Is homosexuality really an import?

The Gulf nations are planning to conduct "gay tests" for foreign tourists. It is claimed that the test will "recognise" gays and transgenders who will be then denied entry.  This will be applicable in all the GCC or Gulf Cooperation Council countries that includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. In all the GCC countries, homosexuality is outlawed.

While this news is becoming a talk of the world, I fear that it will be largely discussed as a symbol of conservatism and related to a particular religion. I feel that the focus needs to be shifted to the accusation that homosexuality is an important. My article intends to burst this myth.

The proposal of GCC is inherent with the assumption that homosexuality is an import of the west. It is not a practice of the land. This assumption and notion is true not only for the Arab countries but is also quite widespread in many South Asian countries. However, this is not corroborated by facts.

The movement for the rights of the LGBTI (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex) community is not very old. It was only in 2003 that all the states of America had legalised homosexuality. Marriage equality is banned in countries. Many states of USA are yet to legalise it. Russia has recently passed the anti-Gay bill. Even if western countries have some provisions, there is still social stigma attached to people of LGBTI community. In a recent news, it was reported that a Christian College in California had banned a student after it was found out that she was a transgender. Infact, it has been argued that homophobia or fear of homosexuality and diverse sexualities was a product of colonialism. Thus, it would be more apt to say that homophobia, not homosexuality, is an import of the west.

Homosexuality as an "import" also conveys that homosexuality is a kind of trend or lifestyle. It is generally believed that like the concepts of a nuclear family and an individual life, homosexuality has also "come from the west".  It is not true because homosexuality is not a concept. It is not a trend that can be followed. It is the way a person is. What can be said to be imported from the west is the acceptability and recognition that some western societies have shown for diverse sexualities.

Related with this concept is the basic assumption that homosexuality is "unnatural". This assumption has been long challenged through inter-disciplinary researches. The fact is that if homosexuality is unnatural, then why is it found in about 1500 species ranging from primates to parasites? Homosexual behaviour is found to be quite widespread in the animal kingdom. One quarter of black swans engage in homosexual unions.

If homosexuality and diverse sexualities are unnatural then why do we need religion, culture, media, law and the state to enforce this "fact"? Diverse sexualities are reflective of the beauty of the nature. We are mesmerized by the diversity in flowers, animals, birds, landscapes but then why do many of us reject and condemn diversity in the sexual orientation of human beings. There is enough literature available on the history of sexuality, about a more accommodating past followed by the period of suppression of sexuality. There are reasons that explain the suppression. In the past, due to the existing political circumstances, many societies lay emphasis on fertility and so they condemned any union that was not productive. They had intertwined this with the moral and social. It was incorporated in many religious systems. However, even when the situation changed, the moral and the social was not adequately challenged. Thus, the taboo remained.

This move to bar the entry of gay tourists shows that there is a sense of "fear" and we must inquire about it. Who is fearful and of what? How is someone's sexuality affecting a society or people around him/her? Homosexuality is being seen as a threat to the "moral good". When a homosexual person is brutally harassed, where does the morality go? There are many incidents of rapes of people of LGBTI community. This proposed move to "control" homosexuality by barring the "agents" of homosexuality makes some sense if we accept that homosexuality has buyers in the land.

Thus, it is important to realise that homosexuality is neither a threat to any culture or system of 'morality' nor an import of west. It is important to  protest against this illogical and "unnatural" disease called homophobia that still grips many countries. 

Weapon of Miscommunication

Aman Chaupal with Saeeda Diep ji

"Do Hindus live in Pakistan?", asked a young girl to Ms. Saeeda Diep, a Peace activist from Pakistan.

With a smile, she replied, "Yes, my dear. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and people of many other religious faiths live in Pakistan".

"How are they treated?"

"Why doesn't the Pakistan Government control terrorism?"

"Why did the army behead Indian soldiers?"

These were some of the many questions that students of a school in Delhi had asked the peace activist during an interactive session called Aman Chaupal, an initiative of Aaghaz-e-Dosti aimed towards Indo-Pak friendship. It was a small room with about 50 students heavily-equipped with questions and a lady with a serene and smiling face. She answered all the questions with an unchanging expression of calmness and with a warm smile. This was because she was on a mission. She was out to face the weapon of miscommunication. "We have about 20 Indian channels but you people do not have a single channel so you know nothing about Pakistan. We have not been able to present ourselves to you." So after each question, she would say, "please ask more questions".

Having some level of communication with people from Pakistan, I could not help laughing when the politically-charged questions didn't stop. But I was not surprised at those questions. Infact, I, like Saeeda ji, was happy that they asked these questions because then they won't think that we were there to "pacify" or "convince" them. Yet, I must admit that I was surprised to see that she had a calm and beaming face throughout the session.

Her words as well as those questions have stayed with me. She had emphasised on the lack of communication and the hawkish media that our Indian democracy has granted us. I would completely agree with her on this. The media is the fourth pillar of democracy yet in our country, it is not independent and is biased. It carries the burden of invoking nationalist fervor and in doing so, it often ends up with arousing jingoistic sentiments.

The media was at its worst best during the case of Sarabjit Singh when Sarabjit was made a "national martyr" and the attack on Sanaullah Ranjay was seen as a "reaction". The same can be said for the border clash of January. There was no reporting at that time. The news channels were busy running documentaries. I often find it a little surprising that the media which is desperate to do something 'innovative" does not ever attempt to consult the "other" side. There is a clear divide between what the major newspapers of both the sides report. Yet, no attempt is made by either sides to come up with a neutral source. No-one ever gets to know the "truth" and actually, it seems that no side is even interested to know. Why? There are reasons and the reasons are political.

This is a weapon and a far lethal one. The military clashes are short-lived. There is a ceasefire but this weapon is not short-lived. It is a slower process but much more effective. It allows for the proliferation of hatred to people beyond the direct sufferers. It is effective enough to make peace, a fantasy of the "liberal". A resource for many, it helps to create an unchallenged "need" for war, for hatred. The war mandate rests on the unchallenged assumption that the "other" hates us. Thus, it is an important raw material for what Saeeda ji had said, a "war industry". This also explains why there are attempts to disrupt any efforts to enhance people-to-people communication between the countries. Miscommunication is essential for hatred and suspicion.

In contrast to this is communication. It would be hard to find someone who has been to the other side of the border or has had some level of communication, with a negative opinion about them. With so much to talk about, share, in one's own language (Hindi for us, urdu for them), it becomes difficult at ground level to find differences. Infact, when one meets someone from Pakistan, one is pleasantly disappointed because the image of a different "other" is shattered. Communication is the key to all our problems and so Saeeda ji had concluded the session with the statement,

"We will make efforts to connect you with children of your age so that you can see Pakistan from our eyes, not from your media's eyes." 

The time when children were innocent

As kids, we had a desire to speed up the growing part and become adults. Adulthood meant an escape from the boring homework, having a lot more freedom and the power to decide. Ofcourse, now as adults, we like to laugh on that silly desire. It was silly but it was a very innocent one. We were too innocent to understand what adulthood would really mean. How that “freedom” would mean very little in front of that ever-increasing tension. We realize it now but it seems that parents these days don’t.

Recently, I came across an article in a TOI supplement, Education Plus, dated 12^th January 2012, about preschoolers and little kids learning to cook, wash cars and doing computers. I anyway never understood the concept of pre-schooling as 14 years of schooling is torturous enough for kids but this came as a major shock to me. I wondered what has gone wrong with parenting these days.

I remember how our parents would talk about their ‘golden’ childhood and would totally discard our idea of ‘fun’ in childhood. My mother had a serious disapproval for Cartoon Network and my computer buddies, Dave and Aladdin. They would talk about their vacations back in the villages and the “real” fun, as they used to put it. Every vacation, I was forced to engage in some ‘fun’ activity like dance, music or playing casio. We all grew up being compared with a neighborhood kid or a cousin. This was our childhood. We were more ‘privileged’ than our previous generation but the next and the current generation have a lot more, like cellphones before college, facebook accounts much before their teen years, the obsession with branded and fashionable clothes, in short, an over-exposure!

Now, I think that we were so much better-off. And I don’t feel any kind of happiness as I write this. I feel really sad that what they are losing out on what happens to be what kids are famous for i.e. innocence. Now, when I think of my childhood, I review all the mistakes that I ever made. Some of them were stupid and others, quite serious, yet I don’t feel any remorse because I was innocent. I was not trained enough to see all aspects of things. I realized and learned from my mistakes only with time. I learned all that, at the right age. I was ignorant, immature and imperfect. It was only with time that I started shedding some of them. I now feel that growing up is so beautiful. And as I realize this, I feel sad for these kids.

It’s not their age to learn how to cook or how to wash a car. Why do they need to do that? Are they being expected to be independent? I see kids in reality shows trying to express emotions which they are not even supposed to understand and I have nothing but pity for them. Why are they being expected to behave like adults? Most of the times, the judges don’t seem to know how to talk to kids. They end up discouraging the kids. But Why? Why are kids supposed to be perfect today! They are expected to sing their throats out, dance till their legs give away and express emotions which are way-ahead than their ages. So we have a preteen TV actress playing the role of a wife(not child bride) on a popular TV show. Is there a dearth of better actresses, I wondered. What was the need for playing with the psychological mind-set of the young actress?

I see preschoolers having their ears pierced and I wonder the need. I remember having the ear-piercing done when I was in third standard. I fail to understand why things are growing so fast.

I don’t think one can blame the kids! The questions should be directed to their parents, their guardians and these schools. What are they playing at? The World is moving on very fast… there is an upsurge in technology and one needs to be updated but not at the cost of destroying the beautiful child-like innocence. Why are we exposing them to a world for which they are not yet ready? Why are they taking away from their own kids what they cherish the most… the “golden” childhood? Why are the parents in such a hurry?

The schools consider this as a step to better ‘prepare’ the students. They are ‘preparing’ the students for what? This competitive world? The world is definitely become ‘meaner’ day by day and the competition is a reality. But this does not mean that we end up producing miniature adults, rather than kids. And all this is only worsening the competition. The schools may claim “innovative” methods to make learning “fun” but actually, it is indulging into a lot of “learning” for the kids, with these “extra-curricular” activities. The “Extra-curricular” activities which sometimes also include personality development, a concept which again I fail to accept for kids. If immaturity is bad, so is over-maturity.

Why cant we just let them be themselves… and enjoy their innocent childhood which they will cherish later in their lives, when they will ultimately struggle in this notorious, demonic world? Why cant we let kids be kids again?

Do Hindus live in Pakistan?

Why is there so much of terrorism in Pakistan?

Did the Government know about Osama Bin Laden living in Pakistan?

What do people of Pakistani think about us?

Watch this video wherein a renowned Peace activist from Pakistan, Ms. Saeeda Diep interacts with students of Columbia Foundation Sr. Sec. School. This was an event of Aman Chaupal, an initiative under Aaghaz-e-Dosti, an Indo-pak peace and friendship initiative by Mission Bhartiyam. 

Appeal to stop the telecast of serial "Jodha Akbhar" on communal grounds

I am writing this to appeal to urge you to stop the telecast of the recently launched serial "jodha Akbar" being aired on Zee TV as it can have a negative impact on the society. To begin with, the serial itself runs on the disclaimer that it lays no claim to any historical event. This disclaimer came after there were protests from the Rajput community and from some historians against the inauthenticity of the story being presented. The main argument is that there was no mention to "Jodha Bai" in the historical sources. This debate was also raised for the movie "Jodha Akbar" starring Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai. It is important for the producers to state the historical source of the story. It should be binding for them to mention the exact historical accounts as history, we know and have seen, is not just the past. It has or is made to have serious implications in the present. One of the most shameful example is that of the demolition of Babri Masjid and the communal riots.

As stated previously, the producers of the serial "Jodha Akbar" has "negotiated" with the protestors and now there is a disclaimer before and during some scenes in the serial stating that the serial does not have any historical backing. The question then is, why is there a need to telecast such a serial? Why is there a need to use the names? Even if Jodha may not have ever existed, Akbar did. Where is the need to demonise him? It is shocking that this has been allowed in a communally-sensitive country. India is threatened with the forces of hindutva which claims the country to be the ancestral and "rightful" property of only Hindus, negating the claims of all other religious groups. It also demonises muslims and have used (or misinterpreted) history to serve their purpose. Even a "liberal" Hindu will agree to this baseless nonsense.

The fact is that history is too hazy. There is so much that can be said about these things. The fact that can be safely established is that religion was not a big deal when the rulers invaded the "country" (which did not exist at that time) in 14th-15th century. Also, desecration of temples was a political statement than a religious one. Historian Richard Eaton has talked about conquest mosques which were built by desecrating the earlier monument because it is quite a rule that an invading ruler establishes throne by destroying the symbols of the previous ruler. The fact is that the word "muslim" in a religious sense for the rulers did not emerge in the historical sources before 16th century. For a native in a kingdom in the now-Gujarat, a ruler from rajasthan was as much a foreigner as a turk. There is so much written on these issues. There is literature on how it were the British who had divded the history into hindu and muslim. But nothing has been read because the historical truth is not in line with the political motives. The historical truth negates Hindutva as baseless. One major point is that V D Savarkar, the founder of the ideology of Hindutva, had himself written in his book on Hindutva that whatever he is writing is for a political reason. Yet, nothing has been read. People have carried the biased colonial legacy and as a result, thousands of innocent people have lost their lives.

Thankfully, the forces of Hindutva seem to be resting with BJP focussing on "development" and the recent unpopularity of other Hindu fundamentalist groups. Some years back, the court had also passed a "secular" verdict on the ayodhya issue which was, thankfully, welcomed. But this serial seems to revive these forces as it re-iterates the baseless stereotypes about mughals. Akbar is shown to be this demon. He is shown to be a "Muslim" ruler. It is historically incorrect to use terms like "secular", "conservative" or "liberal" for rulers as these terms are of recent origin but if I do commit the sin, just for this time, I will not be wrong to say that Akbar is popular for being "secular". He is known for Din-i-ilahi, for rejecting the teachings of the ulama, for rejecting conservative Islam and for rajput-mughal alliances. If we read the history, we will know that this happened for many reasons. But according to the serial, it was Jodha, a Rajput princess who forced him to become "good". Jodha had swore to some goddess that she will behead Akbar and throw the head on the feet of the goddess, bringing a very strong religious angle. It is also historically inauthentic. But a more important concern is the dangerous effect that it will entail. The serial re-iterates the notions about "muslim" rulers who invaded, discriminated, dishonoured women and tried to destroy the "hindu" culture.

Therefore, I appeal that this serial should be banned from being telecasted on the grounds that it is historically inauthentic, demeaning and has the potential to revive communal tensions in the country.

See http://muslimmirror.com/eng/broadcast-body-urged-to-stop-telecast-of-communal-serial-jodha-akbar/

Some thoughts on the "royal" Rajasthan

These are based on my recent short trip to Jaipur, the capital city of Rajasthan. The trip was not an academic venture. I had gone for some personal reasons so it will be a reflection based entirely on observations.

An economy of forts

Albert Museum

Rajasthan makes up to be one of the most historically-conscious, as one may put it, state in India. The pink city is famous and known for its forts. Infact, one of the most obvious images that conjures up when one thinks of Rajasthan is that of the innumerable forts and not to forget, "tradition". The desert, women in lehenga, the traditional rajasthani turban, katputli, bajre ki khichdi...Rajasthan, to an outsider, is synonymous with the traditional Rajasthan. There is also a haunted side to Rajasthan with legends and haunted stories weaved around medieval forts, the best known being that of Bhangarh. Rajasthan is a much-glorified place but what is interesting, but not new, is how the glorification is encashed. It will not be anything new to mention how forts are being converted into hotels, or how hotels have tried to ape the architecture of forts, the most-famous chowkidhaani that promises you a glimpse into the "traditional" village and the over-priced rajasthani food. What I intend to do in this write-up is to reflect on the glorification of tradition.

Whose tradition?

Jaipur

We were near Rajasthan, not sure if we were in Rajasthan, when I, through the window of cafe coffee day, saw a camel. I also saw a man wearing the traditional rajasthani turban. I was a bit shocked with the contrasting images. I would notice the dress of women as our car passed by villages. It was nothing like the glamorised ethnic wear. They wore bright-colored but simple lehenga with a tight-fitting blouse (that we (should i say delhites?) wear with a saree) with a bare midriff. All throughout my journey, I saw this style and needless to mention, I only saw women of not from a very high economic background opting for this dress. The men who would wear the turban would also be generally from a modest economic background. It was not that I was expecting everyone in Rajasthan to be dolled-up in ethnic wear but I found this interesting. All the tradition seems to be now carried off by people who live at the margins. 

What about the people of the middle and elite classes? Well, they hop in western clothes or in kurta-pyjama to the malls and the World Trade Park. The World Trade Park, is a mall with no place to sit but to roam about, admiring the expensive shops, the chandliers and the egyptian, chinese and other unnamed but "foreign" (and that is enough!) statues. Out of the four restaurants that I visited, only the one of the hotel included a rajasthani dish in its menu. As about shopping in a regular place, not the famous jowhri bazaar, there was also nothing "rajasthani". The point is... the traditional seems to be the burden of the underprivileged.

Chowkidhaani - The glamorised village

Chowkidhaani

You go to Jaipur and you don't visit chowkidhaani, that's not possible! I have been to Jaipur many times and each time, I have been there, I have visited chowkidhaani to get the "rajasthani" feel. Chowkidhaani promises a "glimpse" into the traditional village. But you will be disappointed if you think through because the glamorised replica does not talk anything about the farmer suicides and the social evils that exists. It reminded me of the ideal image of the self-sustaining and peaceful village that many western thinkers including marx had hold onto.

I remember that last time, we were welcomed by a group of ladies dressed in traditional clothes, a smiling face who would put teeka on our forehead. This time, it was just a young girl who was severely disinterested. She had left the lot before us as she didn't want to waster her energy calling out to them. Nevertheless, she had put the teeka on our forehead like a machine stamping a barcode on a product. I wasn't disappointed seeing the prospering business until I saw three varying prices - 500, 600 and 700. I thought it was the ticket but it was actually the price for the food per head. The highest was for the traditional Rajasthani thali.

It was fun to be in the ideal and dream-like village (a dream especially for those who actually live in villages). It was "exciting" to be in the line to hurt a camel (read camel ride). But the genuinely exciting part was the rajasthani thali. Drenched in rain, with our wet and mud-soaked clothes, we dined on the feast that was once only the right of the "royal". While we feasted on bajre ki kheechdi which was swimming in ghee, the ghee-soaked daal baati churma and many other dishes, a guy was singing the ethnic songs. I do remember his face and the songs that he played. It is a daily ritual for him. However, then and now a thought that crops up in my mind is that has things changed for him? Then and now, he played for the privileged. Then and now, he doesn't have an option. He is sticking on to the tradition.

The forts and the farce of blue-bloodedness 

Coming back to forts. As I saw the forts, especially the amber fort with the long-running ramparts, I was lost trying to imagine the past. But not "my" past. If I were what I am today, in terms of my economic status, in those centuries, I wouldn't have been even allowed to enter the forts with respect. Being a woman, my status would have been even lower. So how is this a past that I should be expected to be proud of? We went to the Albert museum and were expected to be in awe of the "royal" items of daily use. Yes, I was in awe of the fact that they sucked money from the commoners and created a nice royal world for themselves while the commoners suffered during a famine.

But one definite thing that I was happy to realise is that how this farce of blue-bloodedness has been shunned by the recent trend of marrying in forts. Today, it is common for the economically privileged to realise this "dream". Ofcourse, it is still extended only to a few. But I feel happy imagining how the souls and ghosts? of the royalty would react when people of non-rajput or "high" blood share the same privilege.

Concluding with an epic statement 

I would just like to end with what a man who sells chunni/gudiya ke baal (candyfloss in english) had said to two people who were debating about what to call the item that he sold. He said, "Haan, chunni ke baal hi kehte hai par kuch vilayati bandar ise candy floss keh gaye". (Yes, it is called chunni ke baal but some foreign monkeys gave it the name of candy floss.) I think his statement sums it up well. 

Little Ani learns a lesson...never ignore warning signs

This is the entry for "The Moral of The Story Is...!" contest of Indiblogger and  Colgate Total

"AAAAAAAAAH!"

"Spit in the basin"

"AAAH!"

"I said spit in the basin"

"Beta, co-operate. I will buy you that doll"

"Mummy! AAAAHH"

And it was over! Her mom had been furious with little Ani. The moment that they were out of the dentist's cabin, her mom had started scolding her. The dream of the doll was shattered but nevertheless, she did enjoy the big cup of chocolate ice cream. Ani was six year old at that time.

"AAAAAH!"

"What happened!"

"My tooth is aching!"

The second visit to dentist was when she was in tenth standard. The doctor told her that plague had destroyed her teeth. The doctor had informed her that since her teeth were crooked, she was more prone to tooth plague and decay. He had advised her for braces.

"Braces!?"

"Yes or you will face many dental problems later in your life"

"Oh ok, then I will put braces"

"Good girl! Please come on Thursday"

"Sure, Doctor! Thanks"

She never went. She had hated the sound of it. She had heard about the problems that people with braces face - the problem in speech, the maintenance, and the other related natak. "I am not getting those braces!", she said to herself. She thought that the doctor was emphasising only because crooked teeth looks bad. It is not "aesthetically-pleasing". As for other problems, she assumed that they wouldn't be as bad.

She would ignore the essential visit to dentist even when she would have some dental problems because of the fear of the plan. She would assume that she would be forced to get braces or undergo some complicated and painful treatment. She had been ignoring it for years. But now she has started experiencing the problems that she was being warned of, some years back. She has been noticing bleeding of gums and she can no longer ignore it. Why? Because she had chose to ignore the first sign and the first advice. She went to the dentist and is required to visit every month. She no longer ignores the warning signs and also uses Colgate total every day which eliminates all possibilities of tooth problems.

So the moral of the story is...never try to ignore warning signs.