Confession pages and the power of Anonymity

The Mumbai Mirror reads "FB’s confession pages become a headache for colleges and cops". According to the Report published today i.e. 31st March 2013, several college authorities have lodged complaints to trace the author of anonymous posts who have been posting obscene remarks against female students, posts against the teachers and the administration. 

Confession pages are the new trend on facebook. There are confession pages for schools, colleges, offices and even for Delhi metro. I am not sure if there is one for DTC buses. They are a huge hit. On Delhi Metro Confession page, one of the post read that the confessor is more attentive in metro now so that he/she can get something to post as a confession! 

A careful look at the content of these pages would tell you that they are actually a repository. Ofcourse, many confession pages are also working like the pigeon transport system to deliver love messages, but confession pages are also full of reflections, suggestions and most importantly, frustrations. I have seen confessions by victims of sexual harassment. 

The confession pages of schools and colleges can also give a peek view into their environment.The confessions on the pages tell you what the students are thinking about.  In the LSR confession page, most confessions are a debate on feminism. I feel that in many ways, these pages are also contributing to the environment of the college. As a personal example, the confessions posted on the page are discussed on the page as well as in the college. 

But i propose to give a serious look at the critical comments. According to the report, there is a serious attempt to control this important aspect of the page. While obscene remarks should come under the radar, I cannot make up my mind if the latter deserves censorship.

As I said earlier, confession pages are also becoming another source to vent out frustrations. I have read many confessions against the administration or about how things work in the college. To me, these should be seen as a feedback form. 

One of the confessions that i read was against a teacher. Somebody had commented that the page should not support anti-administration or anti-faculty posts. This person had also said that the confessor should have the guts to go and tell the problem directly, to which somebody commented that it is not possible for a student to go and tell the teacher directly. This is really a fact. Not only do many universities despise self-criticism, it is even worse in the case of a teacher. Not many teachers can take self-criticism, something that is unhealthy. For example, the confession that I am mentioning says that the teacher misbehaves with students. So if this is true, can we imagine the reaction if the student directly goes and complaint? He/She might be humiliated or may even fail.

So i feel that these confessions should be taken as a feedback and not as an offence. If a University bans a confession page, I feel that it is banning these voices and any university which is not self-critical cannot ever be successful. There is, ofcourse, another side to it. The question comes, "what if the person is trying to defame the university or a particular teacher?" I have a solution to check this. If there is a wrong post, people usually react to it and point it out. But in cases when it is true, it does not meet with any opposition. Most of the confessions against teachers and administrations, recorded in the pages that I have seen, have not met with any opposition in terms of the authenticity of the content. 

So if these posts are true and there is really a problem with a teacher or the way university is working, instead of finding out the confessor, the university should look into the matter. Though I myself do not appreciate anonymity to a great extent but in cases where we are dealing with careers, we must understand the importance of anonymity. 

Banning these pages will not be a good solution. It will be even more unhealthy. Ideally speaking, the administration should not try to intervene in this as this is off the campus but if it has to, I think that the Universities should take these pages seriously and treat them as feedback forms. 

'Celebrating' Women's Day

Also published at http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Mar/8/-celebrating-women-s-day-7.asp 

March 8 is celebrated as International Women’s Day. By ‘celebration’ I mean, there will be exchange of greetings, SMS messages, and there will be special offers for women particularly from beauty salons and some other special programs on television and radio. They will all talk about the strength and will of the women. Some will celebrate the “sacrificing” nature of women, others will celebrate them as mothers, sisters and wives and also, of course, their struggle to have “ventured out”.  Though, it is a reality that this day has also become another archies day, what is more important and ironical about this day is that it is for a particular set of women.

Owing to the fact that some men demand a “Men’s day”, it can be said that most people do not even know the origin of this day. Women’s Day commemorates the struggle, the movement against injustice and the goals of equality and justice. It had a proletarian angle to it. This is hardly celebrated or even recognized in this celebration today. But what is more striking to me is the concept of “justice”. Women’s Day is not only restricted to urban areas but to the class of relatively privileged women in political, social and economic sphere.

We celebrate Women’s day but what about women who, leave alone rights of women, do not even have basic human rights. What about women like Irom Sharmila, Soni Suri, victims of everyday torture in AFSPA-imposed states? What about women of the socially-underprivileged castes? What about the women on the lowest strata of the society? What about the women who are forced to engage in flesh trade?

The Government, the concerned Ministry, National Commission for Women, will introduce some scheme or will as a least send out a greeting to “respect” the power of womanhood. But what happens to this “respect” when they have all been silent on the torture and gang-rapes that take place each day in the AFSPA imposed states. Why have they never paid any form of respect to the victims of the Kunan poshpora incident? Leave alone respect, they amuse themselves by seeing the heart-wrenching condition of Irom Sharmila. They have honoured the police officer with medals who has dishonoured Soni Suri, an adivasi woman who has been implicated in false cases. So who are they really respecting?

The same question also goes to the International women’s organizations. It is not a hidden reality. Everyone knows about it but no one is speaking. They are all shamelessly preparing messages to be circulated on International Women’s Day.
But besides them, the common or the relatively privileged people (women) are also the culprits. They support this torture in the name of “national security” and the bigger farce of “integrity of the nation”. Which integrity? Whose security? They allow the state and the army to perpetrate torture in these states and then they dare to go about celebrating women’s day.

Women’s Day seems to me in alienation with the other and horrifying reality. It disturbs me that most of us, belonging to this privileged section, will dare to exchange greetings when our sister is dishonoured by the state forces. It disturbs me that we will celebrate women’s day, avail offers, write articles about its importance because we are the “privileged” ones among the women community. It disturbs me that there will be special programmes on television, on radio where they will ask us, “what women’s day means to us”. To them, I would say, “it means nothing to me and it should mean nothing to anyone in this country where the state, the army and the judiciary allow the dishonor of women”.

Afzal Guru or our democracy...who was hanged?

Published at http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Feb/13/afzal-guru-or-our-democracy–13.asp 

This is not a direct appeal for abolishment of capital punishment though it does raise questions on it. Afzal Guru was one of the accused in the 2001 parliament attack. After 12 years, today early in the morning, he was hanged till death.

As justice was buried, there was an outpour of reactions, carefully sorted and handpicked by the news channels across the nation. The ruling party pated its own backs and talked about the need to take this “crucial” step. The largest opposition party, BJP, expressed its “relief” even though it meant that another point on their agenda has been dismissed but nevertheless they criticized Congress for the delay. People rejoicing or expressing relief that finally, “justice” has been done.

Afzal Guru was given the death penalty way back in 2002. It was upheld in 2006 by the Supreme court and then after a series of approval, on the republic day, this year, the President passed the recommendation to depart justice in the country.

Yes, today, justice was buried, it departed. And this does not involve just a questioning of whether this would mean the end of terrorism or insurgency. It has re-iterated questions on the world’s largest democracy to have denied the right to free trial, the right to present his case and the right to prove his innocence.

Afzal Guru was presented as the biggest terrorist in the country, even “bigger” than Ajmal Kasab. And this charge suppressed any voice to counter or question it. There have been several debates on his case on major news channels. However, the debates were mostly on the death sentence and not on the hard facts that render him innocent and another victim of dirty and communal politics.

When in 2006, Afzal Guru’s execution date, time and place was announced, there were widespread protests in Kashmir. The protests involved thousands of men, women and children taking to streets. The protests continued for several days and had also involved several political parties and leaders of the Kashmiri movement for self-determination. There is also a SaveAfzal Guru Campaign that primarily demanded for his right to be heard, to present his story and for justice.

More importantly, let’s focus on the innumerable petitions that were filed by Afzal Guru himself. These petitions were not petitions of mercy. Here are some excerpts from a petition submitted in 2006 to the then President of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam:

“It is true that I did not file any petition before you but it was not out of any arrogance or ill will. I had no hope of getting justice. Besides, I was told that my lawyers would be filing a curative petition and I was hoping that I may still get justice from the Supreme Court. But my lawyers did not file any such petition and instead my death warrant was issued.”

“I am aware that there is one other argument being given for hanging me. They say I have not shown remorse or begged for forgiveness. Your Excellency, I cannot ask for forgiveness for something that I have not done.”

I take this opportunity to write to you, the President of India as a Kashmiri because very few kashmiris get an opportunity to be heard.”

In his petition, he narrated the daily experiences of a kashmiri. He had joined the secessionist movement to demand freedom and the right to basic human rights for his people but he himself had surrendered to the Border Security force, only to face a life of torture and indignity. In his petition, he exposed the corrupt and inhuman treatment by the Security Task Force.

One of the allegations that he was charged with was that he knew the people who were involved in the attack. To this, he said:

“It was these officers of the STF who used me and introduced me to one Mohammad who was one of the persons who attacked the Indian Parliament. I do not know who this Tariq was and I did not know what the plot was. I became involved in the conspiracy to attack Parliament without my knowledge, intention or willingness. Your Excellency, I was made a scapegoat by the investigating agencies because they could not catch the real masterminds behind the attack”, petitioned a MBA-degree holder.

In the petition, he exposed the truth of the investigating agencies, the torture and how he was falsely implicated in cases to “crack” the case. He provided his side of the story, the evidence and the loopholes in all the charges that he was accused of. According to him, he was never given a proper lawyer. According to him, out of 80 prosecution witnesses, only 22 were cross-examined by the advocate appointed to “represent” him.

Besides his petition for a fair trial, there is a need to look at the findings and the verdict of the Supreme Court of India. Quoting from several newspaper clippings and the publication “The Afzal Petition – A quest for justice”:

“The Supreme Court did not award Afzal the death penalty because he was the mastermind or because he was involved in killing any of the security personnel or even of actually planting any bombs. The charge sheet did not have his name. The five accused who had carried out the attack were all Pakistanis, though no proof of their identity was produced. Therefore, it is clear than even the prosecution did not accuse Afzal of being involved in the actual attack, killing or planting. Infact, there was no evidence at all that Afzal belonged to any banned or illegal organization. He was acquitted of charges of belonging to any terrorist organization.”

But he was hanged till death with the logic given by the Supreme Court that:

“The incident, which has resulted in heavy causalities, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender”.

He was hanged, said the Supreme Court, to “satisfy” the collective conscience of the society. What conscience is this? Re-iterating the inhuman practices of the past to impart “justice”?

We need strict laws but not the barbaric and inhuman ones. There is also a need to ensure that the innocent do not get targeted. There is a need to check on the corruption and the biases in the legal and judicial proceedings. 

Most importantly, we need to strike the roots. Even if Afzal Guru was really a terrorist, we must remember that terrorists are not out of this society, they are a creation of this very society. There is a need to reform the society, a need to attack these forces of inequalities, hatred and religious fundamentalism.  

With remorse, I have written this piece. We have “granted” death to a man who may have been completely innocent. But Afzal Guru was not the first person who has met this fate. He was one of the many who has died as a victim of communal and corrupt politics, as a victim of extreme and blinding nationalism and another blot on the ‘secular’, ‘democratic’ republic of India.

Sexuality and the chains of society: Questioning "their" right to exist

"Tu zeher kha ke mar ja, tujhe jeene ka koi haq nai hai"

(Have poison, you have no right to live.) 

These lines were said to someone who is a transgender female. I was stunned when i heard this line today during my fieldwork. I was attending a meeting of people with diverse sexualities. Today, they discussed about their experiences, the usual behavior that is meted out to them by their own family, at workplace or when they are walking down the streets.

This statement and the other things that I heard today disturbed me a lot. They keep coming back to me and even as I write to me, the discussion is being re-played/re-telecasted in my mind and I remember the tone and the expressions as they shared the horrific truth of this society.

The person who had faced this suggestion to take her own life was very disturbed and kept demanding for a solution. She narrated how once someone at her workplace got to know that she is not a male, the teasing, the verbal abuse and harassment had started. I noticed the way she was trying to give out the details, she felt uncomfortable, with a sense of humiliation and disgust and it reminded me of my own self when I would try to confide details of any eve-teasing or harassment that i would face.

There was another person who talked about the problems that she was facing in her family. It would involve verbal abuse, words or expressions of disgust and physical harassment. There was again a sense of humiliation that she was undergoing, yet I also felt that it was something that was very usual for her.

This discussion was mainly centered around the problems of these two people and other people were trying to give suggestions based on their own experiences. Some of them asked them to compromise with their identity and behave like "men". To which one person lashed back, "Agar mujhe female ki tarah dress karna hai, toh kisi ko kya problem hai?" (If I want to dress up as a female, what is anyone's problem?) As she said it, I was reminded of the innumerable times that I say it myself. There was the same pride in her voice that I have, as I say it.

They all discussed their own stories, day-to-day experiences and I was surprised that as they narrated, they would never  glance at me. They were not conscious at all. And it was because it was nothing "extra-ordinary" for them.

Even as they would sometimes mock at each other, I did not try to join them in their laughs as I was too conscious that maybe my laugh would be taken in a negative sense. I was too conscious and perhaps also guilty.

I watched them as they sang and danced and I saw that as they danced, they did not care about anyone. They did not look at anyone but just danced. The  movements were very free, there were no boundaries. And i felt the power of dance. How symbolic it can be...

Women empowerment in India: bouquets and beautiful women in saree

One of the most typical topics for research on media and advertisement has emerged to be the commercialisation or objectification of women. Women being the eye candy, with the main task of smiling, dancing or being caught by the villain, the axe revolution or the “oomph” factor to sell a mango drink has filled pages after pages. Women are being depicted mainly as a show piece, they are in a subservient position, the ‘liberated’ men and women would argue. It is true and should be condemned. However, is this objectification restricted only to advertisements or the auto expo?

Way back in my all-girls’ school, any programme would involve selection of some tall, long-haired and beautiful girls to be dressed in sarees for the guest of honour ceremony and to present the bouquets. Here, I must admit that it was definitely an honour for someone to be even considered for it. In my all-girls’ college, girls in sarees still dazzled but the length of the hair and the looks varied. Here, I must mention that saree is seen as formal attire for women in India, the politics of it would be discussed later in the piece. Girls, more specifically beautiful girls, in sarees to receive the guests, present bouquets or to move around are a widespread phenomenon in North India. But to a student trained to be sceptical and question everything, it disturbs me a lot.

Saree is formal attire for women in India. However, is there a politics with it? Saree is a dominant attire but there are many different traditional attires in India and it includes salwar suit. But an attire that draws a thin line between being graceful and sensuous has been chosen. It is not to condemn the attire. I personally like it a lot. But the way it is generally donned, especially by young girls, it is more sensuous, a more moderate word is attractive. It is to note that a programme, if it has enough content, should not require people to look attractive, in order to draw attention. Formal or smart attire should be enough. And when I say formal, I would also ask that who decides what is formal and what is not. Any dress can be formal if it is not too attractive but graceful enough. A saree can be that but we must ask, why only saree?

Such programmes also have men in the formal Indian wear, again with the same politics of cultural dominance involved, a sherwani or kurta is selected. However, while men are also expected to dress in a formal way, it is still the women dazzling in sarees to handover the bouquets and make short but more appearances on the stage to say a line or two. It will be women in sarees who would be asked to accompany the guests. Why can’t a man handover the bouquet instead? Why can’t he handle the not-so-important tasks on the stage?

Men and women in their traditional attires do represent the tradition. But why are women, more than men, expected to represent this culture and in an often sensuous attire? Why are women dressed in the traditional attire given more visible but often subservient tasks?

Yes, women do get “empowered” as they are making appearances, they are getting noticed but at what cost? Beauty is a gem, it is not a crime. But do you want people to look at you only because of your looks? Do you want people to look at you, rather than hear what you have to say?

I would like to conclude with what Prof. Pankaj K. Jha, my teacher in my graduation college had remarked, “When it comes to representing culture, we often push our women in front. But when it comes to challenging it, men come forward. We(women) need to make the choice.”

The Border clash and Jingoism: We don't have to pacify ourselves but realise

It was a happy day for some of us who had gone to kotla stadium on the last match of the T20 series between India and Pakistan with our face painted in flag colours of both countries, displaying poster and distributing pamphlets with messages of peace and friendship to the cricket fans of both countries. We were moved by the appreciation that we got, especially from people from Pakistan. Some of them had themselves came to us, introduced and asked for the pamphlet. Our event, under the initiative of Aaghaz-e-Dosti, turned out to be a huge success even on social networking sites and was picked up by some major news portals.

It was deeply satisfying and paid off our labour as we thought that we have started on our journey to move for a better future together. But two or three days later, the media reported the border clash but initially, I had not imagined how it would change things overnight. The social networking sites became another battlefield. Status messages and comment thread, the “shared photo culture” developed by Facebook pages and new pages devoted to questioning peace initiatives, digging old graves, debating if India is a “soft” state or if India always stabs Pakistan(by the Pakistan side) and poems dedicated to soldiers and the army.

It was and is all over – on the news channels ofcourse, endless news debates but almost all debating if we should continue the ties or not, on Facebook posts, in Facebook pages and ofcourse in the tea-time discussions. Following the clash, there have also been innumerable articles challenging and finding the loopholes in all the claims starting from the report of beheading to the role of a third party to manipulate the politics in its own favour.

But the question no longer is about who started it and did it involve beheading or not because the damage has already been done. What has sadly come out of this is the notion that it’s only “we” who want peace and that “they” have always stabbed “us”. This notion exists on both sides of the border.

And this notion is enough to persist another decade of hatred and suspicion. People on both sides have sided with the army that have otherwise, accounted for human rights’ violations and with the politicians whom we refuse to accept as our representatives. They refuse to see any “anti-nation” sentiment. And once again, the “nation” as an identity has become important surpassing the individual and the individual opinion and desire. The peace activists or anyone with a voice of dissent are once again seen as not only “anti-nation” but as passive, ideal and those who have not seen the “reality”. This article is not to pacify anyone or to convince. It is only to bring out some “realities” which cannot be challenged.

This is based on my own personal observations and on the articles that I have come across. If I talk about the articles, I have read many articles which have brought out the loopholes in the theories put forward by both the countries. There have been questioning of the hazy and inconsistent reporting by the army on both sides, loopholes in the reports and questions for media to have covered issues which have shown India or Pakistan only in a bad light. This brings us to one fact that the truth is partial. None of us can claim to know the truth. There is a need to establish a neutral news source accepted by both countries.

For those who feel that peace is only the desire of one side is mistaken. To begin with, if this was true, Aman ki Asha would not have received equal appreciation on the other side of the border. Coming to my personal observations, I have been following the posts and tweets of people of across the border (Pakistan) and have some interesting revelations. It is true that some of them, like some of us, have tagged peace initiatives as bogus and indulge in a sort-of “godification” of army generals and soldiers. But it is also true that many have also condemned this incident. I have some friends there and there has been no change in the nature of our interaction. I also came across a facebook post today by someone asking if peace should be continued with India? I found the very status very interesting as the same question is posed by most of us as in this status, there is an assumption that “we” are peaceful. Most of the comments favoured yes. There was a comment that said that we should, if they also do the same. Those who said no had also added reasons stating how India has often stabbed back or because they do not want peace. It was essential to give this “private” post as it reveals some facts and demands an action.

We and here I mean the people or anyone who likes to have an opinion should be critical of our own Government, media and army. On both sides, we need to accept that there are people who do not want peace, for their own motives. But more importantly, we need to accept that humanity is beyond boundaries. On both sides, there are humans and human lives. Those who want war or can even think of it should imagine what it is like to live in the bordered state. Or even ask an average soldier if he wants war. A soldier has seen a war and knows what it involves. But he takes part because he has to. A famous Bollywood movie, Heroes, puts it beautifully, “hum hamara kaam kar rahe hai aur wo wahan apna” (We are doing our work and they are doing theirs).Their duty is to defend their respective motherlands and they do that. And no-one thinks about them because if they did, they wouldn’t have asked for more hatred. War is not the solution to anyone, never has it been and will never be. It is true that “we” must not sit back if the “other” retaliates but we must do that in a constructive way because the fire will not just burn them.

We need to realise that there are people on both sides, there are “wounds” to be healed on both sides, sufferings, impartial truth and misunderstandings on both sides. People on both sides have their own challenges to meet. To an average Indian and Pakistani, earning their daily bread is much more important than demanding war. We have to realise… not to pacify ourselves but to realise.


published at Countercurrents http://www.countercurrents.org/mittal210113.htm

Rising Kashmir Newspaper http://www.risingkashmir.in/news/loc-clashes-and-subsequent-jingoism-40438.aspx Print edition 23rd January 20113

The samosa http://www.thesamosa.co.uk/2013/01/23/the-border-clash-and-jingoism-we-dont-have-to-pacify-ourselves-but-realise/

They Are Mothers, Sisters And Wives: Women Empowerment In India

I remember attending a meeting in which I was addressed as “behn” (sister). I had exchanged looks with the friend I was with and wanted to snigger but had managed to control it. Such a word had come from someone who was much elder to me. I was also a bit stunned as it is definitely not a general practice in Delhi. However, I didn’t exactly mind it as it is nothing to get offended about.

But today as I think about this practice being common in some parts of the country, I see it with the state and nature of women empowerment in our country. In the backdrop of recent reported cases of crime and violence against women in India, from the religious, spiritual and intellectual experts to the common people have raised their opinions about violence and women’s status in general. Even barring the infamous suggestion to address the rapist as “brother”, the propaganda generally addresses women or the potential victims as someone’s sister or mother. So in this way, there is an attempt to reach out to and pacify the potential rapist by telling him about his own “insecurity”. Even in general, women are often identified primarily as someone’s sister, mother or wife. We should respect women because they are mothers and are responsible for our birth. We should respect them as they are sisters and sacrifices for us. We should respect women because they become the wives who are primarily responsible for the nurture of the household and the family. These roles sanctify their identity as women. These roles sanctify the relationships so we often have a man declaring a female friend as a sister or like a sister and vice versa to “sanctify” the relationship.

But these norms and logic have certain problems. What about women who are neither anyone’s sister, mother nor wife? Is it fine to question their character or dishonour them? The society says yes.

Traditionally, women were confined to the domestic sphere and rarely, ventured out in the public sphere. Their relations and interaction were also often confined to the domestic sphere and so primarily with females. So a woman was discouraged to speak in front of not just someone beyond the threshold of the house but even to the male members due to the assumed lack of enough “skills” and “knowledge”. Those women who defied these norms have often been labelled as women with a “loose character”. The definition of the “women with a loose character” has undergone changes but the concept has not been dismissed.

So today, with women venturing out in the shining sun and returning with the moonlight, the definition has changed a bit. So it is ok to not only share the same classroom with boys but also the same workspace. So the interaction has increased. However, the concept of “maryada” and “women with loose character” has not been shunned. They have acquired different meanings in contemporary India. And this is where I talk about the continued obsession with fitting women in the roles of mother, sister and wife. The inter-gender interaction has been allowed but the relationships still have to be sanctified. In a country that boasts of women empowerment and bringing women at par with men, women are still seen only as mothers, sisters and wives. They still struggle for an identity, to be accepted and seen in the role they want to be seen in.

Why can’t we see a co-worker as a co-worker and not always as a female co-worker? Why does a woman with mangalsutra and sindoor is more respected? Why on earth do they anyway need those symbols? Why do we always have to tag a relationship of interaction, why do we always have to specify or justify our relationship with a woman? Why is a sister more respected and accepted than a female friend? What is the fear behind having women as friends?

Because for a woman, morality is still identified with her roles as a mother, sister and wife. Even though some of us have accepted that they should “venture out” in the public sphere, that they have proved their capabilities and they are at par with men, they still should be in their boundaries. And these boundaries of morality have been defined by a restricted and much controlled mobility and interaction. They still have to be weak and dependent on the male members of her kin and to be still protected and guarded. They still need to be tamed.