Valentine's Day Fundas

DISCLAIMER: I AM AGAINST ANY SORT OF FUNDAMENTALISM. I AM ALSO AGAINST HYPOCRISY. ALL FUNDAMENTALISM IS HYPOCRITICAL, AS ARE HUMANS, BUT I'D RATHER CLEAN MY OWN HOUSE FIRST THAN POKE MY NOSE IN MY NEIGHBOUR'S BUSINESS. UNLESS HE THROWS HIS JUNK IN MY YARD OF COURSE. BUT DAMN, IT'S CLEANING TIME IN INDIA.

So, the Shiv Sainiks have been up to their shenanigans again, vandalising property and harassing people on what they thought was a Valentine's Day function, that was actually a cultural programme at a hotel in memory of a dead brother. If you don't want to read the article, I shall summarise it for you. The ShivSainiks who stormed the hotel were apparently drunk, and were molesting only the girls, ripping their clothes of all the people gathered there of all ages, while smashing the glass and lights etc.

How many things are fundamentally wrong with this picture?

Could not the Sainiks enquire as to the purpose of the function? Of course, given their formidable reputation and obvious enjoyment of strikes and violence to provide some succor and distraction to the otherwise unemployed youth it aims to represent, they may well have reason to believe that they would be lied to (and whose fault is that in the first place?)

Could they not employ some slightly smarter people who might enlighten them as to the fact that not every function held on 14th Feb is necessarily a Valentine's day function?

Why did they only harass the girls? That too the young ones, not the children or old women? Is this 'belonging to a powerful pressure group' not simply an excuse to exert power over weaker sections of society (and we know women are physically weaker - and few people - men or women, have the gumption to actually take action against such vile abuse of human rights).Implicit permission to cop a feel at women who would not even give them the time of day normally?

Is THIS our culture and tradition and so-called superior values that these people declare from every rooftop and while standing on every structure they have destroyed? Of disrespecting women? Of disturbing public peace? Not to mention public property that costs the government precious resources to repair (but oh! Repairing destroyed structures will also provide them supplemental income, as protesting seems to be a full-time job! It will provide employment, boosting revenues and statistics and consumerism and all sorts of other economic perks! But no, it will not satisfy them as according to Hindu tradition, nothing is permanent but change - the last part of which essence they conveniently ignore).

But to write more on disrespecting women. To bring it down to the very basic, fundamental (some may say crass) level, in order for individuals of every mental calibre to understand from every perspective - Woman is Goddess, Mother, from whom the universe originated, Lakshmi, the giver of wealth. She is the moral fibre of society and the basis upon which many a family and hence, collectively, society not only maintains its honour, but also flourishes. The woman is hence put ona pedestal, protected, worshipped, and given some of the greatest earthly responsibilities.

A woman was once considered honourable if she committed sati, jauhar, etc. to prevent any stranger from defiling her. Who is a defiler? One that attempts to perpetrate actions of a sexual nature against a woman without her consent. In more familiar terminology, this person varies from eve-teaser, stalker, molester, to rapist and murderer. Note: a man or woman is neither of these if the women has explicitly consented. Is an Indian man, of her caste, community, nationality, any less of a defiler than a foreign man? No. Is a woman any less of a defiler in such a situation of another woman than a man? No.

Therefore, please tell me, in a Valentine's Day celebration, or in a public park or wherever, when a man besides her boyfriend, or even a woman, touches her violently in any way, who is the defiler? This stranger or her boyfriend? Whose touch has she consented to? Even when a man or woman physically bothers a woman, even if it is with the so-called intention of showing her the right path/saving the public good, does that nullify the harassment? In case you're confused, the answer is NO.

When we disrespect our women, for any reason, what does it say about us as a society? According to our national pledge, all Indians are our brothers and sisters. Is this how a man behaves with a 'sister'? Even if the man claims to be protecting her from the immorality of men (which he is not, rather, her is holding her responsible for tempting the man), is she not a mature adult individual who has a right to be debated with in a civilised manner regarding her actions, and then be allowed full right to them? Wait, the situation of having to ask permission from anyone regarding whom to move around/sit/hold hands with/kiss should not even arise in a free society! In this situation, how much different are we from the so-called Islamic fundamentalist nations we supposedly despise?

Is our culture, that which seeks to put women back in purdah? Is our Hindu philosophy one that believes in destroying everything we don't agree with, especially when it is not affecting us? Or are these Sainiks simply too kanjoos to buy 'Velentines' Day presents for their girlfriends (oooooh they better not have girlfriends. Or that's okay as long as no one knows huh? Oh, they probably can't afford it and hence want to stop everyone else from doing so. But maybe they could organise mass theft. But then again that is not dharmik by anyone's standards.)

This is getting ridiculous by anyone's standards. (Yes I know that the harassment in parks by the policewomen was not a Sena thing, or the Jallandhar Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad forcing couples seen on V-day to marry or tie rakhi, but it's so easy to box them all in one).

At this rate, can you not see the possibility over the horizon of India becoming a Matrubhoomi?

(I think I shall reserve further opinions on the Sainik's idea of dharma till I have actually read the Gita. I can see how they have a point theologically, although it's very twisted. And I'm definitely more Gandhian in my interpretive approach to religion!)

*************************************************************************************

I wrote this post yesterday and upon reading it again I can see how passionate and angry and over-the-top it sounds, even a little silly and bitchy, but I really don't want to change it. Because the thought of any of this happening to me makes me notice all these angry physical reactions in me - eyebrows furrowed, jaws tightened, fists clenched, body stiffened, and I have to force myself to relax, physically feelinging myself loosen lengthen by at least an inch. Imagine those who must actually undergo such humiliation! I suppose the fact that India is a democracy is something I must be very thankful for, and the fact that it gives every section of society a chance to propagae and represent its views, however much the rest of the population may disagree with it.

What is comforting to me is that I've always equated the world and the interaction of nations as a huge-ass macro arranged--marriage in my head. So the random riots, carnage, vandalism, periodic intolerance, simmering emotions are simply manifestations of daily frustrations and strife in a long history of togetherness and getting to know each other. And we all know that as we get to know each other more, there is the potential to find more faults, and also the pressure to compromise and adjust, and just... live with some annoying habits. And that partner will prevail who is allowed to, that's all. That doesn't make teh prevailing partner right, it just makes him/her more powerful. And calling violence natural or inevitable doesn't make it right either - to reach a comfortable equanimity, a lot more work and understanding is needed. On both sides!