Response to Shashi Tharoor

Recently, Dr. Shashi Tharoor shared on Twitter an article he wrote on the Sabarimala controversy and his opinions on the same. He titled it "Why Sabarimala issue leaves instinctive liberals like me torn". Naturally, my curiosity was piqued and I proceeded to read the article the MP had written. (Tharoor's article can be found here: https://theprint.in/opinion/why-sabarimala-issue-leaves-instinctive-liberals-like-me-torn-shashi-tharoor/147759/)

Seeing that the shrine opens today, and that I had some thoughts about the article when I read it, I feel compelled to pen down the same today.

Tharoor begins the article by listing what he says are the four principles at stake in the Sabarimala issue. He goes on to say that while he usually adheres to all four principles at the same time, he finds that the principles clash with each other in the Sabarimala case. He says:

There are four principles at stake on Sabarimala, all of which I normally have no difficulty adhering to at the same time:

• Unconditional respect for the equality of women and men;
• Respect for the Constitution and the institutions it has created, notably the decisions of the Supreme Court;
• Respect for the rights of religious adherents to follow their beliefs and practices, so long as they do no harm to others; and
• Respect for Indian democracy and the rule of law that sustains it.

What is unusual about Sabarimala is that it offers the first example, in my experience, of these invaluable and seemingly unchallengeable principles clashing with each other.

As a constitutionalist and a liberal, I can easily uphold the first two principles. As a democrat and an elected representative responsive to his voters, I am happy to uphold the last two. The problem is that the two pairs of admirable values are diametrically opposed to each other on Sabarimala.

I have no problem in accepting Tharoor's list of the principles at stake, but I do not agree with his view that these principles clash with each other or that they are "diametrically opposed to each other".

It is very simple to see why the first two principles would lead to the conclusion that women must be allowed into the shrine. "Unconditional" respect for equality of men and women demands that women be given access to public spaces on the same footing as men. It is very interesting that Tharoor uses the word "unconditional"- and Im happy that he did so.

"Unconditional" implies that this respect for equality does not come with riders. There are no exceptions. There is no "so long as religious beliefs permit it". There is no "so long as it does not offend believers" or "so long as it does not go against established customs". The meaning of the word "unconditional" is simple. There cannot be any compromise on achieving equality between men and women.

Devotees and those who support the custom have argued that women are involved in the Sabarimala prayers at the "initial"/"preparatory" stages. "You dont have to actually go to the shrine to be a part of the prayers". "Women do this and that at home, they perform this and do that, men go. So women are as much a part of this as men".

The problem is that prescribing separate acts for each gender and saying "You have to do this, and you can't do that" is completely against equality. Strict adherence to gender roles removes the concept of choice. Society shouldn't be able to dictate what is acceptable for a particular gender and what isn't. It is a consequence of this attitude that denied education to women for years. It is a consequence of this attitude that people think that a woman's role is in the kitchen, or that it is a woman's duty to "obey" her husband, and I argue, exactly this attitude that perpetuated (and continues to perpetuate) discrimination against the LGBTQIA+ community as well.

It is unfair for the society to prescribe specific roles for members of a particular gender and then to expect each and every individual of that gender to listen. This is nothing but taking away the concept of choice. Women (and men, and everyone else) must be allowed to choose how they want to be a part of the prayers/rituals at Sabarimala (or if they want to be involved at all).

The second principle that Tharoor lists is respect for the constitution and the institutions it has created. Tharoor says "... notably the decisions of the Supreme Court". This one is fairly straightforward. If the Supreme Court has ordered that women be let in, then you will have to support the entry of women. There cannot be any contrary view to this.

Now let's come to the third and fourth principles- the 2 principles that Tharoor says lead to results that "are diametrically opposite" the first two.

The third principle is respect for religious adherents to follow their beliefs and practices, so long as they do no harm to others.

Unfortunately, my social media presence and the statements I've made have led many to believe that Im opposed to this principle. And it probably is due to my own doing. But I have said this in public before, and I will say it again- I will stand against any attempt to prevent believers from exercising their faith or from practicing their beliefs. I will strongly support the right of believers to practice and propagate their religion. However, unlike the first principle, this is not "unconditional". 

Tharoor puts in a condition himself- "so long as they do no harm to others".

Tharoor seems to believe that this principle would support the custom of denying access to women between the age of 10 and 50. This would mean that Tharoor believes that there is no harm caused by this religious belief.

To analyse this, we would need to understand what the word "harm" means. Does this mean only physical injury? Certainly not. One of the most widely accepted/known definitions of "harm" comes from the moral philosopher Bernard Gert who says harm is any of the following:

1. Pain
2. Disability
3. Death
4. Loss of ability/freedom
5. Loss of pleasure

Tharoor, later on in his article, speaks about the reason behind the custom. He says that the legend of Sabarimala is that Ayyappa did not want to "see any female in the reproductive stage in life" and hence deliberately removed himself to the temple shrine. The accuracy of Tharoor's description of the legend is whole another debate to be had, but even if it were true, the third principle states that beliefs and practices can be followed and respected so long as they do not cause harm.

So is preventing access to temples "causing harm"? Remember that the reasoning here is irrelevant. Because if it is shown that preventing access to temples causes harm, then the reason doesn't matter.

And this is where the crux is. "There is no discrimination because there is no loss/harm caused" is untrue. If Tharoor thinks that preventing access to temples causes no harm, then I expect him to stick to the same stand when it comes to whether Dalits can be prevented from entering temples.

Tharoor argues that "women are barred out of respect for His wishes. These are questions of faith, not rationality and susceptible to emotion, not reason".

If people accuse me of "equating the Sabarimala practice to denial of access on grounds of caste", I accept the accusation, especially because your justification for the sabarimala practice on this ground is the same justification that casteists/apologists had to prevent the entry of Dalits into temples many years ago.

The caste system is not based on logic or reason, but there are caste hindus, who with all their faith and sincerely hold the view that Dalits should not be allowed into temples for whatever reason. It is a matter of faith for them. Does Tharoor's statement- "These are questions of faith, not rationality and susceptible to emotion, not reason" seem a valid justification for this?

It is saddening that some "progressive liberals" have identified the horrors of the caste system but do not apply their logic and reasoning when it comes to how we treat or look at women, and those who are non-binary.

Denial of access to temples leads to loss of freedom which is harm. Simple. 

Further, various arguments were made in the Supreme Court and on social media that the bar is due to Ayyappa's status as a naishtika brahmachari and due to his vows and hence, there was no "disrespect to women". But all one has to do is see the interview of the priests of the temple to the media given last month when women activists were blocked from entering the temple. The priest clearly said that it was their belief that "menstruating women/women of menstruating age" must not enter. It is extremely obvious that this is the taboo that exists. Every thing else is just (dishonest) intellectualisation by those who know that this argument would not find favor.

And even if that is not the case- even if the status of Ayyappa being a naishtik brahmachari is the reasoning behind the bar, such a belief still causes harm by denying access to public spaces on equal footing leading to loss of freedom and hence, it does not go against the third principle to support entry of women inside the shrine. Justice Chandrachud, in the Supreme Court judgment spoke very rightly about "imposing the burden of a man's vows on a woman". That is unfair and cannot be allowed.

The last principle is "respect for democracy, and the rule of law that sustains it". My point is that respect for rule of law necessitates respect for Supreme Court decisions.

"Respect for democracy" does not mean majoritarian views must succeed all the time. Tharoor knows this all too well. If the belief of the majority is discriminatory, a democracy- especially one with a constitution like ours- will not or atleast, should not allow such views to survive.

Perhaps the most problematic statement that Tharoor made in his article is this one:

"abstract notions of constitutional principle also have to pass the test of societal acceptance — all the more so when they are applied to matters of faith."

This is an extremely dangerous statement to make. The Constitution, especially the fundamental rights chapter exists so that those who do not find social acceptance are protected by the law. This is why the Court has been able to recognize live-in relationships, LGBTQIA+ rights, stand against casteism etc.

Fundamental Rights exist in our constitution to ensure that those who do not have social acceptance have the protection of the law. To say that constitutional principles itself must "pass the test of social acceptance" is hence, extremely dangerous. To add on "all the more so when they are applied to matters of faith" is unbelievable. Tharoor must know that this line of reasoning will be easily used by his largest political rivals to defend policies/views that they promote that Tharoor may be strongly against. And this reasoning would support such policies and views.

I do not completely disagree with Tharoor's article though. I agree with his views on how CPI(M) and the BJP have handled this issue (though I would not spare Tharoor's Congress Party as well). I also agree with him that Courts deciding what constitutes "essential religious practice" is problematic.

Courts cannot and should not do that. In my view, there is no necessity for an "essential practices test". Test all practices against the anvil of fundamental rights. Any practice that survives the fundamental rights test can be allowed and any practice, essential or not, must not be allowed to exist if it violates fundamental rights. The fact that a practice is extremely important to one religious group cannot be justification to allow violation of fundamental rights. That is the inherent flaw the essential feature test.

Tharoor also states:

"It is all very well to say that religions must adhere to the normal rules of liberal democracy, but the truth is they don’t. Gender equality is a vital principle in civic society and in political democracy, but it is by no means universally observed in the religious world. Muslim mosques don’t allow men and women to pray together in the same space. The Catholic Church does not permit female priests. Some Shinto monasteries are off-limits to women altogether. Eight Hindu temples in India do not allow men to enter during specified periods, and the Kumari Amman temple situated in Kanyakumari does not permit them at all. The law does not interfere in such matters. But in Sabarimala, it has chosen to."

I agree with him here too. Gender equality is no means universally observed in the religious world. This is where I'd like to remind Tharoor of the first principle he stated: Unconditional respect for the equality of men and women. 

It is because of that unconditional respect must there be disdain for religious practices that do not respect equality. Catholic Churches must consider females on the same footing as males when appointing priests. All mosques must be open for entry of women and so must those Shinto monastries that Tharoor speaks of. Gender equality cannot be compromised.

What is interesting is that Tharoor says the law has "chosen to" interfere in Sabarimala but not the other issues. No. A PIL was filed forcing the law to look into these issues, and the law interfered. I sincerely hope similar petitions for throwing open mosques and monastries to women follow, or to ensure that women are considered on the same footing as men for appointment as priests also follows. I will fully support each and every one of those petitions.

And this is what concerns many believers. They believe that this judgment could lead to the Supreme Court interfering in every religious practice. This was also highlighted in the dissenting opinion of Justice Indu Malhotra in her portion on maintainability, unless I am mistaken. However, this is not a "concern" for me. I look forward to it. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall" is the phrase. Justice must be done irrespective of the consequences and our commitment to justice cannot waver.

Tharoor ends his article thus:

This leaves instinctive liberals like me torn between our basic respect for gender equality and our democratic duty to respect the beliefs and wishes of our constituents. In religious matters, beliefs must prevail; in a pluralistic democracy, legal principles and cultural autonomy must both be respected. The Supreme Court has a chance to consider all these issues when it hears the review petitions on 13 November. Once it rules, we must all work co-operatively, in consultation with all stakeholders and with respect for the Constitution and the believers, to decide how to take this complex issue forward.

Saying "In religious matters, beliefs must prevail" would directly support multiple harmful and discriminatory practices in various religion. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the review petitions in detail in open court next year.

Here is sincerely hoping that Constitutional values do not fall prey to the threat posed by religious groups.

Tharoor also seems to have tweeted today that the Congress stands "unconditionally for equality but also firmly with the believers". Such (deliberate?) lack of clarity or failure to take a stance from a man of Shashi Tharoor's status is disappointing.

Dr. Tharoor, it is not the four principles you had stated at the beginning of your article that are in conflict with each other. It is the principle of equality and the faith of the believers. You cannot stand with both. It is surprising that you find no conflict in the latter and are somehow able to support both. That leaves me very confused.

Love Letter-1. Dear An.

Dear An, 

You need to get used to the nickname. Or maybe you already have. Im sorry, but I really finding it difficult to call you Morgan :P

I dont remember when or how exactly we started talking. I do remember that it was on this amazing little online community called the City of IF and honestly, one of the best things Ive got out of that forum is the friendship I have with you.

Our friendship is really testament to the fact that you don't need to physically meet someone in order to love them. I've been wanting to write this to you for a while, so here it goes.

My favourite thing about you is how you love. I've met many people in my life- some of my best friends are people I've never met, but the one thing that sets you apart from everyone I know is your ability to love. You have the absolute purest heart I've ever known.

We may not converse daily, but I see your posts. I read what you write, see the posts that you share and every time I see them, it leaves me awestruck. Let me tell you, it's not JUST the fact that you write so well, but it is the emotions you show.

I've seen "debates" and arguments you've had on various threads with some of your friends. I've seen how you respond to the most hateful of messages, and comments that spewed venom against people of certain communities with class and grace. And I love that.

When Chennai went through it's floods last year, there was absolutely no need for someone safely tucked in across the globe to show so much concern and love. And I've never thanked you for what you did then, so here goes.

As you know, it was a pretty horrible time for the city and my brother, Vishal and I were staying up doing the little we could. One thing that Im immensely thankful for is my big sister in a different time zone. Thank you for ensuring that I was well rested. Thank you for screaming at us and ensuring that we took care of ourselves. Above all, thank you so much for those messages of love and support. They did provide tangible support. For me, at the time, you provided exactly what I needed, You have no idea how much those messages full of love helped me stay calm, stay focused and positive. You were, as always, an absolute sweetheart.

Our virtual friendship has been going on for about 4 years now? And in that time, I've seen so much of your life. I remember the time you excitedly announced "Im Morgan Nicole Henschen!" to the world and how I regretted not being able to actually be at your wedding. (You promised to be at mine though. Remember that.) I've seen the amazing pictures you put up of your cute little kids, and there are times I wish I could hug them and tell them how lucky they are to have a mother like you. The greatest gift a child could ask for is the love of the mother. And knowing you, I know your boys get that in plentiful. They're incredibly lucky and I cant wait to see them grow up and take on the world. If you're ever worried about how they'll turn out, you needn't be. They have the greatest role model for a mom, and Im sure that like you, they'll grow up to be absolute gems with hearts full of love.

I can only hope that the people with you- the people around you know how fortunate they are to have you in their lives. Im sure that they do, and they really appreciate you, but just in case they need a reminder, show them this letter.

To me, the measure of a human being is how they have impacted the lives of others. And honestly, the way you've impacted mine, you've already won in life. I know you're going through health issues, and I really really hope that you get better soon. It's unfair that someone like you should be going through all this, but Im sure you'll be fine. As much as I wish I could do more to help you out, please know that you're always in my thoughts, and that I love you.

One of my biggest regrets is not being able to meet you when I made the trip to your country this summer. It totally sucks that it didn't go the way we planned, but I promise- we will meet soon. It has to happen someday, and when it does, it's going to be absolutely wonderful. In the US, in India, or any other part of the world, I cant wait to meet you, hug you and tell you what you mean to me face to face.

You are an absolute gem of a human being. And the world would be much better off if we had more people like you. You will always be one of my favorite people ever. And if you do need anything, or need someone to talk to, Im always here to listen and support you.

I love you.

Vikas 

Diary of a Male Feminist

Dear Diary,

I've been meaning to write to you about feminism for quite sometime, and I've finally decided to do it, while also telling you what I think is the single biggest threat that men face. (To skip directly to this part, Ctrl+F "Anyway, the point of this post" and start reading from the paragraph that starts as such)

As you may have known, I used to hate feminists. I used to hate feminism, and I thought of it as a stupid movement that was completely unnecessary, taken too far and used as an excuse for man-hating and for women to assert dominance and play the victim card. Then, I grew up. And I learnt.

For quite a few years now, I've been calling myself a feminist, and I believe every sensible, sane person must do the same. This is because I've come to realize that feminism, in its truest sense, is simply about equality. It's not a movement that's gender exclusive. Does it focus majorly on one gender? Yes, but that's because they're the ones who have been systematically oppressed through the ages and achieving equality hence obviously involves empowering them to the point of equality. So yes, it is focused on one gender, and with sufficient cause. But that does not mean that the movement is exclusive to a single gender.

There seems to be this huge wave of people, clamoring about the problems that men face, and how "the media" and "the feminists" don't talk about these issues. This strikes me as particularly odd, because I honestly think that feminism is the answer to the problems that men face.

Male victims of domestic abuse are laughed at because of the fact that it's considered humiliating and unmanly for a man to be beaten up by a woman. And why is that? Because of the mindset men are supposed to be stronger and women, weaker. If we were all feminists and acknowledged that we're all equal, maybe this wouldn't be the case.

Male victims of rape are ignored (even more so if the alleged rapist is a woman) because "if he didn't want it, he could have fought it". Because it's inherently easy for men to fight off  women, and because there cannot be any case where a woman forces a man into something against his will? And why? Because women are supposed to be the weaker sex?

Im a law student in India, and yes, there are multiple laws in our country that are seemingly "pro-women" and, some would argue, "anti-men". The law that is almost immediately mentioned is our law on adultery. In India, women cant be charged with adultery. Only men can. And this is used as an example to claim that are legal system is biased against men.

Frankly, a closer reading of the section would also tell you that women cant file a case against her adulterous husband. The only person who has the right to complain of adultery is the man, and he can do so only against the man who had sex with his wife, without his consent. Yep, The offence is made out only if a man has sex with another man's wife without the consent of that woman's husband. And the aggrieved party is the husband, whose consent was not obtained.

So the reason the law exists in the way that it does is simply because it considers women as chattels- properties of their husbands,

There are also multiple people screaming their throats out saying "Feminists dont support gender-neutral laws, but they want privileges for women"

There are 2 problems with that. Firstly, the definition of feminism is "a movement for the social, political, economic and cultural equality of all genders". It is in no way a movement for privileges. In fact, it seeks to remove existing social privileges that a particular gender has enjoyed for ages.

Secondly, there are feminists who say "Gender equal laws, only in a gender equal society", and I used to find that absurd back when I was an anti-feminist, but think about it. The society is skewed towards one gender, and the only way the legal system can correct that, is by providing legal advantages to the oppressed.

I completely agree that these laws are being misused by many women. Im also aware of Section 498A (The Anti-Dowry Harassment section in the Indian Penal Code), the dismally low conviction rates, and how that section has been used by many women as a tool to harass, abuse and intimidate their husbands and their families. I think it's absolutely unfair how 498A is being misused, but we must all ask two questions- One, does the abuse of a law mean that the law is a bad law and unnecessary and secondly, Is a bad law representative of a bad movement?

I believe 498 A is grossly wide in its ambit and has an inherent scope of abuse due to the way the Section is drafted, and I believe that that Section must either be amended or scrapped. And I believe that because Im a feminist. Because I believe men and women are equal, and men and their families, must be given ample opportunity to make their case heard.

Anyway, the point of this post was not to discuss all this. It's about something that happened very recently. Something that's very disturbing.

A stand up comedian recently posted a video of him performing, where he sarcastically rips apart "the men have problems too" argument by talking about the burden of male privilege, and burden of having to live with the fact that men earn more than women for the same work.

There was a comment on this thread that called wage gap a myth and attacked the comedian for being an "ignorant feminist". And since it was a comment on a stand up comic's page, I responded to the comment saying "Good opener! Could you post the rest of your act, please?", and all hell broke loose.

As of now, Ive been called an idiot by the guy who made the original comment. Another man came out of nowhere and asked me to "go read a book". One man called me a "mangina" and said that my face was the rest of the act. Now, I had no idea what mangina meant, so thankfully, there was this another guy who called me a mangina and gave me a definition for it.

Apparently, I sub-consciously hate myself, think men are uncontrollable freaks, and that women are superior. I also think that I need to get in touch with my "feminine" side as I've been brought up taught to hate masculinity. Apparently, Im only "putting on a feminist act" in a vain attempt to get laid and to look good in front of women. And I kid you not, Im a "betrayer of men".

While it's a very interesting concept to think of, it isn't really an accurate description of myself.

I was born in a male body, and I identify as a male. Im a heterosexual and I enjoy sports and action movies, so I guess I fit into their shallow definition of being a male (though I completely disagree with it, but that's for another day).

I do not hate myself. I live an extremely happy life. I do not believe anyone is superior/inferior because of the body they were born in, the gender they identify with, or who they're sexually attracted to (or not). I do not hate masculine or feminine traits and I think everyone must be free to express those traits in them, irrespective of the parts they were born with. My feminism is not to look good in front of girls, or to get laid. My self esteem isn't depressingly low to the level that I judge myself on my ability to impress others, nor do I look at women as sexual objects nor am I so frustrated that my biggest aim in life is to get some action. And unless the objective of men is to preserve their social privilege, and consciously or sub-consciously continue the oppression of women, I'm in no way betraying mankind.

My feminism is not an act. It is what I believe in. Any one who believes that men and women deserve equal rights and respect is a feminist. If you believe women are superior, you aren't a feminist. If you think women shouldn't be granted equal rights, you aren't a feminist (you're an asshole).

It's incredibly ridiculous how the very word feminism gets so many men agitated and angry. It's also hilarious what they blame feminism for. Another man actually said that 70% of men in the west are hesitant to get married because "women are going in the wrong path in the name of freedom" and that "the west is suffering from feminism" and that civilizations are ending because people identify as feminists.

How do I even respond to such ignorance?

The saddest part of all this is I know exactly how these people are going to respond to this. "Women aren't really oppressed" is definitely going to be the implication of many of the responses, along with multiple insults, most likely talking about how Im a lesser man. There is also going to be references to "New Age Feminism" or "Third World Feminism" or whatever they call movements that aren't really feminist movements, in an attempt to malign the movement that gave their mothers and sisters, and millions of individuals the right to go to school, the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to have opinions.

But there is one thing I agree with them on. There is a serious problem that men face. Something that I believe is being ignored and requires immediate attention: Some men are unable to express their opinions and views without being bullied and insulted by other men for having such views.

I view this as a bigger problem than any so called threat that feminism poses, as this directly attacks the cornerstone of any civilized society: the ability of a person to peacefully be himself/herself, and that is what I think requires immediate attention.

Sincerely,
Vikas Muralidharan,
Feminist.

A letter to my best friends

Dear Best Friends,

Firstly, I apologize for this bullshit cliche. These "letter to best friend" things have been going on for too long now, but I promise this one is different.

This isn't to one person, Its to two- Two people who've absolutely changed the way I am, who did this in ways so unique and different, that I've challenged myself to write a single letter to the both of you, in a way that it means something to you both.

A lot of people dismiss the idea of having "two best friends". "They cant mean exactly the same to you" some say. Some tell me that the one I knew earlier is bound to be closer to me. Some ask me who I met later and suggest that the other friend  was getting replaced. If only they knew.

You came to me in a place very unfamiliar to me. I was not a person who hadn't tasted success, or a socially awkward introvert when I met you, but I was definitely questioning myself. And there, in the distance, I saw you.

I must confess, I didn't plan for this to happen. I wasn't planning on getting so close, and during my first interaction with you, I never expected you'd mean so much to me. I wasn't the one who came up and spoke to you. I had to be prodded into this, but you know what? Thank you for taking those first steps.

This relationship we share would probably have not happened if it wasn't for you. As I sit back and think about our friendship, I can only question how this happened. I dont remember putting too much effort into this and that is what surprises me. Did you hold my hand and guide me through this? Or are you as surprised by how this has progressed? Do you, like myself, question whether you deserve this friendship?


I remember you telling me that you don't think you've done much for me, and that makes me slightly angry.

Some of my most emotional moments, I've shared with you. There are things that I've done, that I wouldn't have dreamed of doing, only because of you- not because you asked me to, or because you did these things but because fundamentally, you made me introspect.

You showed me what it meant to love, and what heartbreak felt like. You showed me your dreams and nightmares; your likes and dislikes, what you loved and what you hated. You shared with me little stories of things that made you happy, things that made you sad; things that made you angry and things that made you cry. You told me about your other friends, people you liked, people you were jealous of and people you hated, With every story you told me, and every word you spoke, you showed me a little of yourself, and every time you did that, I found a part of me that I didn't know existed.

Everything Ive had to say individually to you, I've probably said it in the dozens of long emo messages that Ive sent you on private chat, and this is something I wanted to get to.

Because you did what you did, I found a wonderful outlet to be myself. Not just a politically charged perennially bitter social analyst or something but an actual human being. With you, I could finally be myself. I could talk about those little things that would seem incredibly insignificant to anyone but me. And you would always get it. You'd understand and make it incredibly easy for me, and that is why you know me better than anyone else. My dreams, my fears, my insecurities, you know them all, and some of them, I didnt even have to tell you.

We're incredibly different people, and I understand that as well as you do. We dont always have the same tastes. We don't react to situations the same way, and we may even have polar opposite views or opinions on a few things. Views that we may not just disagree with, but dislike. There are certain things that we say that might have offended each other purely because of the way we said it. And hence, our relationship isnt one based on "Oh look, we like the exact same things". Sure, there are similarities, but thats not the reason we're close. You don't appeal to me because you're like me, but because you make it ridiculously easy for me to be different.

And that is why I love you.

Thank you for choosing me. Thank you for letting me be your friend,

I could end this asking you to stay with me forever, but after every thing you've done, it seems unfair of me to ask for more, so I'll end this with a promise.

I cannot promise that I'll stay in touch forever, I really wish we could talk to each other every day for the rest of our lives, but life is bound to take us in different paths, and different ways and leave us with little time for each other, I cannot promise a phone call or a text every day, or a meet up every few months. I know that all of that is easier said than done.

But what I can promise you is this: I'm never letting you go. We could go months, even years without talking, but the second you need a friend, Ill be right beside you. The only way you'll "lose me" is if you shut me from your life, and let's not kid ourselves: that isn't happening.

Thank you for making me find myself once again. You have no idea what you mean to me, and when I say I love you, I really do mean it.

Losing our Culture

Venue: Lady Andal

De-battle on 2011.

Quarterfinal (?) debate against one of the PSBB schools. The judge speaks to me.

"You keep talking about culture. Can you please tell me what culture is. Can you define culture for me?"

"Sure" I promptly reply. "I would define culture as something....." I ran out of words here and there was long, awkward pause. I looked at the audience and I finished the sentence, with the best definition I could think of.

"I would define culture as.. <insert long pause> something that can't be defined".

The audience and the judges broke into laughter and before I tried to explain the judge cut me short and gave us his own drawn out definition of what culture was. (Something I don't remember but I do remember not agreeing with it then)

We lost the debate but I wasn't worried about that. The fact is, that is truly how I would define culture.

An internet search for the definition for the word "culture" gives you this:

"The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively."

Now that might be acceptable to many but we were (and I am, presently) talking about culture in a different sense. Something that doesn't fit in that definition.

"Dating is against Indian culture"

Now how does the word "culture" there fit in to that definition?

It doesn't.

Culture can't be defined for the simple reason that culture is never constant. It changes. It evolves over time and what was "the culture" a few million years back isn't our culture now.

It was culture to ruin the lives of people based on the color of their skin last century and now, we just think that that was stupid.

I'd have people stopping me now and saying "OMG but thats different. That was racism. When I say culture now I mean...."

Halt. Stop.

This is probably exactly how the people you call racists responded to their kids 75 years back when they asked why they couldn't play with "colored" kids. In fact Im pretty confident that our great-grandchildren would look at us in disbelief and call us all a bunch of sick homophobes and look at the way we treat sexual minorities the same way we look at our ancestors who treated linguistic or racial minorities.

(Im calling our previous generations that  ^ already, but hopefully the entire 2nd generation after ours, or the generation before that would realise it)

Anyway, the point Im trying to make with this post is that there's no such thing as losing our culture. If a particular style of music that has existed in our country for centuries is becoming less and less popular, by all means try and save it, it's a very sad thing that an extremely beautiful art form is declining but when people say "Indian Culture is dying"- No.

Indian Culture is not dying. Indian culture will never die. It'll evolve. It'll adapt and accept new styles of music, wherever they come from. They'll get localized, modified and "Indianized".

It was our culture to treat eunuchs with respect and invite them for family functions and get their blessings as they were supposed to be holy. Somehow, that has changed and hardly anyone treats them with respect.

Music forms have changed, art styles have changed, dances have changed.

Certain local and special art forms are dying with hardly anyone  giving it the respect it deserves. Does that mean Indian culture is dying? No. It's changing. It's evolving and accepting new art forms (and for those of you snickering and saying "Nothing is so pure and artisitic as our-" stop. Music, dance and all forms of art are means of communication and just like all other means of communications, there are different languages. Genres, if you will. If you know only Tamil and dont understand Latin, Latin is going to sound like gibberish to you. Doesn't mean Latin doesn't have it's own set of rules and "artistry". You just don't understand it)

What you like about your culture, save it, enjoy it and preserve it to death. But there's no point whining about what others are listening to, watching or reading. If you don't enjoy it, don't go there. Just remember that we will never "lose" our culture, or that our culture will never die.

You're all probably butthurt about the fact that the culture you knew and grew close to is changing and noone is enjoying what you considered artistic anymore but that's what happens. Enjoy it as long as it exists, or as long as you exist. If it has to go, it will.

All the social norms you lived by will change. In your eyes, it's complete disintegration of morals, but it'll happen. Doesn't mean you have to be okay with it, but there's really not much you can do about it. It's inevitable.

That's what happens. Stuff changes. Culture evolves. Never dies.

#Revolution

(I wrote this post 3 months back, but never published it for some reason. In light of Vishal's epic new blogpost (http://scanmysoul.blogspot.in/2012/10/how-were-inhibiting-our-own-growth.html), I think it's time I let this one out)


Statement: "Im gonna join politics"

Responses: "Thu"
"LOL"
"Are you crazy?"
"WTF?"
"Dont. Its full of bad people and they'll make you bad"
"Dont. Its full of bad people and they will kill you"
"Dont. Its full of bad people and people will brand you as bad"
"Dont. Just one good person like you can't do much"

My Response To The Responses

I have problems, and I'm out seeking to solve them.

As an individual, I've been frustrated with the amount of "India Hate" everywhere. It seems like the outside world respects our country more than we do. We whine about corruption, lack of technology, creativity, a stupid education system, lack of respect for the environment and that's all we do. We whine.

Brodha V, one of India's most popular rap artists had posted a status update that went something along the lines of congratulating everyone who went abroad to work,study or settle. There were quite a few fan boys echoing his sentiments and just one particular guy who tried to stand up, but got gang-raped by the rest of the people out there. Brodha V, in one of his comments, even said something along the lines of "Dont give me that 'ask what you can do for your country crap". Another comment on the thread went along the lines of "Im out of this sh*thole as soon as I can"- obviously a reference to our country.

While I respect his music, his talent and am a big fan like everybody else, there's this attitude (which I don't blame him for having) that he has about our country that is shared by millions and millions of our 1 billion plus population.

Let's take a look at it this way. India is a democracy. An imperfect one, but a democracy nonetheless. In a democracy, people have the right to vote, right to (indirectly) take part in the decision making progress and the administrative progress through elections, campaigns, protests etc. People ALSO have the right to directly get involved and participate in elections by contesting. So what should you be doing if you have a problem with the way our country is run? What should you be doing if you are all-so-knowledgeable and know how to handle a country with more than a billion voices and a billion emotions? Please, our county needs you more than ever. Come save us.

Unlike a few people, I do not congratulate the people who go away. I commend their skill in getting a job in a foreign company. Pah! What an achievement. I'm in awe at their intelligence which helped them secure a job in the best universities around the world. Amazing. It takes a lot of hard work. If you're going out there for personal achievements, higher salaries, freedom from parents and "hot chicks/guys", go ahead. If you're leaving because you think the standards of living are higher somewhere else, or that India 'sucks' due to various reasons and that our country can never be improved, I laugh at you.

I'm not angry with you or disappointed with you, because at the end of the day, its your decision but I laugh at you. I laugh at your stupidity, I laugh at your ignorance and I laugh at your cowardice.

One of the worst things that anybody can do in their lives is to run away from their problems, and there are quite a few people doing this.

A few years ago, one of the biggest superstars the western music industry has ever had and a very controversial singer passed away. He went by the name "Michael Jackson". Guess who performed the preliminary autopsy? Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran.

Yes, yes. Indian only. In fact, he graduated from Madras University. I have no personal gripe against this dude. He's obviously amazingly talented, Chief Medical Examiner whatever of Los Angeles and all, But I just look back to how this skill would have helped our country. How many people would have benefited from the skills of this man. We spent our resources on him for 20+ years of his life, giving him everything from teachers to study material to food. All that input given by our country is helping another country.

Again, his choice, whatever, but you want to know why India is in such a "pathetic" state? Because none of you have the balls to stay here and try and build our country. Our country's development potential has not reached it's saturation point. Our country isn't complete yet. There are tons of bricks to be added to this building and frankly, the reason the construction never ends is because the ones who are supposed to build it, are spending their time whining or running away to work on another "more attractive" construction project.

I hope you guys get the analogy.

So what is my solution to this? Simple. Let's break it down shall we?

What do we need to do? - Build our country.
What are we doing?        - Nothing
What should we do?       - Build.

Easy.

If you want this country to improve, stay here and help it improve. There are tons of ways to do this, but the obvious and most direct way of having ANY kind of actual impact in this country is if we replace the insensitive governments with sensitive ones. The reason Anna Hazare will never get the success he wants unless he directly joins politics is because the political parties at the top, no matter how much they seem to hate each other, put aside their differences against this "common enemy"

How brilliant would it be if the political parties put aside their differences for the developing the nation, instead of playing their silly games in a desperate attempt to try and look good in front of those who don't ask questions?

The only way we can get that type of people at the top is if there's a radical change in the mindset of the politicians at the top (and if any one of you readers can get that to happen, please do so) or if we vote in a new set of people who aren't afraid to take the right decisions even if it will lead to a loss of votes, people who aren't afraid to speak up, knowledgeable people (not necessarily educated) who are willing to make a change and who want to see a change happen.

I know a lot of people who'd fit the bill perfectly (Natteri, for instance) but these guys lack the will to get involved actively. There needs to be a catalyst. Someone who'll step up and get things started in the hope that like minded people will join instead of calculating the probability of climbing this mountain.

That was exactly my thought process when I decided to do this. The few AU delegates at SANMUN 12 and a few others from my school would have already heard about it, but it's done. I've decided. Im going to join politics. Start my own political party and actively try to bring about a change in our country.

To my readers, I hope you will not be one of those too scared to take a step forward, I plead for your support coz no one can do this alone. Wait until 2022. The Revolution takes it's form then, but the movement starts now.

Im not sure if we'll ever succeed, but you're never gonna score a goal if you don't take a shot.

"Be the change you want to see in the world"- Mahatma Gandhi.

Jai Hind.  

Racism?

"Mujhe Kaale Log Pasandh hai"

One remark, one dialogue from a film and it's amazing how it can cause nationwide outrage. The actress in question has been slapped with racist allegations and personally, I've seen violent threats against her on facebook.

"Rani Mukherjee is such a b*tch! I feel like slapping her!"

"Rani Mukherjee SUCKS. RACIST *****"

The comments on such posts are more direct violent threats towards the actress and frankly, I think it's taking it too far.

I responded to all that with a status of my own.

"Mujhe Kaale Log Pasandh hai" and "Karuppu dhaan enakku pidicha color-u". What's the difference? Yet, no-one screamed RACISM for the latter.

The person in question didn't respond to the status as such, but whatever.

This blogpost far exceeds just the dialogue from the Aiyya promo and "the interview in which Rani Mukherjee said south indians are black" (if it exists)

So, I read this article forwarded to me by one of my close friends and it was an attack at the Bollywood industry as a whole for stereotyping.

Cool. Really cool.

Frankly, I believe we should look inwards first. Look at our own films. The fact is, everybody is guilty of stereotyping. Just a few examples here -

I'm pretty sure all of you who saw it laughed at the "Awas:Ajing" scene. The fact is, Vivek makes a very racist remark in that film's comedy track. His "friend" in the film spoils Vivek's chances of getting buttloads of cash and xx acres of ground. Vivek punches him, flattens his nose and says "Haha, ippo un mookum chinese kaaran maari aidiche!"

Isn't that racial stereotyping?

HOW many of our films have stereotyped Malayalis? (Mallus, for those who think its fun and then cry foul when someone makes a derogatory remark about tamils)

We stereotype the Malayali accents, their "Omane"s and their "Kutti"s, their dances, their mannerisms, everything.

Oh, and what about Telegus, (Goltis, for those.... you get the drift)

They get attacked most often in our films. Whether it's Balram Naidu in a big budget film, or Vivek again making the "Kaila Laddu thandhu anga Jilebi ah pichu potturkaanga" (referring to the telegu script).

In fact, stereotypes of the Telegu and Malayali cultures have given Tamil cinema most of it's memorable comedy tracks.


Even in non-comedic scenes, what about the pot-bellied Punjabis, Nepali watchmen, sweet-eating Bengalis and the Sethjis who always happen to be pawn-brokers? They're all racial stereotypes. Hell, we make stereotypical references to our own people. The portrayal of TamBrahms in tamil cinema itself is very stereotypical. The dialect and the accents of the Iyers and Iyengars are made fun of constantly. We've made fun of those who speak in classical Tamil, made fun of Madras baashai.

And who doesn't love the classic comedies with our actors portraying foreigners?

Oh, and this one's a killer. Whenever there's a scene referring prostitution in Tamil Cinema, you can always expect the words "Bombay" and "Mumbai" in the dialogues. Like, seriously.

This is not an attack at the Tamil film industry. I love those dialogues and laugh at them too. I just happen to watch Tamil films a lot more than any other Local language films in India, so it's easier for me to spot stereotypes here.

Let's forget cinema and move on to general life shall we? If you're gonna make a big hue and cry about the dialogue from the Aiyya promo, we're all racists. We've all referred those with an Asian complexion as Chinkees and laughed at the Sardarji jokes which makes them look retarded.

In fact, the Tamil term which is used to describe a foreigner is "Vellaikaaran". Hopefully, you know that that term means "White Man".

Stereotypes, stereotypes everywhere. We're a society that thrives on stereotypes, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Stereotyping isn't a crime. We need to learn to laugh at ourselves a bit. And it's not like Rani Mukherjee said that we suck because we're black. She said she likes us. It's something to be happy about.

Maybe Malayalis do speak in a certain way, Seth-jis do take up a particular profession and maybe Mumbai does have prostitutes, but if we can stereotypical references to them, they can make references to the fact that we are generally more dark-complexioned than North Indians. There's nothing wrong in being dark-complexioned, so why take offense to that remark?

I think any art would be very boring without stereotypes. Face it, they lighten up our lives. As long as it doesn't cross over to your real-life behavior and as long as you don't discriminate people based on the stereotypes you see in films (and I don't see that happening with that dialogue), its fine.

Learn to laugh at yourselves. Please.

Adios!!
Vikas