Aruna Shanbaug's case - Is there no god?

The movie “Guzaarish” unleashed a new ray of hope for some. It renewed the debates revolving around euthanasia. Aruna Shanbaug’s case re-entered the public sphere for discussion. I got to know about the case and the issue of Euthanasia after watching the movie but I tried to avoid it… the ‘story’ was too tragic…unbearable for me.

But few days back, I watched a documentary on her on a news channel. I won’t say how it moved me to tears because that seems too underestimating. I just could’nt hold myself…I was silent...staring in blankness. What she went through and is still going through every passing moment of her ‘life’…I don’t think I or anyone can understand it. But the image of her lying paralysed in the hospital bed…blind and screaming haunts me.

I don’t think I can pen down what had happened to the once young and vibrant Aruna…No, I cannot recount how inhuman her assaulter could become. Inhuman is again an overtly-underestimated term. Aruna, the doctors say, “is neither in our world nor in the world unknown. She is somewhere in the middle”. Aruna has been in this state for the last 38 years.

As about her accused, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki, any Indian can guess his fate. He was in jail for 7 years. And now he is out to live a normal life…a life of dignity and honour. 7 years for the devil…the haivan but 38 years of his haivaniyat.

But why should Aruna suffer? What was her fault? And till when should she suffer?

Aruna deserved to live with honour and dignity. But she was not allowed to do so. But now she should be allowed to die in peace. She should suffer no more. Her soul should be freed of these sufferings.

But the legal system in India has a different take. The law has literally become blind as it can’t see her sufferings- she has been in the same hospital for almost 40 years, she is paralyzed, blind and deaf and is still under the trauma. Giving a 7 year imprisonment to the demon seemed harsh-enough. Aruna has been fighting for her ‘life’ for the last 38 years but the court cannot see it. Why? Because they think that only God has the right to take away life. Well, does the court consider what Aruna is trying to live, a ‘life’? Aruna doesn’t deserve this torture. The court holds that patients like her should await the advancement of technology which will someday ‘treat’ them. Can the doctors ever treat her back to normalcy? Can they ever bring back the 40 years of her life? Aruna could not live on free will but now she should die on it. She has suffered immensely and deserves to die in order to end the sufferings. But the court, by prohibiting mercy killing, is now acting ‘inhuman’.

I kept thinking about it all evening. Why couldn’t the doctors just do it one day? They could have said anything! Or why couldn’t any of her relatives liberate her. It’s just a matter of 7 years(of imprisonment). I wish I could do it. I know I’ll be taking ‘law’ in my hands but then what do we do when the law itself is so inhuman?

I am an agnostic so I don’t know if there is any hell or heaven…good or evil. But now I hope there is. I hope justice is done. Her accused gets the burning hell. And I hope she rests soon…

Indian Cinema - only for entertainment?

Two teenagers meet in a straw-filled carrier of a truck, fell in love and try to create a world of their own in an isolated, rough-terrain area… The father is convinced, “Ja simran jee le apni zindagi”… rags to riches overnight… Heroines are an eye-candy, they are there to sing and dance around trees and to be caught by the villain… the inevitable happy ending.

Cinema is a creative platform to reach out to the society. Thus, it influences and is influenced by it.

Mainstream cinema is famous for painting a superficial image of things. In films, life is oversimplified. The many hurdles are all solved in mere three hours and a ‘happy ending’ is imposed. Movies are, afterall, for mere entertainment, they say. Love stories rule cinema. Even a patriotic movie tends to have some ‘masala’. Love in movies is generally love at first sight. The boy will stalk the girl and after resisting for few days, she will eventually accept the eve-teasing as love. There is also the glorification of first love- “pehla pyaar hi aakhri pyaar hota hai”. In reality, however, it is difficult to distinguish between love and infatuation as symptoms for both may be same (“hawa ka gungunana, dil mei violin bajna.. etc etc”). This notion also forbids the person from moving on. Movies generally terminate with the marriage but in reality, it is after marriage that the real test begins. The deal is not to build a love relationship but to maintain it. Problems arise when the two love birds actually get to live 24*7. But Movies never talk about this. They don’t even consider the differences- inter-caste and inter-religious marriage issues are hardly ever taken up. The issue is generally the difference in status. Love stories also glorify run-away brides and teenagers running away for some ‘adventure’. The society which watches ever step that we take is completely ignored. In movies, life, in general, is shown to be waiting for that one opportunity. Take one right step and everything becomes smooth. The complexities and struggles in life is never shown. Why? Because people want to leave the hall with a smiling face. “It only happens in films”, “How filmy”...This is how people understand the movie culture- interesting but unrealistic.

Movies exaggerate but they are definitely not alien in representing the society. Infact, they play a very crucial ‘social duty’ in terms of upholding the ideals and stereotypes of the society. The basic component of the society is the family. “Marriage is the union of two families” so the approval of the family is very important for a marital relationship. So from getting a family member kidnapped and then faking a rescue to getting beaten up by the girl’s brothers, the boy will do anything to get the acceptance of the family. Marriage is seen as the most sacred institution in our society. The boy’s or the girl’s family may have organized a battalion but the moment the lovebirds reach the mandir, the war will get over and the love-birds will become inseparable. The reason why inter-caste or inter-religious marriages are not a popular theme may be because the society does not approve of them. Cinema is also phenomenal in creating and consolidating gender-related stereotypes. In the beginning of the movie, the boy will describe his kind of girl. It is here that they specify how an ideal girl should be like. Women are seen as mere symbols of love and beauty. With only shakal, no akal, her role is to look pretty and smile. Even today, when the condition is a little better, when asked about their favorite actress, people will oblige some bimbo. The person will then be asked - “and in terms of acting?”. The role of the heroine ranges from being negligible to consisting of 5-6 dialogs including “bachao”. As is believed, Women are shown to be helpless. They also do not have an identity of their own. She will only be someone’s girlfriend, daughter or mother. And Even if in the beginning of the movie, the girl may have some identity, by the end of the movie, she will loose it and become helpless. For the woman, the earth is supposed to be flat. If she ventures out, she will fall off the edge. So when the heroine sets out, the series of events that follows discourage her and she is disillusioned, regretting her decision. This is what the norm of the society is- women should not try to alter the constructed order. Since the past few years, forces of liberalism are attacking our society. And some of the movies are also trying to represent this change. So the image of the hero is no longer that stereotypical one. Ab mard ko dard hota hai.. he can get beaten up, like pink and can cook and do other household chores(he even manages kids now!)Many strong women characters have come up. The new-age woman(‘the modern woman’) is shown to be independent and career-oriented. Issues like homosexuality, teen pregnancy, prostitution and other types of social stigma are also entering the mainstream. So Cinema is also becoming ‘bold’..or I should rather say it is mustering the courage to reflect the changing reality.

In the media culture, Cinema has emerged to be the most important weapon. It, thus, can be and should be used interactively and positively to reach out to the masses. It can, thus, be used to bring out that desired change.

Children and the reality shows

Little girls showcasing their ‘talent’ through racy, anarkali numbers, where they are marked for their expressions. Pre-teens singing intense love songs. A 10-year-old boy was asked if he had dedicated his performance to his girlfriend. A little girl ends his life when her parents refused to let her participate in a reality show.

There was a time when ‘reality shows’ for kids meant quiz competitions. Boggie Woggie was just a dancing competition. Children either won or take back with chocolates. But today, all major channels offer ‘great opportunities’ to kids- toddlers, kids and adolescents. They can be seen singing their larynx out, dancing till their little feet swell and cracking jokes on issues they hardly understand and sometimes, its better that they don’t even try to.

It is always a delight to see kids perform- the cuties beam with innocence. But today, people judge them on ‘real’ talent. Today, they either win or take back failure and rejection. As children, we always wanted to speed up our growth somehow and become adults. But now we know how beautiful the process of growing up actually is. We now cherish that innocence, the care-free attitude and a simple and optimistic outlook towards life. But today, children are being judged by their capability of acting and behaving like adults. We learnt with time and experience. They learn by ever-increasing competition. Young children are being exposed to ‘the mad world’ for which they are not ready yet. They are being exposed to the world of glamour. They don’t understand the risks involved. The adults find it difficult to cope with the competition. The mad-rush sucks life out of people. How can we expect kids to deal with this? We were exposed to competition gradually...But they are being exposed to high-level competition at an early age. Why? And who is to be blamed for this?

School? Media? Or peer pressure? Well there is a closer agent. A group of people who tirelessly remarks about the ‘Gen-X’ or the “Aaj kal ke bachche”. They lament how in their time, they never had so many facilities or the exposure. They idealize their childhood...How they used to spend their vacations in their villages, how they neither had nor required TVs and cellphones...And how their lives were ‘simple’. So what has compelled them to give a different childhood to their kids? They say the times have changed.. “aaj ke bachcho pe bohot pressure hai”. What kind of pressure are they talking about? Who is creating that pressure?

The state of our economy is always the scapegoat. Money alone speaks. They say, for money, people can give away everything. And in this case, people are even ready to sell their kids’ childhood. Talent, competition, pressure…it all boils down to one thing and that is money. It’s like the economy is the stove, the capitalist forces are the flames and the children are pressure cookers. Isn’t this child labour?

Illegal Religious sites: Law v/s Politics

Following the order od the Delhi High Court, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) demolished an illegal temple and a mosque. Wasting no time, the ‘religious-senti’ people of both communities mobilized protests. The Shahi Imam Syed Ahmad Bhukari led people to the disputed site to offer the Friday prayer. Bajrang Dal and VHP held a dharna on Friday.

Appeasing them was our ‘deeply-concerned’ CM Shiela Dikshit. She started her blame-game “It is very unfair of DDA. They should have asked the waqf board before taking such a step. I will talk to the PM.” The opposition also did not lose out on this golden opportunity. Samajwadi Leader Mulayam Singh Yadav highlighted the importance of Mosques – “Mosque is the identity of a Muslim. By demolishing them, the Govt is trying to oppress the community.” LJP and RJD leaders have also offered their support for the reconstruction of mosque and the ‘Muslim identity’. The Shahi Imam notorious for his violent streak also harped on this opportunity to bring in the Babri Masjid dispute again.

Now if the Congress which is also called “the appeaser of Minority” gives in to the demand of the Muslim fundamentalists, there will be anti-Muslim riots. But if it does not then there will be anti-Hindu riots.

But the question is.. Was this a religious issue? This is the state of secularism in India. We are secular but the moment the word “Hindu” or “Muslim” comes up, the state intervenes. From a case of illegal encroachments, this is now a political issue which will remain unresolved forever. It will now become a new point on the agenda for the next elections. In this case, the court is determined to uphold law and restrict illegal structures to come up in the name of religion but the politics is exploiting the case for its own interests. It is now a case of law v/s politics in which the common people will, ultimately be dragged in.

Ab kaha hai "dharma ke rakshak"?

The above image is a scene from a popular reality show "Truth, Love and Cash", Channel V. The show tries to test which is more powerful- love(lust) or money? There are many 'temptation tasks'. One of the tasks was this - the female contestants had to pour chocolate on any part of their body and the guy had to lick it off. But this show is just one of the many popular shows objectifying men and women. The Youth channels(MTV, Channel V,Bindaas) are full of women in bikinis, semi-nude men and tutorials on seduction. Ofcourse, its all for money. But the shows sell this obscenity as "entertainment". They can sell anything for TRPs. The need to be the temptation is being absorbed by the adults(those in their 20s), the teenagers and the pre-teens. "The channel does not support or promote any view". It, infact, creates it. These shows sell a mentality. Money and Sex are the two things that rule. And these two are inter-connected. A sex appeal can give you money and fame. This mentality is accepted by people consciously or unconsciously. They will argue that people always have the option of not watching them so they have no social responsibility. The pre-teens and Teenagers only have the ability to grasp. They are too immature to reflect on this. Many people watch these shows because they make a good 'time-pass'. But eventually this 'timepass' will influence their mindsets.

These shows try selling obscenity in the name of being 'liberal'. But our society is not becoming 'open' or 'liberal'. The word is disgusting.

Mosques for muslims only?

I recently visited the city of nawabs. Lucknow, like other cities, is changing with an accelerated speed. As of now, the domes and minarets co-exist with the stone world of Mayawati. Gomtiji has also managed to retain and consolidate her identity. In the daylight, one can admire the beauty of the past and after dusk, get smitten by the well-lighted fountains and symbols of Mayawati's 'reign and glory'. Whatever i could get of the existing culture, I loved it as it was quite similar to the culture of my native place.

But I was prevented from falling in love head over heels with this city when my heels stumbled upon the ruins of an ancient mosque and i was asked to control myself.

The signboard read "Non Muslims cannot proceed further from this point". I would have been less disappointed(comparatively less) if the barrier was a gender one. I don't know if this is the case with all mosques or was it because this one belonged to the supposedly more orthodox, shia sect. But it is really farce that the house of God has to be exclusive. And when they say that only Muslims can enter, they should define one. Because according to the Quran, anyone who believes in God is a muslim. If they mean that a Muslim is one who follows the Quran, well then there are hardly any Muslims around.

There are some temples in the south which forbid the entry of lower castes and non-Hindus. But Hinduism acknowledges inequality of castes. So in this case, unlike Islam which emphasis on equality, Hinduism does not contradict itself. I don't know if this discrimination is in the Quran or not. But how does it matter if it is not? For every accusation of rigidity, people say, "this is not in Quran. It is because of the society." I fail to understand that if all religions have developed in the same regions and societies then why are they not so rigid? And if for every god-damn issue, a fatwa is imposed. then when such serious blows like deviation from the Quran takes place, then why are fatwas not issued?

Islam has always tried to be very exclusive. The political scenario in which it originated and developed is the reason for it. It has definitely absorbed from other beliefs and practices but it has always tried to retain a certain degree of rigidity. Even in 21st century, there comes a fatwa that only two Muslims can marry each other. This exclusivity also clashes with modernist forces, most important of which is that of secularism. In an India where the a-political, common people would have agreed for a temple and mosque to co-exist on the disputed Ayodhya site, such discrimination is farce and intolerable. People want to rise above their personal faiths and accept and respect other faiths. This exclusivity will retard this growth. Exclusivity and Rigidity are also breeding grounds for the deadly germs of stereotyping 'the other'. Intermingling of cultures is not only inevitable but also necessary for their survival. Rigid cultures cannot survive and if they do, they decay the society, the economy and ofcourse, politics.

Another point in the case is that these mosques are more of historical monuments. They are of academic interests for many. So they are not just the religious domains. Thus, the personal beliefs of people should not be overriding. Like other historical monuments with mosques, these mosques should also be closed only on Fridays. Monuments are pride of the nation, not exclusive properties of any individual or community.

In the end, i shall conclude by saying that I don't know how far-reaching and equality will be the economic development in Mayawati's Lucknow but weeding out this irrationality and inequality will definitely be one of the real developments.

Save the girl child...kill dowry

“Hamari existence se itni problem hai toh, bandhu yeh batao ki tum kaha se aaye?”

This was written on one of the boards in the college corridor and everytime i passed through, this struck me. I remember the “save the girl child” march hosted by our school. We were supposed to parade on the road holding placards and shouting slogans. Kalpana chawla and Indira Gandhi appeared on every third placard. This was followed by an essay writing competition. The similarity here and there was that in both cases, we focussed on why the girl child should be saved. The question of ‘why they are killed’ remained unasked and hence, unanswered.

However much illiterate a person might be, he/she knows that women have been granted with the gifting of life. So if we kill women then climatic change and natural calamities won’t be needed to wipe off our race. So raising the issue of ‘their existence for ours’ is illogical. Next we talk about the potentials of a woman. We talk about equality of sexes and give examples of successful women. So their potential is not the issue. How they become successful and who ultimately reaps the benefits is the issue.

Women are raised to be ‘parayadhan’. She is considered to be ‘someone’s amaanat(property)’. Marriage is considered to be the ‘biggest day in her life’. Throughout her upbringing, she is ‘prepared’ for the journey to the ultimate destination- her husband’s place. The playing with dolls serves as the first institute of this concept of burden. The play revolved around the institution of marriage. While in the rural framework, this is more direct as in the gudda-guddi khel where ultimately the gudda and guddi gets married, in the urban space, Barbies teach them the ‘ideal’ way for a woman. Once the ideology is set, the practical part comes. They are encouraged to learn house-hold work and taught how to walk and talk. They and everyone is mentally prepared to accept the ‘fact’ that one day she has to go. So the moment a girl turns 24, the whole world starts worrying about her. It is as if she has some kind of validity! But this is just the beginning. The ‘burden’ has to be set off through a grand ceremony. For the transaction, the ‘product’ draped in a saree, walks in slowly, with trembling hands under a tray of food. Then from ‘kahan tak padhi ho’ to ‘kuch gaake sunao’, all the features of the ‘product’ is clearly mentioned. Then comes the rate at which the burden has to be set off. In legal terms, this is called dowry but personally, this is referred to as ‘riwaaj(z)’. It consists of petty gifts like some dozen silk sarees, one Honda city, bed, TV, AC, and maybe a ‘negligible’ amount of money. They say ‘Shaadi toh janmo-janmo ka rishta hai’ and there is no doubt about this. People take loans to marry off their daughters. The sum is so huge that it takes ages to repay it! So the bride, when she finally goes, drags along the family’s treasury. After all, Marriages are a way to show how much you ‘love’ your daughter. Marriage is not just the union of the boy and the girl but of two families. This is true and so the bond has to be renewed every now and then via precious gifts. So no doubt that brides are considered to be ‘Ghar ki Lakshmi’! And then there is the belief among the bride’s family that ‘beti ke ghar ka paani bhi nai peena chahiye’, even though beti ke ghar ka pani comes from her family’s pockets! And how much of a home is her husband’s place for a woman is another issue.

So the society has made women the burden for her parents. She is a huge financial constraint for them. First her education and then her marriage. Parents prefer investing more for their son’s education because they assume that the money will come back to them. Their son will not go anywhere. He will take care of his parents. But the daughter has to leave. And women have the ‘option’ of being a house-wife. Even if a woman becomes something, the benefits will be reaped by her husband and in-laws. The parents who raised her, did so much for her will get nothing in return. Infact her marriage will only worsen their financial condition. It is easy to say that it is the duty of the parents to raise the parayadhan only if you are financially strong. But what about a poor farmer who cannot even afford three meals a day? So if you save the girl child, then who will save her family later? So the issue is not to save the girl child but to kill such traditions.

The very basic assumption is that the girl has to go to her husband’s place. This is seen as a ‘universal fact’. But no one knows who set this as a fact and why. Why it is that only a woman should leave her parents and go. Why is she so portable...Doesn’t she have any attachments? This is also ironical because women are said to be ‘emotional fools’. There are parents who only have daughters or who have sons who are as good as daughters (leaving their parents). So if they all go, then who will take care of the parents? Calling them up every night is not the solution to anything. There is a concept of gharjamai but it is not widespread. The reason is that it is not respectable as this concept alters the ‘natural’ set of orders. Who sets these orders is again a question. Combining both the families is another feasible solution if the invisible hands of the society are ignored. Let ‘Marriage is the union of two families’ be literal. A part of the income of the girl can be given to her parents even after her marriage. This can help them economically. This is the least that she can do to pay some kind of gratitude to them. The marriage should not be a big affair. We have to realise that marriages are arranged in heaven, not done there! Where is the need to make it such a lavish and unforgettable (the loans) affair? And why is that only the bride’s side has to arrange everything? Pinky weds bunty and Bunty weds Pinky. So both should pay. Similarly, the rivaaj(z)s of petty gifts also has to change. But all this can happen only if we stop treating women as ‘goods to be delivered’. The society will change...but only if u do! Don’t save the girl child, kill the murderers- kill dowry!