="http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=79">his
distrust of civil society (which he calls fundamentalist, right-wing, and most
of all, unaccountable)</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Guha’s
polemic suggests that Indian liberals be more vocal, unafraid; that incremental
social change and political pluralism, should inform Indian liberalism – not
narrow economic models of profit maximisation or paranoia-driven governance,
and certainly more faith in its democratic institutions. In my opinion,
however, for the Indian Left to make crucial contributions to this liberal
programme, it needs to shed its apologist stance and fealty to classical
Marxism. While there’s a lot that Indian liberalism could contribute to the
world, the Indian Left, I feel, must eschew its superficial fealty to classical
Marxism and whatever illusions it harbours of achieving a utopia. In an <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/07/my-name-is-karl-and-i-am-not-marxist.html">earlier
essay, defending the relevance of Marxian sociological tradition, I have argued
that the Left in India is intellectually bankrupt</a> (perhaps with the
exception of a few figures like Sitaram Yechury, or Prakash Karat, to an
extent) – the very idea of a Marxist <i>political</i> <i>party</i> (no
matter how great a multi-party system we are – a fact that the early Left
hated) is a contradiction-in-terms and an anathema. For instance, increasing
corporate hegemony in the political sphere, or multinationals influencing
foreign policies (aspects Guha didn't discuss in his lecture), or the threat to
environmentalism (<a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520082960">an
idea he engaged with, in his book, <i>This Fissured Land</i>, with Madhav
Gadgil</a>) are issues that the Leftist scholars (with their Gramscian
influence and turn to subaltern studies) have engaged with. I have,
therefore, no apologies in arguing for a more academic grounding, or praxis,
for Leftism in India. Guha, with that charming smile of his, attests my
argument as a point <i>for</i> liberalism.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I’m
not sure how much of a convincing argument I’ve made in this essay. In many
ways, I am indebted to Guha for presenting a case of liberalism in a way that I
hadn’t thought of before. What I will, undoubtedly, take back from my brief
encounter with Ramachandra Guha (apart from a signed copy of <i>Patriots
and Partisans</i>. Yes, I am gloating), is the memory of a rich and engaging
discussion, which I believe constitutes another vital intellectual strand in my
formative years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 14.05pt; margin-top: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Postscript & notes:<span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Guha's book</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">,<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>Patriots and Partisans,<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><i>in fact dedicates a chapter in discussing the problems with the Indian
political Left, and what it could have done to have made a more lasting
contribution of the multiparty, democratic process in India - a fact I came
across later, as I read through the book. However, in my arguing more a more
academic praxis for the Left in India, I am slightly skeptical of the political
Left's partaking in the democratic
process (partly, as they are still bound to various Communist ideologies). Perhaps,
what we need is a robust intellectual tradition, informed by post-Marxian and
Critical thought, primarily that of the Frankfurt School (apologies, for this
is my bias and limited knowledge speaking), and that of the Subaltern Studies.
For such a move could potentially converse with the kind of liberalism Guha
argues for, and inform the nature of public discourse in the country; the first
step among the many, if we are to partake in a Liberal Exercise.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0cm 14.05pt 12pt 0cm; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">For
most of Ramachandra Guha’s statements, I have, to my best efforts, found
citations wherever possible. Many of his statements in this essay, however, are
quoted verbatim, as I noted them during his lectures at the Times Literary
Carnival in Bandra, on 7<sup>th</sup> December 2012, and at the Max
Mueller Bhavan, Kala Ghoda, on 8<sup>th</sup> December 2012.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-58655068111887083832012-10-20T17:31:00.000+05:302012-10-22T09:19:19.221+05:30Subversive scribblings <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">I’m
not a fan of theatre as such, let alone experimental theatre. But I do have an
undisciplined interest in art – be it performative, written or the so-called
fine-arts. Particularly so because I believe in the expressive and political
nature of art; not as a wilful act of resistance, but as, Oscar Wilde would
have it, a nuanced system of expressions that teases out complexities, and
leaves the reader thinking, questioning and critical. So, when I read about a
Chinese theatre group, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_1318594106"></span>Grass
Stage Theatre, performing
a “subversive theatre” production
called <i>Unsettling Stones </i>(directed by Zhao
Chuan) at Bo<span id="goog_1318594107"></span></a><a href="http://www.buzzintown.com/mumbai/event--grass-stage-theatre-shanghai-workshop-show/id--686105.html">mbay’s National Gallery of Modern Art</a>, my
curiosity was piqued. In the light of China’s political culture of suppressing
dissent, subversion, or free speech in the broadest sense, what I find
worrisome – and here I’m echoing philosopher and cultural critic, <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/10/2011102813360731764.html">Slavoj
Zizek’s concerns</a> - is the fact that we're looking to them for
development paradigms (<a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/06/shanghai-ed.html" target="_blank">something I have satirically referred to in the essay, Shanghai-ed</a>). Coming back to China, Zizek argues that in the west,
traditionally, the rise of capitalism coincided with the demand for democracy;
a system which was mutually beneficial for both. True, grave issues have
plagued this alliance – colonialism for one; global capitalist hegemony,
another – but with China, what we’re seeing is the existence of
capitalism <i>without</i> the conditions of, or the need for,
democracy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 2.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">When it comes to art, specifically, this phenomenon is
compounded. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15195263">Liu
Xiaobo, the “dissident” writer, and human rights activist is currently
incarcerated</a>. <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/authors-debate-merits-of-nobel-prize-for-chinese-writer-mo-yan-a-861381.html">Mr
Mo Yan(literally: “don’t speak”), on the other hand, happens to be a party
member,and widely respected across the country.</a> His is the image of
art that China wants to project. The political appropriation of art (be in for
suppression or activism) is always a danger to the integrity and very
operational matrix of a dynamic system of thought. The fact that Grass Stage
Theatre is coming to India to perform, is itself a critique of the state and
culture industry-appropriated art forms – not just in China, but, I believe,
everywhere.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Needless
to say, watching <i>Unsettling Stones</i> was an enlightening
experience. As an art form – and that too, in a foreign language – it was
evocative, lucid, and it pushed the mind to think, to feel; to transcend the
negative space between the stage and the seats. I’m still struggling with ideas
as I write this review: which theme to focus on? should I rely on description?
or should I focus merely on reflections? But the fact that I am thinking and
grappling with these ideas, I think, says a lot about the nature and the depth
of the performance. For the sake of semblance of coherence, however, I shall
divide my review into two broad sections: first, the physicality and aesthetics
of the performance; and second, the philosophical and reflexive elements I read
in the performance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Aesthetically
speaking, <i>Unsettling Stones</i> adhered to minimalism as a
performative style. The stage was stark; the actors wore no elaborate costumes;
the lighting, subdued and sharp; there was no music or a background score. On
the other hand, the diegetic noise of their footsteps, their breathing, of the
irreverent songs over the radio – were elements that came together to form a
discontinuous narrative, punctuated by emotive dialogues and pauses pregnant
with tension and unpredictability.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 2.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">The bodies of the actors were as much props as they
were instruments of expression. As they stripped under the gaze of the
authority – here, the gaze of the audience; their bodies were subjected to the
discourse of surveillance, masquerading as safety. The stark nakedness, the
subservience, the docility – <a href="http://foucault.info/documents/disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html">bodies
policed, forever subject of the panopticon, quite literally in the Foucauldian
sense</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 2.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Even as they paced across the stage, seemingly erratic
and random, it resembled our everyday pace; as we settle into routinized
behaviour of the office, or the commute; they grooved to the rhythms played on
the headphones, oblivious to the others; breaking into dances, or bouts of
masturbatory pleasures, or retreating into a shell filled with simple
ones: endlessly repetitive, uncritical, un-reflexive – relishing the
products of the culture industries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 2.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">As the performance progressed from one segment to the
other, the actors’ relationship with the stage changed: from “acting” they went
on to creating. Arranging props became a part of the performance; elaborate
patterns drawn on the floor with chalk-dust, an act of creation, destroyed in
the very next moment – the very act of destruction (or, de<i>construction</i>?)
becoming a liberating process. Their emphatic grunts, as they hurled stones
into the emptiness, resounding in the darkness of the stage; then they lay,
face down, enemies of the state. Subversion trampled. Dissent crushed. Status
quo, preserved. Is this how it all ends?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Although
the performance was in Mandarin, it articulated what it set out to, loud and
clear – to challenge the status quo; to partake in dissent. There were no
romantic overtures. This was no revolution. There would be no change. An
Orwellian pessimism was ingrained in the script – which is why the language
didn’t matter. It spoke volumes, be it in its moments of silence, or in the
loud joyfulness brought about by the culture industries, which sought to
gratify and stupefy. <i>Unsettling Stones </i>is a philosophically
rich performance; I’ve already mentioned Foucault's panopticon and Adorno’s
culture industry, elements pertinent to the inquiry in the social sciences. It
uses stark elements, a language of metaphors, to paint a vivid picture – both
polemical and pessimistic. Of these, the “stone”, I believe was the most
powerful. In the last two years, we’ve seen people’s outrage transform into
action; stones becoming the weapons of the disenfranchised, of the
marginalised. But do they really bring about change? Or are they doomed to
resound in the empty darkness, as it did on stage? Can it be an instrument of
freedom? Or is it just another weapon of the weak? Another brick in the wall?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 2.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">At the heart of it lies a question we all continue to
grapple with, a question about the fundamental nature of freedom: <i>can </i>there
be freedom – of expression? of voicing dissent? of formulating a discourse of
resistance? One answer points towards the fact that this very performance <i>is </i>one,
and that there still might be hope. But structures aren’t always oppressive.
They could be Orwellian. Or, they could also be Huxleyan: providing us with an
endless source of self-gratification and pleasure; replacing criticality with
complacency, and then with comfort and desire. And this is not just China we're
talking about; in India, we're heading towards a similar fate, maybe.
Perhaps not as bad, or perhaps, worse. But we're heading there. Not
totalitarianism. But a crass form of governance marked by corruption, decadence
and ever in paranoia over the preservation of power. That said, I think it’s
important to observe that as strong and rigid and iron-caged as structures can
be, there is <i>always</i> space for dissent and subversion; they
are, if I may say so, <i>structural</i>; or perhaps, inevitable.
Structures are defined by their temporariness. They don’t last forever. In a
way, <i>Unsettling Stones</i> left us with yet another question – a
question that I don’t think I can articulate, but one which would ask us the
possibility, nature and direction of change. Is there a chance, as The
Who put it, for us to not be fooled again?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-8042972283745488352012-10-06T20:17:00.000+05:302013-09-05T19:09:39.897+05:30Education is sinking India: Some reflections on the state of education in India<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div align="right" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Bloomberg TV’s <i>The</i> <i>Outsider</i>, featuring veteran journalist Tim Sebastian
(of BBC’s <i>HARDTalk</i> fame), has undoubtedly <a href="http://www.exchange4media.com/47847_bloomberg-tv-goes-for-shock-value-for-%E2%80%98the-outsider%E2%80%99.html" target="_blank">been one of the more intellectually rigorous TV shows on Indian television in the last year</a>. The episodes covered a wide variety of issues—dynastic politics, women’s
rights, education, corruption, and so forth. However, since it is nearly
impossible to do justice to <i>The
Outsider’s </i>oeuvre in one piece, I shall restrict the scope of this paper to
one of their motions: </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.theoutsider.tv/debate/16/moreinfo" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">‘Education is Sinking India’</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Education has
always been an area that has intrigued me, both personally as well as
sociologically; and being a part of this ‘system’—and I still am—I believed
that questioning it from time to time was imperative; not necessarily to
formulate answers, but to figure out what’s wrong with it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">The debate
on <i>The</i> <i>Outsider</i> brought out some interesting
insights; but it was, I felt, also terribly blinkered. For one, Mohandas Pai,
who spoke for the motion, kept throwing Chinese figures and statistics, and
lamented India’s lost “potential”, blissfully side-stepping the</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/25/china-richer-but-repressed.html" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"> cultural and social repression</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"> that the Chinese state forces on creativity and
critical thought. The panellists speaking against the motion, on the other hand, just
had optimism on their side—or as Pramath Raj Sinha put it, in very clichéd
terms: looking at the glass half full. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Education, just
like most of the topic covered in previous episodes of <i>The Outsider</i>,
in an incredibly complex issue; it is a systemic problem—intersecting with
politics, governance, public policy, and infrastructure (issues covered by the
panellists). But, it is more than just that: it is also an equally social and
cultural problematic, embedded in discourses of inequality, power and hegemony.
My argument is that the formulation of the motion itself is erroneous; that, it
is imperative we identify the deeper problems in education, and not merely
address the symptoms. My focus, therefore, is on three specific areas: the
structural problems of higher learning; hierarchy among the so-called “streams”
and constructed aspirations; and, finally, the impediments posed by state and
political ideologies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">I<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Firstly, it is important to look at education in
totality, i.e., inclusive of infrastructure, ideology, state policy <i>and</i> culture. For instance, in the
debate, Mohandas Pai, in his rather verbose style, threw a lot of names and
figures (quite a few of them Chinese statistics), and he did make a lot of
sense—particularly his idea of “cramming schools”, like </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/the-end-of-education" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Kota</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">,
which train, coach, and brainwash kids in the name of IIT-JEE (Indian Institute
of Technology-Joint Entrance Exams) preparations. While Pai’s analysis is incredibly insightful and pertinent, it also runs the
risk of being symptomatic. We <i>know</i>
that 500,000 students apply for 500 seats. But it is equally important to
ask <i>why</i>. I think I may have a part of that answer. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">It is important
to underscore the fact that education is embedded in cultural and social
discourses. As a culture, we tend to give more value to a means-end education,
which is one of the reasons why engineering and medicine (and to an extent,
commerce as a “stream”) are so popular among the India’s middle-class: it is
presumed that these courses come with a built-in industry that can absorb
students once they’re done with “education”. In my school batch, out of a
hundred-and-thirty odd students, I was among the five who opted for the
“arts”—and that too voluntarily. Thus, in the social and cultural discourse,
there is a predisposition towards categorising education in these “streams”,
each with a predetermined trajectory, and internalised by the student as he/she
grows up. The fact that so many lakhs apply to engineering and vocational
courses—and not a bachelor’s or master’s course—is indicative of an extremely
warped mentality among the general Indian public. Add to this the abysmal
condition and lack of institutions for higher education in the social sciences
and humanities, and to an extent, the natural sciences—although we do have
Indian Institute of Sciences—and, the answer grimly presents itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Before I discuss
the structural problems in depth, I would like to complicate this argument a
bit more. Look at the general attitude towards what can be called alternative
educational models, like applied arts or sports. The wider cultural and social
system is rigged to continually discourage the student who wishes to make a
career in any of these two broad fields. I know people who are slugging
away in third-class engineering colleges (if they ever attend college, that is)
who did not—were not allowed to, more appropriately—pursue arts or sports despite
having tremendous potential. On a social level, excellence in arts and
sports does enhance the cultural capital of the student; but most parents are not very keen that their children pursue these interests
professionally—indicative of this nice, little beautiful idea we have of
“cultured beings”, who, at the end of the day, would conform and have
nine-to-five jobs. Yes, there is a larger systemic fault as well, but I am
underscoring the importance of the cultural and social systems precisely
because I maintain that subjective interest can be equally empowering for the
child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">II<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Another important reason why I think education has hit
abysmal levels in India is because of two reasons: one, the utter neglect of
the teaching profession; and two, the increasing dissonance between schools and
institutions of higher learning. One such glaring contradiction is that the
term ‘education’, or ‘reforms in education’ fail to address teachers’
education, and the problems of the same. <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/census-teachers-on-duty-school-work-stuck/740850" target="_blank">There are tremendous pitfalls and pressures on school-level teaching in the country, particularly the state of Maharashtra</a>. In the course of the academic year, teachers are tasked with bureaucratic functions—within
and outside formal academics—like census enumeration, election duty, an
ever-changing syllabi and ridiculous pay packets. The majority of teachers,
then, hardly have any incentive to engage in meaningful teaching activity (<a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2011/02/noble-profession.html" target="_blank">see my arguments in an earlier post</a>). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Higher
education, too, apart from a few select institutions and universities, does not
attract talent; one reason is the relatively weak theoretical and
research-based outlook in academia itself (or, an <i>overemphasis</i> on either); an excessively competitive model; and of
course, red-tape, like UGC guidelines on appointing faculty staff—<a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/It-is-elementary/Article1-797657.aspx" target="_blank">which is why many wealthy families find it more convenient to send their children to less competitive universities abroad, than have then study in, say, a place like Delhi</a>. In
order to address this problem, there needs to be an intervention at the
schooling level itself; there is a need for flexibility in colleges and
universities, which fosters critical thinking; an active pursuit of the
re-integration of research and teaching activities.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">However, it is not merely structural problems that hinder the realisation of
this vision for Indian education.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">III<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">The largest and the most glaring failure, finally, is
that we have allowed education to be subject to erratic control by political
ideology. We are still entangled in the literacy-versus-education debate,
failing to see what can be called alternative modes of education; we are also
terribly enmeshed in these discourses and constraints: partly because it can be
a very powerful tool of state propaganda, as we saw in Nazi Germany and </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><a href="http://capiconf.uvic.ca/viewpaper.php?id=69&cf=5" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-IN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">still
see in China</span></a></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">; and mostly, as one of cultural and social orientation (read: training us as
consumers in the capitalistic political-economy). That said, the arbitrariness
of political control over education—like chief ministers and vice-chancellors
<a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-29/kolkata/31254217_1_mamata-banerjee-ganashakti-state-libraries" target="_blank">banning specific theorists</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/19/mumbai-university-removes-mistry-book" target="_blank">authors</a> from syllabi; or newspapers from libraries; <a href="http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=246355" target="_blank">or, of political parties “detoxifying” syllabi</a>;</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">or, in political families appointing heads of public institutions</span><span style="line-height: 200%;">—is
indicative of paranoia which seeks to affirm political hegemony by stifling the
criticality of education (<a href="http://www.tehelka.com/has-india-lost-the-21st-century/?singlepage=1" target="_blank">see Avalok Langer's brilliant critique of education in 21st century India</a>;</span><span style="line-height: 200%;"> <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-05-19/delhi/39369309_1_indian-history-toolkit-hrd-ministry" target="_blank">also, see the Delhi University’s latest move to reduce its ‘Indian History and Culture’ course to a “utility toolkit”, which [is] propaganda masquerading as history</a>).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">As cynical as we
might be, the space of educational institutions still remains one where
resistance to political ideology can be articulated. While criticality and
creativity are very important points that education has managed to foster in
individuals, there is also a need to contextualise “critical” thought, and
dismantle its elitist connotations. The criticality of education should extend
both outside, and within in. For example, a farmer in Vidarbha may have crucial
and critical insights into the workings of state machinery and irrigation
policies—better than most bureaucrats. But we do not see him on a show
like <i>The Outsider.</i>
Education must, therefore, alongside fostering criticality, also participate in
an exercise of inclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">IV<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">It goes without saying that there is a pressing need
for education to diversify; that it traverses both theoretical and practical
planes, and aids in what social sciences call knowledge production—this time,
free of ridiculous regulation; because, even <i>with</i> ideological restraints, and “cramming schools”, education may
still contribute to the GDP or GNP (as it does in China, we should inform Mr
Pai). But I do not think that is a future most of us should envisage for India—a
point I cannot seem to underscore enough. Paradoxically, we must work towards <i>problematising</i> education; dismantle the
hegemony of elite institutions, and between the so-called “streams”; and address
the cultural and social problems. Only then will we be able to make the necessary
steps towards constructively helping education to first, aid itself, and then,
the country.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Note: </span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">This post has been modified since it's first draft,
last year, on the occasion of Teacher's Day. The core arguments, however,
remain the same. And as I am currently working in a reading intervention in
primary school, where most students are from lower SES families, I have
realised the need for a sustained argument on education - as a discourse, a
profession, and increasing attempts to make it into an industry.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">I
do think that the question of primary education is most crucial in a country
like ours, where many simply do not have access to education, or even that
space of learning. Many inequalities, like that of caste, class or social
stratification can be addressed more meaningfully and effectively in the space
of primary education.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: center; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;">Putting
one over the other does not get us anywhere. The failures of higher education
can be traced to the failures in basic, primary education; and, our
institutions of higher education are also responsible for the multiple failures
and shortcomings in the most basic institutions on learning.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-IN;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div>
<div id="edn15">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="edn15">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div id="edn15">
</div>
</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-10322115879033429462012-09-11T21:58:00.000+05:302012-09-12T18:39:04.941+05:30A Governance of Paranoia<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It's not as if the UPA wasn't in enough trouble already – following the <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/india/india-coalgate-corruption" target="_blank">Coal allocation block scam </a>and a host of other past debacles haunting it – they
clearly got more than what they bargained for when they prodded, albeit
indirectly, another hornet's nest: by <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/cartoonist-aseem-trivedi-arrested-on-sedition-charges-for-mocking-the-constitution-265085" target="_blank">arresting cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, under the colonial charges of sedition</a>.
Trivedi’s crime: he drew a caricature of the <a href="http://www.google.co.in/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1241&bih=606&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsuo&tbnid=RK3JMVlk2ScM3M:&imgrefurl=http://frontierindia.org/forum/f3/aseem-trivedi-cartoon-corruption-1047/&docid=r7oG1NYboarf3M&imgurl=http://frontierindia.org/forum/attachments/f3/935d1347339265-aseem-trivedi-cartoon-corruption-aseem_trivedi_lok-sabha-national-toilet-cartoon.jpg&w=599&h=479&ei=xoVQUNO5E8TorAek5IGAAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=752&vpy=260&dur=558&hovh=201&hovw=251&tx=136&ty=129&sig=113053427823957951668&page=1&tbnh=128&tbnw=160&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0,i:119" target="_blank">Parliament as a commode</a>, replacing
the lions with <a href="http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday//images/stories/2012september/aseem-cartoon_660_090912075238.jpg" target="_blank">rabid wolves</a> on the National Emblem. And apparently, that's
seditious. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Obviously,
his arrest is politically motivated: <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india-against-corruption-demands-cartoonist-aseem-trivedi-s-release-265463?h_related_also_see" target="_blank">Trivedi is known to have been associated with India Against Corruption</a> – the NGO headed by erstwhile Team Anna member
Arvind Kejriwal. And the government clearly has a bone to pick with IAC. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This is
not the first time the Indian political class has displayed an inexplicable and
illogical paranoia over a cartoonist’s works. Back in April, WB chief minister,
Mamata Banerjee got <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/outrage-over-professor-s-arrest-for-posting-anti-mamata-cartoons-197127" target="_blank">Jadhavpur University professor, </a><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/outrage-over-professor-s-arrest-for-posting-anti-mamata-cartoons-197127" target="_blank">Ambikesh Mahapatra</a>, arrested and beaten
up by her party workers for posting “objectionable” material regarding her on a
social networking site; he was slapped with absurd charges, which included
“outraging the modesty of a woman”. Of course, the UPA and other political
parties reacted vehemently against it – as expected. Now that the current
administration has found itself in a similar position, it is <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-10/india/33736048_1_ncp-spokesman-ncp-today-sedition-charges" target="_blank">actually defending its action</a>, albeit riddled with <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article3882558.ece" target="_blank">contradictions</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 200%;">Before I go any
further and risk offering a merely symptomatic analysis of the situation, I’d
like to make my stance on this issue clear. I do not agree with Trivedi’s “freedom
of expression” (i.e. of him drawing what he did), and I do not do so in a Voltaire-esque
fashion of “defending his rights while I may disagree with what he has to say”. Neither do I think his cartoons "offend" anything; for it's </span></span><span style="line-height: 32px;">ridiculous to even assume that.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 200%;"> At the same time, I think the whole patriotism/nationalism discourse is balderdash. If anything, the more-than-generous usage of words like "nationalism", "true patriot" and the likes, just goes on to show the arbitrariness of these constructs. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I may
stir a hornet’s nest myself by saying so, but I see a disjuncture in Trivedi’s harsh
polemic against the government (something I understand), and in his representation
of it. By making these icons the focus of his critique he has, invariably,
reduced the meanings of the Asoka Pillar and the Parliament to a single
signifier: the present UPA government. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB">Personally, I found
his cartoon rather distasteful. For one, while I understand his attempt to
proffer a critique of the current and abysmal state of Indian politics and
affairs, I disagree with his target: the Parliament and the Asoka Pillar. These
icons, I believe, are institutional symbols and thus, represent something far
more than the current political class – who, I believe, are (and one may disagree) </span>not
really in a position to <i>invest</i>
meanings in these icons; and secondly, because, these icons represent something
more important, and if I can use the word, sacred, than present governance and
coalition politics, and are as much victims of the current administration’s
apathy and corruption (as an example, l</span><span style="line-height: 200%;">ook at the <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/scuffle-degrades-parliament-sp-bsp-mps-come-to-blows-over-quota-bill-in-rajya-sabha/998137/4" target="_blank">two Rajya Sabha MPs who got into a fist-fight some days back</a>),</span><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 200%;"> as perhaps the common man is – symbolically at least. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">These
icons are situated in a historical context and have significantly more meaning
that what Trivedi assumed them to have. The Asoka Pillar, for example, has its
own rich history, an economy of meanings; while the inscription of ‘<i>Satyameva Jayate</i>’ may not mean much to
the government today – I doubt very much if it means much to the people, either
– I don’t think the government has ever made a conscious effort to appropriate
its meaning or significance; the Parliament, on the other hand, is far more contentious a symbol, making it that much more difficult to analyse. It has been the target of recent anti-corruption movements, yet to many, it represents a legitimate mechanism - as pointless as it may sound.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">However, my
purpose is to not interpret an iconoclash here; within this discursive
framework of (anti) nationalism-sedition, iconoclash, and free speech, I
believe there is a more malignant, a more insidious problematic embedded –
which has, unfortunately, become central to the culture of politics in India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I
absolutely, and in the strongest words, condemn the government’s violent
reaction to this issue; <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Aseem-Trivedis-arrest-shows-how-colonial-era-sedition-laws-lend-themselves-to-abuse/articleshow/16341516.cms" target="_blank">it’s archaic, it’s crass, and politically motivated</a>; most
importantly, it is representative of a deeper problem in Indian politics:
paranoia. Elsewhere, I have critically commented on what I call the
<a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/07/my-name-is-karl-and-i-am-not-marxist.html" target="_blank">anti-ideology of contemporary Indian politics</a>, of its <a href="http://thepositivecynicinc.blogspot.in/2012/04/teri-marx-ki-didi-sees-red-at-every.html" target="_blank">hypersensitivity indealing with criticisms</a>. One reason, I think, is because politicians have come
to <i>represent</i> the entire domain/culture
of politics in a way. Following <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Global-Icons-Apertures-Bishnupriya-Ghosh/dp/0822350165" target="_blank">Bishnupriya Ghosh’s work on bio-icons</a>,
politicians in contemporary India have become a fragile species; at once, an embodiment
of their party ideologies – be it the Thackeray cousins, or the Gandhis, their
very image becomes a way for their supporters to rally around, and is also on
the crosshairs of dissenting voices; both, within and outside the political
realm. Sonia Gandhi’s Italian origins, Mamata Banerjee’s austerity or, as we saw recently, <a href="http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-07/india/33676561_1_bal-thackeray-raj-thackeray-prabodhankar-thackeray" target="_blank">Digvijaya Singh’s claim that the anti-migrant Thackeray’s are originally from Bihar</a>, these
genealogies, and thus narratives about these bodies as bio-icons, serve as a
terrain to contest politics. Very rarely does it turn out that issues of policy
and governance are sites for contestation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That’s
precisely why they (politicians) take offense to caricatures regarding
political figures. For a healthy democratic system to function (I shall reserve
my critiques of democracy for a later time), it is imperative that the rights of
freedom of expression, right to participate in a democratic process – and I
mean so even non-electorally – are maintained. Sedition is hardly the word to
be used against cartoonists and intellectuals, and it reflects the decadence in
a legal system, and in attitudes, which refuse to keep up with times. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">With Aseem
Trivedi’s arrest, the message that the administration (even though the
government has now dropped the sedition charges) is sending out to its people,
and indeed the world, is fraught with very serious problems; it is indicative
of a political system’s sheer ineptitude in dealing with pertinent issues
maturely in via political, legal processes. I tend to agree with <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3878238.ece" target="_blank">Justice Katju when he points out, rather critically and in his usual verbose style</a>, the systemic
failure on the part of the governance mechanism, the state, the legal system,
the police, as a whole. And that’s
precisely why I think his criticism is highly insightful: it is a critique of
the <i>system</i> and not an <i>institutional symbol</i>. Individual
institutional symbols like the Parliament or the Asoka Pillar – I restrict my
view of it as an entity invested with symbolic/historic meaning, rather than
its political <i>inhabitants</i> (an equally
true, but one-dimensional perspective) – are located in a <i>system </i>of processes, of a <i>pattern </i>of governance, which has become
decadent, apathetic, anti-ideological and corrupt. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Increasingly,
this process of governance is being influenced by paranoia, a tendency of
knee-jerk reactions, of recourse to archaic notions of morality and
anti-nationalism, blurring the lines between India’s democratic present and
it’s colonial past. With each such incident, the government is making a fool of itself. Maybe, in the words of the Opposition, the government has lost its moral authority to rule. But in a warped democratic system like ours, you need numbers to rule; "morality" is for cultural policing, to invoke rhetoric, an attempt of the political class to fool the people, and in the process, itself. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I have
traversed across many ideas here, and perhaps, at the cost of argumentative
coherence, but I hope you’ve managed to grasp the general themes. We live in
confused times, marked by a breakdown of coherent governance. Usually, I tend to be sceptical of the risk of slipping into totalitarianism; our current political class is far too concerned with images - a process which creates regimes of loyalty. Then again, looking at the way life is regimented, with a penetrative authoritarian gaze, and more seriously, it's arbitrariness, it's dilly-dallying and an apparently visible lack of direction (towards achieving totalitarianism; perhaps, I am wrong, looking at the way governments censor the internet, arrest cartoonists), it is precisely this scepticism,
and this governance of paranoia, which worries me. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com4Badlapur, Maharashtra, India19.15 73.26666719.119999999999997 73.227184999999992 19.18 73.306149tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-80735101568591585082012-07-24T01:00:00.000+05:302013-06-19T20:59:12.541+05:30In Defense of the Dark Knight<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><br />
I saw this <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jul/17/dark-knight-rises-capitalist-superhero" target="_blank">review </a>of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>The Dark Knight Rises</i>,
retweeted by Amitav Ghosh and Rahul Bose - both Bengali intellectuals, and
undoubtedly, left-leaning. I, too, am Bengali, and left-leaning. At least I
like to think so; based on my gravitation towards the Frankfurt School's
culture industry thesis, and most of Noam Chomsky's works.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">With this review, however, I tend to disagree.
Vehemently, so. Because, I suspect, my instincts as a comic book geek overpower
my left-leaning stance.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<o:p> </o:p><span style="line-height: 200%;">First of all, I liked </span><i style="line-height: 200%;">The Dark Knight Rises</i><span style="line-height: 200%;">. Sure, its
predecessor - </span><a href="http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CHUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0468569%2F&ei=xP8MUIenM8rirAfZv-jNCA&usg=AFQjCNHtZYNLb670lSlpcO-ScgU0m-GkgA" style="line-height: 200%;" target="_blank"><i>The Dark Knight</i></a><i style="line-height: 200%;"> </i><span style="line-height: 200%;">(2008)
- was an edgier movie, with a stunning performance by Heath Ledger as the
Joker. But, as far as trilogies go, Nolan did a spectacular job in bidding the
Dark Knight legend an explosive and more than memorable farewell.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">My interest in Batman is more and beyond than just the
movies; I am a comic book geek, after all. And the thing is, for people who are
not aware of the themes in the comic book, much like the author of that review
(as I suspect), it is very easy to make generalized assumptions about the
nature of Batman's war against crime.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Let me elucidate this a bit more:</span><span style="line-height: 200%;"> </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">One: "<i>Bruce Wayne can splurge on the kit and cars to set himself
up as a crime-fighting Christ substitute, plus power and glitter enough to hide
his hobby. He's always been a curious idol: within aspiration because he's
flesh and blood; beyond it because he's the lucky recipient of inherited
wealth.</i>"</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">What she fails to interrogate is that Bruce (played by
Christian Bale) is as much a victim of the (capitalist) state's disinclination
to address issues that underscore its own importance and interests. Bruce's
parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne, were shot dead in an alley when he was eight.
One of the stronger and more prominent themes in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/" target="_blank"><i>Batman
Begins</i></a> (2005) was his struggle to comprehend this tragedy. He
blamed Joe Chill - a homeless vagrant who accidentally came to possess a gun -
for the murders. But then realized that it wasn't Chill's fault; it's the fault
of the system, which made Chill as much a victim as Bruce. This isn't my sole
reading of <i>Begins</i>; authors like Frank Miller, in <i>The Dark
Knight Returns</i> (the text on which <i>Rises</i> was based)
have addressed this issue as well. And the gun metaphor, I believe, is more
relevant in light of the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html" target="_blank">Aurora shooting</a>. I think it's as
tragic as it is ironic, that a Batman premiere - Bruce is averse to the idea of
firearms - should see such an event. Which goes to show that the Batman mythos
is not just fanciful fiction, based on one man's representation of social
reality; but is a far more complex, nuanced and textured critique of social
reality.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Two: “<i>The Occupy Gotham movement, as organised by gargly terrorist
Bane, is populated by anarchists without a cause, whose actions are fuelled by
a lust for destruction, not as a corrective to an unjust world.</i>”</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Okay, she's just reading too much into this now. Bane
(Tom Hardy), as the movie clearly establishes, does not set out to
"liberate" Gotham from the shackles of crass capitalism; he's a part
of an international terrorist organization called The League of Shadows
(Assassins, in the comics). He seeks to destroy Gotham; as Ra's Al Ghul (played
by Liam Neeson) intended in <i>Begins</i>. Plain and simple. So, yes,
while these characters are self-made, they represent just that: fiction. Sure,
Nolan plays on the "We are the 99%" theme - and Selina Kyle's (played
by Anne Hathaway) dilemma in this scenario, I believe, presents the complex theme
beautifully.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Bane's motive is precisely to <i>destroy</i> Gotham.
He wouldn't have armed a nuclear device with a decaying core otherwise. Because
that would've been rather stupid, no?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Three: “<i>But The Dark Knight Rises is a quite audaciously
capitalist vision, radically conservative, radically vigilante, that advances a
serious, stirring proposal that the wish-fulfilment of the wealthy is to be
championed if they say they want to do good.</i>”</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">What I fail to understand is: how can one argue
against someone who sees a textured reality in such black-and-white terms?
Nevertheless, I shall try my best to defend Batman.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Yes, Bruce Wayne had a billion dollars in his trust
fund. Yes, he travelled the world, learnt exotic martial arts. Yes, he came
back to Gotham and used his resources to fight the scum of Gotham. But, he was
a philanthropist, too, remember.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">His father nearly bankrupted Wayne Enterprises
combating the Depression (as Alfred tells Bruce in <i>Begins</i>). Others
(in the comics, as well as outside) have made a different critique: that
Bruce's antics as a caped vigilante attract psychopaths - such as Bane in
the <i>Knightfall</i> story arc - to Gotham. Batman's fight against
crime, therefore, is not as unproblematic as the author seems to think.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Bruce, in many ways, is disillusioned about his own
wealth and social location. The rigid boundary that separates the wealthy from
the proles, an idea which the author seems to not only sell, but also believe
in, is not really that rigid. Their worlds have clashed, and violently so;
Bruce saw it happen, the night his parents were murdered. </span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">And that’s why Bruce, as a Wayne and a
part of Gotham, has poured in money to several of Gotham's orphanages,
charities and his continuous and undying association with Dr. Leslie Thompkins
in story arcs, like <i>Batman: The Animated Series</i> attests to the
fact that he is not just another billionaire playboy. The filthy-rich and
corrupt of Gotham are as much in his crosshair as are the super-villains (a
theme explored in the works of Jeph Loeb and Frank Miller, such as <i>The
Long Halloween</i> and <i>Batman: Year One</i>, respectively). Even
in <i>Rises</i>, Roland Daggett - the corrupt businessman in Wayne Corp. -
is as much an antagonist as Bane. And someone Bruce, as it happens, detests.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Batman, in my opinion, transcends the superhero-ness of many of his
peers. One argument is that he does not possess superpowers. True. But I
believe so mostly because he's constantly had to make choices; choices which
make him unpopular; which continue to push the boundary between good and bad;
between hero and vigilante.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
<span lang="EN-GB">While, at the end of the day, Batman is fiction - and there's no denying
that - it <i>is</i> a form of artistic expression. And it does
express and builds on a lot of social realities. However, unlike most other
superhero canons (except for Alan Moore's <i>Watchmen</i> and <i>V
For Vendetta</i>) Batman serves to critically examine these very social
realities.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="background: white;">On a more ancillary note: wasn't Bane's conception a </span></span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jul/18/dark-knight-rises-bane-mitt-romney" target="_blank"><span style="background: white;">veiled
critique</span></a><span style="background: white;"> of Mitt Romney? </span>The
Guardian's review is an opinion. I understand that. But it's an opinion based
on a partial understanding of a phenomenon. And, for that reason, it is flawed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-74271189532327011392012-07-20T00:48:00.002+05:302013-09-27T20:19:14.497+05:30A Gendered Problematic<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><br />
I was filled with disgust and repugnance when I heard about the incident of a
16-year old girl in Guwahati being assaulted by a mob, and being molested,
beaten and stripped. There was a huge uproar on Facebook and Twitter; people
demanded justice, said lots of things which have been said before. This wasn't
the first incident where a woman was brutally assaulted by a unruly mob, in an
Indian city. And—forgive my cynical disposition—this was certainly not going to
be the last.<o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">But this
particular issue, of late, has acquired several dimensions, mostly political;
the Chief Minister of Assam, Tarun Gogoi, alleged that this incident was
a <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Guwahati/Gogoi-sees-conspiracy-in-Assam-molestation-case/Article1-890835.aspx">conspiracy </a>against
the government. There have been rumours doing rounds - as they always do - of
Youth Congress involvement. Most of all, people have been critical, and rightly
so, of the so-called journalist for News Live, Gauravjyoti Neyog, for
instigating the perpetrators. Many, therefore, have criticized News Live
too for broadcasting the incident; while they (News Live), on the other hand,
claim that had they not done so, the issue would've remained unnoticed. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">What I found
staggering - apart from the callousness and brutality of the incident - is the
aftermath of it, which is manifest in two ways. One of them is outrage over the
representation of the incident in Tehelka's latest <a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/396837_10151034193754061_1960845960_n.jpg">cover</a>.
People, largely, have accused Tehelka - a magazine with the reputation of being
one of India's leading critical publications - of cheap, insensitive gimmicks
to garner eyeballs. The other reaction was to the series of gaffes made by the
National Commission for Women, wherein <a href="http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CBIQqQIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fibnlive.in.com%2Fnews%2Fguwahati-ncw-sacks-alka-lamba-from-probe-panel%2F271709-3-251.html&ei=iFsIUIr8NIrYrQeBlanjAg&usg=AFQjCNGaMsYlKjcvr2QEXuBROLgXDltYsg">Alka
Lamba</a>, a member of the fact finding team, revealed the name of the victim.
Next, Mamta Sharma, the NCW chief, said "<a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/NCW-chief-says-women-should-dress-carefully-Reports/Article1-890974.aspx">women
should dress carefully to avoid crime</a>...and not ape the West."<o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">What I read into
these two instances are two things: one, that no matter the seriousness of the
crime against women, no matter its severity, its brutality, there is really no
one on the side of the victim; not the government, least of all local <a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main52.asp?filename=Ne140412Coverstory.asp">authorities</a>.
And two, that we, as a society, are so indoctrinated into patriarchy and
misogyny, will try to subvert the issue in question: which is, a woman being
assaulted/hurt/murdered/raped and discuss tangential issues. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">I shall tackle the second observation first. Just
some time back, I read a piece in <a href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/07/18202907/No-country-for-women.html#comment-592188308">LiveMint</a><a href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/07/18202907/No-country-for-women.html?h=D"> </a>by
Salil Tripathi. While the piece itself was not something particularly profound
and engaging, the comments on it, I found, were staggeringly stupid. Yes,
stupid. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">People seemed to
have taken exceptional offense to his reference to Draupadi's
disrobing in the Mahabharata, as a metaphor for the attenuated response we have
towards these kinds of incidents; of being apathetic bystanders. They, instead
of engaging with the issue of the girl being a victim of the assault, decided
to tangentially argue against the author's conception of Mahabharata and his
reluctance to engage with the political angle (the Youth Congress involvement)
of the whole incident. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">Similar arguments
have been made against the Tehelka cover. I do not condone what Tehelka's
done. It's wrong on so many levels. It's distasteful. But so was this
incident. And fact is, even then, people are fixated on conspiracy theories and
political coups. People took offense, vehemently so, to Mahabharata references
- choosing to defend Hinduism instead. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">That a girl was
assaulted, brutally so, is collectively, forgotten. It's not Tehelka's cover
which is distasteful; but the way public discourse is organised. The image is a
macabre spectre which will haunt us. For it reflects a deep, rotten part of the
way we've come to organize ourselves as a public. For as long as women's rights
don't take prominence in discourse, it will remain an utterly marginalized
cause.<o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">The NCW chief’s reaction, while being utterly
shameful, reflects the power of patriarchal discourse. It shifts the blame on
the woman, presuming that safety of women is agentic on their complete removal
from the public sphere. What this does is, it ossifies the public as something
which is essentially uncontrolled, aggressive, and violent even. However, for
most women, the private is also a domain of subjugation and violence—and
perhaps of a worse kind. This kind of lopsided analysis fails to take into
account that patriarchy is, primarily, a power construct; and, that men are as
much the victims of it, as are women, albeit of a different kind of
victimization. The difference is, our victimization is hinged on victimizing
others—something I find deeply disturbing and shameful. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">In this context,
Natasha Badhwar’s piece in <a href="http://www.livemint.com/2012/07/17120248/Views--The-harsh-realities-of.html#.UAUtrhPVWeM.facebook">LiveMint</a> on
examining societal and cultural controls on women’s sexuality is an interesting
read. What I took from it, is an understanding that patriarchy, as a hegemonic
structure is far more complex than just domination of women. It survives by
making men into instruments of domination—which is, I believe, a kind of
victimization in itself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">Any understanding of patriarchy and gender,
therefore, has to factor in the question of sexuality—that the sexuality of one
group (both, actually) is something that has to controlled. Sexuality in India
is terribly controlled by morality, religion, family, community and a host of
other surveillance mechanisms. That sexuality is natural, that it is a part of
being human, is completely and violently ousted in our understanding of
ourselves. Hence, violence remains the only way in which sexuality can be
negotiated by men; it's a crime, but it's a structural problem. And a deeply
social one, too. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">The refusal to
discuss women's victimization as it being perpetrated by men, and therefore
patriarchy, reflects the shameful lack of initiative on the part of society as
a whole - and that it chooses to further victimize the woman, by assigning
blame on her. <u2:p></u2:p>Violence against women, sexual harassment,
then, instead of being a result of this structural imbalance in negotiation
sexuality, is ascribed purely on the basis of patriarchal morals. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">Can we then really blame patriarchy for
everything, thus absolving ourselves of any action, or more so, justifying our
inaction? No. I don’t believe so; because that would be stupid. <o:p></o:p></span><u2:p></u2:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">Patriarchy is a
power construct, but it is also multidimensional; it, at once, makes men into
violent, uncouth perpetrators of crimes of the most heinous nature, and
propagates women’s oppression by having them internalize oppression and
perpetrate it on to others; mothers to daughters and so forth. It also
attenuates the criticality of our responses in the guise of pragmatism and
false consciousness. There has not been any alternative system to patriarchy
(arguably, since there have been <i>matrilineal </i>societies and
social groups; however, patriarchy's permeation into states and politics tends
to obfuscate the relevance of matriarchy as a concept); it has existed since
the time humans began settled life. But that should not mean that we bow down
to its arbitrary constructs of maleness, femaleness, heteronormativity and so
forth. More so, there is an urgent need to critically engage with, respond to
and challenge patriarchy—particularly it’s ‘taken-for-granted’ nature. We need
to bring the oppression of women, and the violence against them, into the
centre of public discourse—and not make tangential and irrelevant arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 42.55pt;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">For, I repeat,
as long as women's rights don't take prominence in public discourse, they will
remain an utterly marginalized cause. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-62466379189960203522012-06-11T18:05:00.000+05:302013-09-05T19:38:13.016+05:30Shanghai-ed<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I had a lot of
expectations from <i>Shanghai</i>. Mostly because, in its initial days of
production, I thought it was a political thriller involving the Chinese secret
service and a plot to nuke India. But apparently, <i>Agent Vinod </i>and <i>Ek
Tha Tiger</i> are dealing with the spooks angle. Shanghai, on the other
hand, is better than I expected it to be. And its subject matter is much closer
to home than the ISI or the Chinese secret service. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Many critics have
called the movie a metaphor. For me, the movie was a metaphor and beyond. Set
in an Indian periurban village/town, presumably in north or central
India, <i>Shanghai</i> tells the story of an aspiration that the
Indian state envisages for its cities; an aspiration which pits decades of
faulty governance, lack of infrastructure and a volatile Indian public psyche
against the clean, geometric facade of civilization, and corporate
governance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">I won't go much into
the plot right now, mostly because I wish to keep this review spoiler free, and
partly because I intend to go beyond that. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In many ways, <i>Shanghai</i> is
about contrasts; more so, contradictions. Bharatnagar - the ground zero of the
genesis, so to say is where Dr. Ali Ahmadi (a kurta-jhola-beard sporting
Leftist) protests against the capitalist state turning the area into a SEZ. His
detractors want him out. Not because of the ideological differences; because in
India, politics is not about ideology anymore. It's a numbers game, as we see
the ruling coalition trying to keep its aspirations alive for this Shanghai -
to the extent of murdering the doctor. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The principal
characters Krishnan (Abhay Deol in his finest performance so far), Shalini
(Kalki, who is more confused than anything) and Joginder (Emran Hashmi, a fine
actor) are caught up in their own agendas; trying to find something to anchor
themselves in the turbulent political climes of Bharatnagar. Yet, I would not
call any of them protagonists; they're characters, each organically placed in
their roles, which makes the film's progression more eased and natural without
being caught up to explain their agendas. However what really contributes to
the organic nature of the film is the fact that the supporting cast does a
brilliant job; from the wily mandarin Kaul, to the Chief Minister and her
coalition partner - his cronies, the cops, the unwitting murderers, and the
plethora of angry political hooligans....it's a myriad picture, both violent
and vibrant, and certainly something from which you cannot turn away. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Cinematically, for me,
the winning factor was the cinematography by Nikos Andritsakis. And frankly,
for someone who managed to execute a movie like <i>Love, Sex aur Dhoka</i>,
I would've expected nothing short of brilliance from Banerjee. There was a
constant nervousness in the camera movements, a sense of unpredictability as it
captured both the loud morcha scenes, and the quiet, narrow, yet palpable
curfewed streets of Bharatnagar. I spoke of contradictions earlier, and it's
notable that the cinematography contributes to the visual telling of these
contradictions; the government offices, with glass doors, polished conference
tables, and the municipal schools, non-functional toilets.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The score, I felt was
apt for a movie as intense as <i>Shanghai</i>, and it is what really
contributed to the intensity of the film. The most striking feature, however,
was Banerjee's use of silence to fill in the gaps - which I believe is the
first of its kind I've ever come across in Hindi cinema. My only complaint was
Vishal-Shekhar's music which, despite sounding great in the promos on TV, did
not have room in the film, and thus, resulted in a slightly jarring effect; the
songs consumed more time than what was required. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Coming back to
metaphors, I think <i>Shanghai</i> does more than just talk about the
Indian state's aspiration to compete with the world by converting its cities
into Shanghais. It is a commentary on the inherent contradictions within the
Indian state; contradictions between the welfare role of the state and its
capitalistic nature. It is about more than just corruption in the system and
the abuse of state power; the corruption runs far deeper, and into the Indian
psyches itself. It is a commentary on very nature of Indian politics.
Elsewhere, I've mentioned that political parties today are no longer connected
to an ideology - be it the right-wing BJP, or the so-called liberal Congress or
the Left, or any of India's regional parties - the politics of India in the
21st century is that of anti-ideology; about synthesizing a form by positioning
itself against an ideology; increased westernization, neo-liberal policy, and
so forth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">What makes <i>Shanghai</i> the
film it is, is the fact that Banerjee manages to capture these fine nuances on
screen, in its profoundness and yes, you guessed it, contradictions. For some
reason, I think of <i>Shanghai</i> as a "muted" (or, as
friend of mine put it aptly: understated) film, mostly because of its noted and
brilliant use of silence, as I said before, and also because you feel a sense
of futility, of being inured to its portrayal of corruption and state sponsored
violence. The Delhi HC was right it calling it a accurate description of the
state of affairs in India; look the Jaitapur, or Raigad - districts earmarked
to become the sites where India would usher in modernity and seal its place in
the global economic order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Shanghai</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> is
a warning bell for some alarmists, a time where the Indian state would sell the
very people who elect governments to raze areas like Bharatnagar and make them
into technological and information hubs, clean buildings, planned streets, and
most of all, a populace which is the product of India’s neo-liberal values, who
are at best passive consumers and at worse, a stupefied, silenced people. It is
also something that would intrigue cynics, because it holds no bars in giving
an honest account of the country—that we cannot do without corruption, that we
cannot build a township, a sea-link, a sky-walk without our governments and
bureaucrats having mud (and often, blood) on their hands. It talks about a
genesis, of a violent kind, when our cities become the hallmarks of the modern
global world order, in a crass Nehruvian manner of speaking.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">This is the India of
the 21<sup>st</sup> century; an amalgamation of contradictions. God, I
love this country. And, it seems, the makers of <i>Shanghai </i>do so
too. <i>Shanghai</i> is a rare gem of a movie. Many won't like it,
because it raises uncomfortable questions. Many like to see the glass as half
full. But optimism doesn’t change the fact that the water in it is dirty. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">So long, and Bharat
mata ki jai.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-27509207177728957912012-04-22T18:07:00.000+05:302012-07-09T18:08:35.499+05:30Peepli. Politics. Etcetera<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 150%;">I think</span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="background-color: white; line-height: 150%;"> </span><em style="background-color: white; line-height: 150%;">Peepli [LIVE]</em><span class="apple-converted-space" style="background-color: white; line-height: 150%;"><i> </i></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 150%;">is a
brilliant movie. It is one of the best satire-political commentaries in recent
times; times where our political class has become more and more thin-skinned of
late. Often resorting to slander, corruption, political one-up-man-ship,
pointless anti-ideology, and so forth, they can't react to criticism without
putting someone in jail or staging a parliamentary walkout. Yet, there's more
to Indian democracy than it meets the eye. Sure, I've been critical of it in
recent posts ('critical' is my attempt at being politically correct. Ironic,
no?) but deep down, in spite of all its flaws, I think we would be a whole lot
better if we stopped a lot of pretence, and just embraced these flaws. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The other day, for example, RR Patil was in my hometown.
Why? Apparently, it seems, to inaugurate a couple of hospitals. And one of
these happened to be very close to my place. So yes, I was expecting a lot of
music, boring speeches, a gazillion microphone tests, and annoying
firecrackers. But Mr.Patil's convoy just made a humble touch and go—much to the
disappointment of the local authorities, who set off the firecrackers anyway. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;">
However, there was a flip side to Mr Patil's visit—the
roads were all done up neatly, the sidewalks cleaned, traffic was being managed
efficiently—apart from his 40-car convoy (exaggeration, but you know). And I
wondered: maybe the visiting-politician is a good thing. I recall the roads
being done up nicely when the Thackeray cousins were here recently (not
together, of course). Years ago, Sharad Pawar visited town in a helicopter. The
roads done up decently then, as well. Now this brings me to the larger issue I
intend to deal with in this essay—something I like to call the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>Peepli </em>[LIVE] effect. Simply put, in India, the culture of politics
is like a glorified culture industry of sorts, thriving on public popularity.
And there are some reasons for it. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
One of the reasons, of course, is that being in politics is
the most effective ways of getting noticed. We’re a country obsessed with politics
and politicians (this post is a case in point). In a small, humble town like mine,
everybody who is anybody does anything to get invited to a rally, opening
ceremony and the likes, especially if there’s a big name attached; bureaucrats,
municipal chiefs, SHG representatives, housing society presidents, youth club
leaders—in short, <i>everyone</i> wants a
piece of the proverbial pie (apart from the apolitical observer, like yours
truly). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;">
Sure, the largely urban population remains somewhat distant
from politicians (if not the political process as a whole). But fact is: we are<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em>all</em> intrigued by politics and politicians alike (I wrote
this post, and you-hopefully-are reading it. See what I mean?). Today, politics
is about being noticed. It's about being at the right place at the right time
(or the wrong time, as many <i>netas, </i>like
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, have made fashionable). Saying the right thing (or, the
wrong thing; fashionable once again) at the right opportunity. If RR Patil
makes a controversial remark, it becomes a trending topic on Twitter (sadly, on
the day in question, Patil made none). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;">
As I looked at the women in flashy saris, and men dressed
pedantically in neatly pressed shirt-trousers, I wondered, rather naively: What
are they doing here? More importantly, <i>why
</i>are they here? One answer, I suspect is this: as Tarun Tejpal says in <i>The Story of my Assassins</i>, the
government will always be the <i>maibaap</i>
(mother and father) of the people. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
I suppose such is
the nature of the postcolonial, post-liberalized Indian nation-state. The
Nehruvian ideals of nation building are long gone; politics is not about
serving the nation anymore (was it ever so?). It is, in very obtuse terms, a
business of the image. With liberalization and the boom in the number of media
houses, TV channels and newspapers—many of them run by politicians
themselves—it is <i>very</i> easy to get
noticed. And, I suspect it is this very allure of getting noticed which makes
Indian politics as intriguing as it is. Either in opposition or in bed with it
(this is a metaphor and has <i>nothing</i>
to do with the Abhishek Manu Singhvi sex tape doing rounds on YouTube). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-81377915483335549742012-04-15T17:55:00.000+05:302013-06-21T16:04:30.570+05:30Teri Marx Ki: Didi sees Red at every Left Turn.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br />
The politics of West Bengal (or is it officially Poschim Bangla now?) have
always intrigued political commentators in particular, and the nation as a
whole. The last decade however was rather boring, because the Left front
resorted to cheap publicity stunts, like withdrawing support to the UPA, only
to lose the State Elections later on. Now, it seems, the politics of WB (PB)
have become interesting once again. Thanks to Mamata Banerjee—the defender of
the Bengali people, the bane of the UPA, and conspiracy-terminator par
excellence. She, it seems, is never short of controversies and is an incredibly
perceptive, and woman of substance (in this case, a healthy diet of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>machcher jhol<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>and rice; or is she vegetarian
now? Then again, name me one Bong worth his/her salt, who is one? And Didi, as
we know, is worth quite a bit if, erm, salt—well, enough to spoil the best laid
recipes of the UPA, at least).<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
There is no challenge big enough that Mamata Didi cannot
handle (and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>not</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>make them into trending topics on
Twitter). After a shocking revelation that the Left was to blame for the number
of crib deaths which plagued state-run hospitals, and that rape victims were in
fact a part of a conspiracy to malign her state (those immoral, loose s****!),
Mamata Didi has left no stone unturned to take the blinkers off the eyes of the
rest of the nation. This woman is one the country’s most tenacious, albeit
amiable chief ministers, whose<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>seemingly</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>“paranoia” driven, and “knee-jerk”
reactions only<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>appear</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>so, because they are portrayed by a
media bribed by the Left & the UPA.<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
And this time, history itself is on her agenda of
reformation. Her target, the person after whom a Facebook group, ‘<i>Why the
fuck is Karl Marx in every freaking subject?</i>’ is named: the German
philosopher, Karl Marx and his partner, Fredrick Engels (the connotations of
the term go beyond the academic nature of their, erm,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>partnership</i>.<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>Hey, the group says so, not me).<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
Now history, we know, is always constructed in an authorial
voice, or the perspective of the “winner”, as many have labelled it. Therefore,
claims Derek O’brien, Trinamool MP (and the once host of the best quiz show on
TV; see, Mamata has intellectuals in her company; how can she<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>possibly<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>be anti-intellectual?) the
decision to remove references to Marx (which is, about two paragraphs spread
across three chapters, and roughly worth 10 marks in the state board exams) was
an attempt to “balance history”. And that is indeed an amiable move,
considering they now wish to burden children with the tales of Mahatma and
Mandela (and Steve Jobs, too, if rumours on Twitter are to be believed).
However, considering the whole issue, why Marx should be at the receiving end
of this ‘balancing act’, still perplexes most people, as clearly the Soviets
lost the Cold War, and China has embraced capitalism (so, if anything, Marx—or
more so: the losing side<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>always</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>had him on their side. Even the
Left-front was defeated). Such unprecedented political victory, that too by a
woman (who does<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>not</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>have a wardrobe full of pink<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>salwar-kameez</i>es and expensive<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>kanjivarams</i>) has led a class of
sceptical commentators (who have made the hash-tag: #arrestmenow as a trending
topic in India) to question both, Didi’s motives and methods, the former they
allege is paranoia, and the latter, fascism.<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
These sceptics could not be any more further from the
truth. And the truth is: Mamata<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>is</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>one of the last remaining
practitioners of Marx’s teachings. Yes, you heard<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>that</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>right. Recall the Singur fiasco: she
ousted TATA Motors, a capitalistic enterprise, benefitting from the arbitrary
and exploitative policies of a neo-liberal economy, and gave away the land to
poor farmers. Of course, the fact that 9,000 people were deprived of a
guaranteed job is but a minor divot in the credibility of her intentions. But
as I always say, it’s the thought—or in this case, the ideological
engagement—that matters. And this was actually a critique of the Left’s
corruption of core Marxian values.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Shame</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>on them!<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
Now that she got a professor arrested for circulating
cartoons of her online, she’s in the public cross-hair. Again (<i>sigh</i>).
What she actually meant to do was, to chastise the man (erm, well, by beating
him up, and arresting him; nobody’s<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span><i>perfect</i>,
you know) for<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>not</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>drawing a real<span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>cartoon and using Photoshop
instead. She was also miffed at the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>wrong</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>reference he made to Satyajit Ray’s
story. After all, she has great respect of Bengal’s artistic and intellectual
tradition. Why, she’s contemplating playing Rabindra-<i>sangeet<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>at traffic junctions even! What
did the Left do for the intellectual and artistic tradition of Bengal?<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>Nothing</i>! (Note: this category
does not include Jyoti Basu). This leaves us with a question, a hypothetical
one, of course: would her…passion for Marx be any different had he been born in
Bengal, and not Germany? Like I said, one can only speculate on this matter.<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
And tomorrow, if she decides to ban left-lane driving, it’s
only because the new rule may perhaps<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>improve<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></i>lane-driving in Calcutta
altogether; a long-shot, but a valid hope nevertheless. Even her decision to
paint Calcutta in Trinamool colours, is based on the scientific notion that
these colours happen to have a pleasing effect on the eyes. Nothing ideological
in there, now, right?<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br />
<br />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br />
<!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div align="center" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: center;">
[This is a work of satire. And I do
hope the Trinamool doesn’t understand what the word means and decides to hire
me in their propaganda wing. Please don’t arrest me; I merely used the hash-tag
to conform to Twitter trends, that’s all! Any resemblance/reference to people
living or dead was, of course, intended—for the sake of credibility. And yes,
you may think it’s unnecessary to write this little ‘note’, but you’d be
surprised at the number of idiots who take satire seriously]<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-41925162022902002882012-04-14T17:53:00.000+05:302013-03-25T22:28:07.728+05:30"My name is Karl. And I am not a Marxist"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Mamata Banerjee is no stranger to controversy.
Conspiracy, it seems though, is what really bothers her. Well, personally I
have run out of jokes on her conspiracy theories regarding crib deaths,
censuring newspapers, and labelling rapes as orchestrated by her detractors.
And now she had to go and remove references of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
from the state higher secondary syllabus. And more recently—which is actually a
day old—she got a professor arrested for circulating a “malicious, and
derogatory” cartoon of her on the internet.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">It was rather hilarious, until the Marx bit. But
now, I’ve hit saturation point. I mean, there is a limit to how many times you
can tweet about <i>one</i> person on Twitter. And like I said, I was
running of jokes.<br />
<br />
From a <i>probashi </i>(diaspora) point-of-view, I’ve always imagined
how life in WB would’ve been like. I mean, apart from my annual trips to my
ancestral home, and the two-day stay at Calcutta, I have never really explored
the culture there, and nor have I had a chance to understand the politics of
the state—at least, in a way I understand it back home, considering the Saffron
legacy in Bombay and Maharashtra. Now, however, I am not too sure. I think
being a distant commentator (and thus, far away from Mamata’s jurisdiction) is
what I would prefer. Heck, I’m even trying to contemplate under what section
she could charge me (to the utter horror of my dad). The thing is, honestly,
I <i>know </i>that the politics of the Trinamool are fed by paranoia
and paranoia alone; their ideology, so to say, is an <i>anti</i>-ideology—violently
negating every (seemingly oppositional) belief system, be it political,
ethical, cultural or moral.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">So, without taking on the Trinamool and Mamata
directly (mostly, because I don’t wish to recycle Arnab Goswami’s profound
critiques) I think I should give a little thought to the ‘real’ victims of the
Didi’s vendetta: Marx and Engels.<br />
<br />
My first tryst was Marx was in the 10<sup>th</sup> standard, when I first
wished to read <i>Das Kapital, </i>as much as I wanted to read
Rousseau, or Jefferson—because back then, history had a way of inspiring the
mind of a fifteen year-old, and the idea that I could bask in the ideas of
these great men, ideas which inspired revolutions, was just fascinating.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Fast forward four years, when I’ve actually read
quite a bit of Marx, well enough to see the naivety and sheer stupidity of
Mamata’s move. And I don’t think Mamata’s solely responsible for this—the more
widespread outlook on Marx, and Marxism, are often very crass and diluted
versions of Marx’s original ideas. For example, almost everyone—every layperson
at least—would equate Soviet Communism with Marx. While Marx’s vision of the
Revolution did indeed encapsulate the establishment of a communist stage,<a href="" name="_ednref1">[1]</a> but he never envisaged a communist <i>state</i>—which
is a contradiction in terms.<a href="" name="_ednref2">[2]</a> The later works of
Marx are often his more scientific one; that is, his vision of the revolution
isn’t merely a utopian one, but a scientific and logical one, which is rooted
in the class inequalities and exploitation of the capitalist political-economy.<a href="" name="_ednref3">[3]</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The Communist Party of India’s (Marxist) attempts
have also been an ideological corruption of several of Marx’s core arguments;
the bourgeoisie social location of its top leaders, like Karat, Yechury and
their well-rehearsed arguments against the neo-liberal economics, are examples
of a few. However, the real issue here is not the CPI(M), but the problem of
putting a Marxian <i>ideology</i> (once again, a contradiction in
terms, insofar as Marx’s works are concerned<a href="" name="_ednref4"></a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5508796509243521674">)</a>[4] in the multiparty political scene
in India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">I’ve had the privilege of learning under teachers
who’ve presented both the strengths and weaknesses of the bulk of Marx’s works,
and under them, I’ve had the confidence to engage with (and critique) some of
his ideas, which I wouldn’t have, had I not been interested in the philosopher
as a naïve 15 year-old. And by removing the reference to Marx (for, they’re
exactly that: <i>references</i> to Marx and Engels, in context of the
Russian and Industrial Revolution, where they all but mention Marx for a mere
paragraph or two) she’s sending out a very wrong, and erroneous message to the
to-be intellectual van guard of tomorrow: the fact that someone else gets to
choose and thus, to shape what we would learn; the ideology of the state, an
ideology of paranoia. I agree with Derek O’brien when he says equal weightage
has to be given to Mahatma and Mandela. But is Marx any more, or less,
important? I don’t think so. For, as a friend of mine put it, in education,
balancing is not synonymous with deletion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In one sociology class, we were debating the
relevance of Marxian thought, one side of the argument stating that Marx’s
works have lost their relevance now that the revolution he predicted never
happened, and that even universities abroad don’t study Marx. Then again, on
the other hand, modification of Marxian thought, like the new-Leftism of the
Frankfurt School,<a href="" name="_ednref5">[5]</a> and very recent movements
against neo-liberal economics, like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ have showed that the
central arguments of Marx’s works will <i>always </i>be relevant,
because of their deep engagement with the struggles of humanity. And as long as
the debate rages, young people will find one way or another to read up on Marx,
and by god, we need educational institutions which can guide students without
corrupting the core ideas of an intellectual tradition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Marx’s sociology was, in many ways, incomplete. But
which theory is otherwise? I think (arguably) his most central idea—that of
economic determinism, has been proved wrong by both his critics as well as his
successors.<a href="" name="_ednref6">[6]</a> But that only enhances his
relevance, not diminishes it. In a country like ours, until we’re able to
tackle the most basic, and human issues, the German philosopher would continue
to influence as well as intimidate, many like me and my peers. But I cannot see
a reason why Didi should be so bothered. I mean, by the extension of her logic,
the next step would be to ban left-lane driving in West Bengal. Then again, to
those of you familiar with WB traffic, there is <i>hardly</i> any
lane driving, in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Endnotes</span></b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<a href="" name="_edn1"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">[1]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> Marx essentially sees
history as dialectic, that is, it moves through stages with different competing
interests between social groups; the stages he refers to are: primitive
communism, where everyone owned everything; slave mode of production where the
slaves had no rights; the feudal mode, where the serfs were tied to their
lands; capitalistic mode, where the capitalist owned resources, including the
labour of the workers; and, the stage of communism, where the capitalistic
economy was dismantled, or overthrown.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<a href="" name="_edn2"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">[2]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> For the revolution to be
successful, Marx predicted, it was necessary that the state, which is an
apparatus to favour the capital-owning class, to “wither away”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<a href="" name="_edn3"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">[3]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> In a capitalistic
political-economy, it was in the state’s benefit to favour the capital-owning
class as it ensured greater profits for the state. The population, for Marx,
was effectively divided into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (haves and
have-nots, respectively) and the latter were exploited by the former. Class
struggle was thus, the basic premise of the revolution, for Marx.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<a href="" name="_edn4"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">[4]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> For Marx, ideologies or the
“superstructure” (e.g. religion, political systems etc.) stemmed from the
“base”, viz. the material or the economic sphere, i.e. the relationship of man
to the means of production.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<a href="" name="_edn5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">[5]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> By the mid-twentieth
century, proponents of Marxian thought were disillusioned with the Soviet
state’s practice of ‘corrupted’ Communism, and the blatant capitalistic
economies of the West. Thus, a new wave in Marxian thought emerged, of which
one of the most well-known is the Frankfurt Institute (1930s to 1960s).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<a href="" name="_edn6"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">[6]</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> The Frankfurt School, for
example, used the ideas of another sociologist, Max Weber, and argued against
the economic reductionism of traditional Marxian thought, saying that
ideologies and ideas were equally important as, and not entirely dependent on,
the economic sphere of life.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-78703801823704520372011-12-31T18:48:00.000+05:302012-08-10T22:13:22.140+05:30End-of-the-year-ramblings and a tribute to democracy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">They
say the year 2011 was the year of protests and revolutions; <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102132,00.html" target="_blank">Time Magazine namedthe anonymous, face half-covered protester the Person of the Year</a>. The Arab
world witnessed what many have called the Arab Spring and the Jasmine
Revolution. Wall Street was occupied by anti-capitalist protesters—the “99
percent”, as they call themselves. Back home, many claim that we witnessed the “<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2361213.ece" target="_blank">second freedom struggle</a>”, this one against corruption—of what kind, though, remains
ambiguously unanswered. It seems that people were happy rallying around a
messiah figurehead, and chanting anti-government slogans. “Politicians are
thieves!” said millions of voices. This year has been one where our concepts of
democracy, governance and freedom have been tested, challenged, changed and,
rather paradoxically, taken for granted even.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A
great year for democracy, a great year for revolutions—only, like always,
there’s a catch. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">About
a year or so back, I scribbled these lines in a notebook, unaware of its
significance in the context of last year’s protests. It goes like this: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">‘<i>neither am I a son of a politician, nor an influential anywho...I am a voice
in the crowd...one silent for too long...decided to speak up now. The kind of
voice you should be afraid of. Very, very afraid.</i>’</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When I saw images of
hundreds of thousands assembling in Tahrir Square in Cairo, in Tripoli, in
Sanaa, in Damascus, I realised the profoundness of these otherwise meaningless
lines. Democracy, it seemed then, was being salvaged from a deep, dark slumber
it had fallen into in these regimes of tyranny and decadency. Today, while I
still hold that romanticised perspective, I confess, I am a tad cynical. At
least when I see democracy being taken for granted in my country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Take
the Parliament proceedings, for example. The Opposition and members of the
so-called civil society called it a “<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Lokpal-Bill-put-to-sleep-at-midnight/articleshow/11298043.cms" target="_blank">midnight murder of democracy</a>”. I beg to
differ. I would refer to the same incident as democracy struggling to fight
efforts that stifle it. Make no mistake, I am not a firm believer in democracy;
it is, in Rousseau’s words, a system meant for gods. Thus, a democracy for a
flawed species like ours can be only that: flawed. And it is also one which my
countrymen have taken for granted. And this is the premise of this essay. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
year 2011 may well be the year of protestors, and it may be rightly so, too.
But we can hardly feature in the same. India is notorious for processes which
subvert the democratic principles on many, many levels; the bureaucracy has
come to exist like a sui generis system, existing as a culture industry of
sorts, subsuming talent, dissent and everything it can; which is, to all
intents and purposes, running the country. People who speak up for rights are
labelled as seditionists, anti-nationalists and what not; indigenous movements
are labelled as being Luddite and anti-development; vast hinterland tracts of
the country living without electricity, water supply and organised governance. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><i>This</i> is the murder of democracy, or the
rape of it. Having my rights trampled by the vociferous advocacy of someone
else’s peeves - that is the molestation of democracy. All these are far from
homicidal intents. And we should know one thing: the democratic setup (in the
neo-liberal sense) is what allows the powered classes to retain control of power.
So, for the better or worse, democracy in India is a self-serving, and a self-defeating mechanism simultaneously. It is alive, but crippled. Not
murdered, mind you. Not yet, at least. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Which
brings me to the next part of my argument: the future of democracy. Anna
Hazare’s fast has been declared a revolution, freedom struggle and what not.
Truth is: the only true oppression that we have ever seen, collectively, was
pre-1947. There have been regional tensions in the past, four major wars,
countless attacks, and tens of thousands of lives lost in all kinds of
extremist violence. Yet, I think I’ll be brash—or foolish—enough to say that we
will never see the same fate as Egypt, or Libya, or Syria. One, because the
self-serving and self-defeating system would not allow for the state to
become tyrannical; and two, because revolution has died in the minds of the
Indian people. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Sure
thousands gathered at Ramlila Maidan and protested, sang songs of unity and
nationalism. But when push comes to shove—which we, in all probability, would
not feel—the <i>sarkar</i> is the <i>maibaap</i> for the people. No matter which
party is in power, the government will always be the patriarch of the Indian
people. We won’t take to anarchy or revolution because (apart from the need for
it not arising, in the first place) we are all too preoccupied with our
nine-to-five jobs, our bubbled existences, the IPL, whilst partaking in profound criticisms of the government, holding candle-light vigils, staying indoors on election day, to name a few. And the other India—the one which, by
government standards, earns less than 32 rupees a day—is too busy trying to make
ends meet. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Self-serving
and self-defeating at the same time. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A revolution
is too time consuming, too unpredictable. We go to election with fixed,
dichotomous results in mind: either the UPA or the NDA. Or, a caste or linguistic affinity. Religion, maybe. And frankly, can there be another option? Unless Team Anna contests the Lok Sabha polls in 2014. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i><span style="mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">We</span></i><span style="mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> won’t change
the nation because that would mean changing our habits; inviting uncertainty,
chaos and a possibility of missing the IPL and our daily dose of Bigg Boss. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This
essay, or rambling—whatever you choose to call it—will not change the nation,
nor aid the same in any way whatsoever. Because that is not my prerogative; as
Oscar Wilde puts it, an artist’s job is to portray the world as he sees it, not
to reform it as we know it. I cannot imagine a “changed” India. And I don’t
think the 1.2 billion Indians can do so either—not without problems, at least.
They may go to Ramlila or Azad maidan and protest for a romanticised vision. And
I, on my arm-chair—or desk more so—will continue to be cynical about it. We are
a paradoxical nation filled with hypocrites and starved souls. And by god,
that’s a very morbid reason for why I love India. <br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">
Here’s to democracy, to revolution and to a freedom taken forever for granted.
Happy new year and have a <i>fantastic </i>2012!</span><br />
<br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-36813560221745593382011-12-27T18:46:00.000+05:302012-07-09T20:10:56.468+05:30Some thoughts on multiculturalism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As a nation,
largely and collectively, we take personal pride in calling ourselves a
multicultural or a pluralist society. Of course, why shouldn’t we—many rightly
point out. We are a very large nation, with the states having their unique,
distinct, yet collective heritage. The official state-sponsored secularism
makes matters like religious orientation a question of choice and is thus,
protected by law against discrimination. True, xenophobia is a reality in
today’s society, but often so when it confronts states as politico-economic
entities, rather than cultural ones; even the right-wing organisations are not
strictly anti-other cultures per se—at least not now; the BJP would require
Muslims and Christians be <i>more</i> Hindu,
or Raj Thackeray would want migrants to be fluent in Marathi culture (as if
that’d stop him and his north Indian bashing agenda). However, apart from such
instances of ethnocentric discourses, our notion of multiculturalism, even within
such complex structures and realities, is rather dogmatic and one-dimensional. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">True, we may profess our multi-ethnic, pluralistic nature by
saying that festivals or religious celebrations are more widely celebrated, and
all; we may enjoy the cuisine of another state, or perhaps even dress
traditionally for any such occasion. But, these attributes are external, as
opposed to an internalised one, like say, language. People often remark that
Marathi speaking skills are rather efficient, for a Bengali, that is. And I get
even stranger looks when I say that I enjoy Tamil music. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“How can you?” they ask, wide-eyed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Because I like it, and I enjoy the music,” is my usually awkward
reply.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“But you don’t understand the language...”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Do I need to?”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Well, need I elaborate anymore?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">We are
programmed—as citizens, or Indians, or plainly as individuals in a
multicultural society—to think that each culture, so to say, is endemic. In the
real world, this would translate as one of those shows on SAB TV, where you
have practically every linguistic state group residing in a cooperative housing
society. And quite often, we are fooled to believe that such realities actually
exist. If we are indeed so multicultural, why then, for example, are people
from the north-eastern states conspicuously absent in Tarak Mehta’s cooperative
society? More so, not only are we led to believe that each culture is endemic,
but also that in being endemic, they are something external to us. We may enjoy
Gujrati <i>theplas</i> being a
Maharashtrian, or <i>appams</i> if we’re
Bengali. We might even dress, in rare occasions, in the “garb” of another
state. But internalised knowledge, say language, or music, is something unknown
to our schema of understanding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Maybe that’s why a certain professor of mine expressed her
surprise when she met a student, who happens to be Catholic, and would sing
Hindi songs—not the larger ‘Bollywood’, mind you—with ease, as opposed to,
perhaps Christmas carols or Billy Joel. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In a broader
international context, we may take insult when we are lumped as south Asians;
because “we’re Indian, and we are a multicultural society.” But even within the
multicultural framework of our own society, we respond only and largely to the
state-sponsored idea of pluralism. More pressing issues, such as tribal identities
were left unresolved during the period of state formation. And now that we are
a properly functioning politico-economic union, with demarcated cultural hubs,
and indeed the idea of what exactly may constitute culture, such questions
would remain unanswered or unresolved. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">A celebration of multiculturalism, thus, seems to require the marginalisation
or negation even, of certain cultures. And I shall not expect a relaxation of
those curious looks when I profess my likeness for Tamil music. So much for unity in diversity, I suppose. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5508796509243521674.post-57821588952645569602011-11-11T18:42:00.000+05:302013-09-29T18:58:49.166+05:30Forgotten Justice<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br />
The internet is abuzz with a lot of activity concerning two individuals: Keenan
Santos and Reuben Fernandez. There are online petitions, Facebook pages,
newspaper campaigns demanding justice for Keenan and Reuben, and for
zero-tolerance of crimes against women. The tragic incident, which
unfortunately resulted in the deaths of Keenan and Rueben, has put this issue
of sexual harassment and street-violence in the limelight. The chief minister,
the law minister and the likes have been approached. A vast, internet-surfing,
20-something (and older) crowd has demanded justice. And in all likelihood,
justice would be served.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
I shall not deal with their quest for justice, or any of
their campaigns doing the same. Nor I am going to advocate their cause. Not
because there’s something wrong in it; for clearly, there isn’t; but because I
have come to question our very sense of morality and conception of justice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
There are several questions I have about what happened that
night, and thanks to the media, there are several answers too. I will refrain
from commenting on them, because by doing so I would indirectly question Keenan
and Rueben’s actions, and thus, their memories. What I will question, is the
aftermath in the public domain; which I see reposted on my Facebook wall every
day.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
Most of the posts say that, I could have been in their
place, and therefore I should care about the cause. I agree to that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
But is that the only reason why I should care? Because
someone from my social location has been wilfully and gravely caused hurt;
because my existence and ideas of freedom in this city are now under threat? Or
is it because my female friends (also from my social location) could bear the
brunt of such callousness in the future?<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
If it is so, then I shall very politely refrain from
expressing my “support”. Make no mistake; I am not undermining the cause here;
but the methods to act upon a cause.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
For one, I think there’s something very wrong in the way
we’ve all jumped on to this bandwagon. For long, and even now, the newspapers
have carried one-paragraphed reports of cases, be it crimes of a sexual nature,
or instances of street violence resulting in deaths and injuries. Be it rape,
or dowry deaths, or child abuse, society’s response to such crimes has always
been that of schematic empathy, so long as the mainstream has remained
unaffected. My question is: why haven’t there been campaigns to address these
issues?<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
Before I answer that I would like to share an example.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
About six, maybe seven months back, there was a case of
serial-rapes and murders of three girls in a Kurla slum. All three girls were
abducted from outside their homes, raped and murdered; their bodies were
discarded as one would do so for a culled animal. The Garib nagar area lived in
perpetual fear for the lives of their children for nearly three months. Despite
of which, the third girl’s body was found on the terrace of a police building.
Mercifully, the killings stopped and a suspect was arrested. And it is
commendable on part of the press that they followed the case thoroughly till it
reached a somewhat conclusive end; I am not yet aware of any trial or
conviction. But, while this incident may have put one isolated issue on the
frontlines of public discourse, several others are relegated to
one-paragraphed, correspondent reports, only to be lost in the newspapers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
Every other day there are reports of sexual offences
against women, or about people being assaulted as viciously and fatally as
Keenan and Rueben were. It’s not that crime has reached unmanageable
proportions or that the police are not doing their job. Whatever the scenario
was, it is still more or less the same. The tragic episode at Amboli was an
instance where these two worlds collided, and led to a crime of the most
heinous nature, condemnable by all standards of a civilised society.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
But the real injustice does not lie only in this one
instance, which by all means was a freak incident. The real injustice lies in
our inability to see beyond our pain. We are asking for tougher laws because
our shelled existence of safety and security has been shattered; because we
have been exposed to the murky and treacherous waters, through which thousands
thread every day, and very often, they do so under the pain of death and
suffering. It’s only when our feet have been filthied that we are asking for
the mud to be removed. And truth be told, we will retreat to our shelled
existence once we are assured that we shall never again come in touch with such
murkiness, even if it damns the people on the other side.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
When the Taj and Oberoi were attacked on 26<sup>th</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>November, a certain class of people
were shocked and were forced to come out of their luxuries; precisely because
these very luxuries were now under threat. The Taj became the symbol of the
26/11 terror attacks; not CST. The 26/11 attacks have had anniversaries—which
were callous and hypocritical celebrations of elitism; the July 11 train
blasts, or any other terror episodes, haven’t.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
In a similar vein, on-going campaigns crying out for
‘Zero-tolerance’ and ‘Justice for Keenan and Rueben’ reek of upper-middle class
bias and elitism. It reeks of our apathy and indifference to confront issues
which do not directly affect us. There is a huge deficit in our notion of
morality, and the way this notion espouses justice. And as such, by declaring
our outrage in the public forum, there is a severely hegemonic move towards
covering up this deficit. We profess to defend our morality by contextualising
justice in a way in which it would primarily benefit us. Not that a campaign
sexual harassment would not benefit a less privileged, marginalised group. But
we are consecutively and conspicuously failing to address a larger question:
not just about the denial of justice, but also of the lack of access to it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
The outrage and outburst regarding the vicious assault on
Keenan and Rueben’s is by every means justified; but this is an outrage moulded
by our class consciousness and threat perception to our way of life. More than
that, what I find staggering are the posts on the Facebook page, which demand
nothing short of vigilantism, bloodlust and anarchy. Such extreme reactions are
not a manifestation of injustice; far from it, this is the result of severely
clamped vision of society beyond our own boundaries. Many claim, they’ve been
wronged; but to manipulate such motives and indeed to manufacture conscience
and justice on a public forum is a condemnable act in itself. <o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
And this demand for justice stifles another one, rendering
it meaningless and unimportant: that of social injustice.</div>
</div>
Proshanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14768709157175259346noreply@blogger.com0