The Homecoming

For somebody who made a mark for himself with fast paced thrillers like Night of the Krait, The Orphan and The Sniper, Shashi Warrier has taken a remarkable turn in his last 2 books which are quite dark and deeply introspective. His Hangman’s Journal was a compelling story of the life of the unknown Hangman (is one of my favourites) while his latest book The Homecoming is a dark and disturbing tale of betrayal set in the backdrop of the Kashmir Valley.

Javed Sharif is a Kashmiri widower who is into a lucrative carpet and shawls business, living and working in Bangalore, having moved out of the Valley, early on. He falls in love with a widow, Sujata, but the relationship ends because of his refusal to convert into Hinduism. He decides to settle down by returning to Kashmir and as a start, he returns home on the occasion of his father’s eighty-fourth birthday.

His carefully constructed dream starts going rapidly downhill right from the birthday when the family is rudely interrupted by a knock on his door on the birthday and as he watches, his world spirals rapidly into dense pools of turmoil. His younger son Irfan, is suspected to be hobnobbing with the Lashkar and is arrested under POTO. But Javed refuses to believe this and spends all his money and energy in getting his son out. Meanwhile, his elder son, Fawzi, gets married to a Christian girl and swindles him of nearly all his wealth.

The Homecoming is essentially a story of betrayal- Javed is deceived by everyone, right from his family to the State. Irfan turns into a religious bigot, with very less concern for his father’s thoughts; his own brother, Muhammad, who becomes an influential State minister, compromises his principles and keeps his own interests intact, never really trying to help him; Fawzi betrays his trust and cheats him of his lifetime earnings ; Javed’s own father hides from him till the very end the fact that Hassan is his half-brother and bequeaths him money, whereas Javed himself does not get anything.

His mother blames him for all the misfortunes and moves away from their own house to Muhammad’s, in spite of the fact that Javed has run the family all these years. His love, Sujata, dissolves the relationship because he refuses to convert into Hinduism and later on avoids him so that their relationship does not affect her son’s marriage. Towards the end, he realizes that his daughter,Razia, has all the while remained in touch with her brother Fawzi, despite his action of cheating his father. The parting shot comes when he realizes that Irfan is probably mixed with the wrong crowd and is not innocent and the realization slowly seeps in-This is the house that I built for my family. My whole life has been a lie.

At one level, Shashi Warrier explores the father-son relationship across 3 generations. Javed wonders if he could ever do to his father what his son did to him, even if he were to resent him. There is an element of truth when he remarks that he feels pained by his son’s incarceration but that he probably would not have felt the same surge of emotions when it comes to his parents.

The selfish gene finds its place strongly in all of us and I wonder what would happen if ever a situation arises when we have to decide between our children and parents.He carries the guilt of not being around when his children grow up and he tries to make up for it by his blind love for them, only to be deceived by his lack of judgment.

It is a deeply disturbing novel which explores the failings of a family as it struggles with the spectre of violence and gloom which had become an integral part of the Kashmiri psyche since the late 80s. Javed meets people with different view points on the Kashmir issue – people who want it to an independent entity, those who want it to belong to Pakistan, India loyalists and those who just don’t care and want to be left alone- and is bewildered by the reactions of his son and brother to the problem. He slowly begins to understand the reality of the situation but is shattered by the deception of his near and dear ones.

It is very convenient to dismiss the entire struggle as a Pakistan conspiracy but while the Pakistan hand is true and very much visible, what has strengthened the factional struggle is also the dishonesty of the State, which failed the Kashmiris. A foreign hand acts as a catalyst when there are conditions created which facilitate such intervention. However, he also questions the raison d’etre of the struggle when he says that it is not just the Kashmiris who have been let down by India and that their struggles are not entirely new and original –

“The Indian bureaucracy has treated Kashmiris no better and no worse than they’ve treated the rest of India. Administrators in Kashmir are, if anything, better than elsewhere in India because Kashmir is always in the spotlight. From my visit to Manzoor I realized that Kashmiri oppresses Kashmiri with as much impunity. Will throwing out the Indian element of the administration cure that? I doubt that.”

Years of violence, fear and anxiety has a very visible effect on the surface but deep inside, the harm that is caused is hidden. Just like the horrors of the Bhopal gas tragedy which continue to haunt its people even today, the destruction that has been caused is quite numbing – reflecting in families that live in a pall of gloom and mistrust.

Family fabrics may not always be so strong as we think – a small tug and the entire warp could possibly come apart. War is catastrophic and the people who survive its aftermath have a very heavy price to pay- whether it is the Kashmiri Muslim or the Pandit.

Shashi Warrier’s prose is simple, to the point and does not involve any element of verbal jugglery which creeps in most books written by Indian writers nowadays. The journalist in him stands out as he manages to create a politically personal story which is stark and does not hover around inane considerations of the Valley’s beauty. The pathos and inevitability of the ending make for compelling, albeit depressing reading – almost reminiscent of Malayalam cinema of the 80s...

Reflections on Firaaq

Yesterday, a friend and I watched Nandita Das’s directorial debut Firaaq, at PVR, Goregaon. I had my apprehensions before watching the movie, mainly fuelled by my impression of intellectual artists. But my fears were clearly unfounded – the movie is a compelling peek into the lives of ordinary people, primarily Muslims, in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots. Firaaq which means ‘separation’ as well as 'quest' is at once understated and hard-hitting in a way that it seriously makes one think how difficult it could potentially be for a Muslim to live in ‘secular’ India.

The movie puts in a few characters into the communal cauldron and stirrs it slowly, very slowly and makes us feel the heat of the situation. The hatred simmers on the surface and threatens occasionally to spill over but Nandita never allows it to burst open. The movie worked for me primarily for a couple of reasons.

It does not resort to finger wagging the way over zealous media persons do as they scream allegations at the possible perpetrators of the crime, but at the same time, it is very clear where Nandita’s sympathies lie. The Rajdeeps and Arnabs always go for an over-kill, repulsing sympathizing members of the majority community. There is, thankfully, no violence shown but the threat always looms largely over the characters. She deftly keeps violence at minimum and uses the fear, frustration and anger of the characters to drive home the point.

Secondly, in many ways, it is mainstream cinema’s (I like to believe that this is actually mainstream) probably first candid admission of the role of the majority community in the riots. It does not flinch in pointing the blame at the recklessness and partisan role played by the government machinery in perpetuating the riots. It does not attempt to sound politically right (unlike Mani Ratnam’s syrupy Bombay), delivers no sermons or half-baked solutions but simply observes the people involved in it.

When Sanjay, a Hindu character, played by Paresh Rawal, feels outraged that had a similar pogrom been unleashed against the Hindu majority, no one would speak up for them, he probably echoes the feelings of many in the country who, either through their actions/words or silence have contributed to the communal cleansing carried out in many parts of the country.

Every time, somebody tries to speak for the minority community, he is branded a pseudo-secularist and reminded of the thousands of Kashmiri Hindus driven out of their homes and living as refugees in parts of the country. There is an underlying assumption that the Hindu community is peace loving and inherently secular and is only reacting to the minorities who are threatening the tranquility of this place.

How many times have we been told that India remains secular largely due to the Hindu majority’s attitude and that Muslims should be happy that they are safer here and not in any of our neighbouring nations? Maybe there is an implicit suggestion that you need to be grateful to the majority community for still tolerating and even nurturing you when the rest of the world considers you as agents of terror.

Every time a Gujarat like pogrom is carried out, it is supposedly due to a set of misguided people and miscreants who have nothing to do with our religion but anytime a bomb explodes anywhere in the world, the Indian Muslim has to hang his head in shame, as if he is responsible in some way for the incident.

We need to distinguish an individual from a community and not indulge in stereotyping but this distinction has been blurred not only by the apathy of the State and the politics involved in playing to the vote bank but also by the role played by the minority leadership, which thrives on playing the oppressed – it is easy to cry foul every time there is an issue but difficult to actually play any constructive role in development.

There is a need for the majority community to constantly reassure the minority community on their well-being. Do not look at this as a vehicle for appeasement but a responsibility to ensure that all is well in the family. In times of communal disharmony (which is quite frequent nowadays), it is this bonding that helps in maintaining sanity among human beings. Everytime a big tree falls, we do not need the ground to shake...

When Raghuvir Yadav, who plays the caretaker to an ailing musician Naseeruddin Shah says “Aapko dukh nahin hota shaher main kitne saare Musalmaanon ki hathya ho rahi hai”, Shah replies – “Dukh is baat ka hai ki ek insaan dossre ko maar raha hai”. This in many ways is the essence of the movie – the thread sustaining humanity is so slender that it merely requires someone to pull ever so slightly at the strings of religion/caste/class and the entire thing collapses, leaving behind a trail of destruction and no true victor.

Just Another V-Day

I think it was somewhere in the 90s that the idea of the Valentine’s Day gained ground. From an innocuous day in history when a poor saint was executed for uniting lovers to becoming a momentous day in the battle between fanatics and liberals, it has been quite a journey for this day; as if love were not complicated enough. St. Valentine (may his soul rest in peace) would be horrified at the cultural spin that this day has undergone (especially in the Indian context).

Valentine’s Day is a wonderful corporate creation; a day when poor lovers shore up their pockets to celebrate a non-event and make money for the entertainment industry. The strategy was again put into use (initiated by World Gold Council, jewellers and banks) to make Akshaya Tritiya a religious event; who’s ever heard of the significance of buying gold on this day before the marketers gave it an auspicious spin?

Nevertheless, V-Day would have merely remained a day where lovers and wannabe lovers splurged money at the altar of love if not for the kind intervention of moral and religious guardians of this country, who want to protect the youth from evil forces. It is ironic that in their efforts to do away with the V-Day, they have unwittingly given it a fillip and so Feb 14th has suddenly come to represent a clash between 2 Indias (actually, there are many more Indias who are quite indifferent to this).So, Feb 14th every year is a now a media story where panelists discuss the Right to Freedom – the right to be in pink chaddis vis-à-vis the requirement to be in Indian dresses.

The definition of Indianess and Indian culture has become highly significant now. Groups like the Shiv Sena and the Sri Ram Sene have been bandying the word freely in all their interactions. Suddenly, Indian culture is a very homogenous term and the traditions are defined by Indian men who have a very narrow concept of nationalism and plurality.

So, wearing a sari and being a quintessential Bharat Mata (a figment of Hindi film industry) are Indian attributes while wearing jeans and going to pubs/bars render you un-Indian. With such narrow definitions of cultural nuances, is it any surprise that the guardians of culture have never thought beyond these silly symbols of Bharathiyatha?

Two things here –

Who defines what is Indian Culture, if there is something called an “Indian culture”? Is there something as amorphous as an Indian culture which actually dictates our way of life? Culture and society are terms that grow with time and vary across geographies. A Punjabi in the North has much more in common with the Pakistani than a Malayali like me scribbling my thoughts here?

Our dressing, social customs and are attitudes in life are largely shaped by our family and immediate society. In larger cities like Bangalore and Mumbai, where people from different languages and cultures work together, there is a greater mixing of these cultural aspects, which brings a beautiful heterogeneity. It is this heterogeneity that we have been taught to be proud of and celebrate.

Is it necessary to live by the so-called Indian culture? Even if by chance, someone does something which is not in sync with what is generally accepted and understood as Indian culture, does it give anyone the right to take law into one’s hands and attempt to institutionalize acceptable culture? Why is it necessary to live within these walls and subject oneself to rules which are of no significance to the individual? There is a dangerous cocktail of culture and nationalism being mixed and attempted to be force fed to people who oppose this.

As long as the Freedom to Expression does not infringe upon others’ rights, there is no reason why we cannot allow people to celebrate. I believe that Valentine’s Day is purely a commercial event but my conviction cannot prevent someone else from celebrating it. Bringing in the talk of Indian culture and traditions is just a ruse by these fringe organizations to publicize themselves.

Isn’t it ironical that something as silly as Valentine’s Day has become the rallying point for liberals in their fight against cultural nationalists? The Pink Chaddi campaign is smart, innovative and appealing but there is a real danger of creating the empowered women stereotype – the Modern Indian women who believes that going to bars and pubs is the way forward.

This does not in any way represent the educated women just the same way as the loony world of the Sena/Sene does not represent Indian culture. Ideological clashes lead to a polarity of thoughts many a times and it would be unfortunate if the real debate gets lost in the din of chaddis and saris.

A mature democracy allows a healthy debate among its various constituents and does not undermine the right to disagree with the majority. The Freedom to question, imagine and debate is an intrinsic part of our lives and if and when we lose the right to celebrate this plurality and freedom, the country becomes a mere geographical tract of land where boundaries are manned by aliens like Pramod Muthalik, who masquerade as Indians, protecting us from cultural attacks.

Celebrating the Slumdog

About 3 years back, as I stood at the Crossword Book Store in Powai, I picked up, for some unknown reason, an innocuous book called Q&A by an Indian diplomat, Vikas Swarup. The book had a rather incredible premise of a slum kid winning a Who Will Win a Billion Show and his story. It was an easy read and found its place in some remote corner of the house, meant for books that have a read and throw impact (Of course, it was a bestseller and translated into 14 languages).

Honestly, I’d never have thought about the book again if not for Danny Boyle making such a super hit out of it. I have been searching for the book in my house but no trace of it – it never made to my Best Read list and I think the same fate awaits Slumdog Millionaire, despite all the hype about it.

Cinematically, Slumdog Millionaire could not hold my attention for the entire span; it seemed like the Bollywoodisation of a Hollywood movie. The language and accent of the so-called “Slum dogs” put me off (this is not a fantasy movie that I had to believe in all this). Aren’t movies like Satya, Company and Black Friday more compelling in their outlook on Mumbai but then not being made in English means that these movies will never achieve the cult status of the Slumdog.

Other than Jamal Malik (the name in the novel was Ram Mohammed Thomas), most of the characters are either caricatures or have negligible screen presence and do not register in one’s mind. The romance also seemed pretty half-baked and seriously, did Freida Pinto actually become a celebrity for a movie where she has a blink and you will miss role? The story premise is definitely different but then merely being different is not a good enough strength.

The quizmaster, played by Anil Kapoor, is upset at a slum kid walking away with 20 million rupees (someone forgot to call it lakhs and crores) but if I were the producer of the show, I’d be tearing my hair at the quality of the questions – C’mon, how can the 20 Million Question be as simple as who is the Fourth Musketeer; I am sure they’d have this question in the elimination round of Paanchvi Pass? Jamal can recognize the man on the American dollar but not on the Indian Rupee!!!! Don’t even wonder how using a gun makes you know that Samuel Colt invented the revolver!!! Well, well, well, talk about being Lucky by Chance…

A R Rahman is, undoubtedly, a musical genius and we are all happy that finally, he has found recognition outside India. But there is no way that Jai Ho and O Saaya are going to wind up as Rahman classics; even after repeated hearing (imperative for Rahman’s scores), I am sorry to say that the songs have not made much of an impact on my musical psyche. Songs from Roja, Duet and quite a few of his Tamil movies top my list of all time Rahman Favourites; while the background scores of Thiruda Thiruda and Swades are probably unbeatable. How about nominating the music of Dilli 6 or Jodha Akbar for the Oscars this year?

Seeing Gulzar’s name being nominated for the lyrics did make for funny reading-after years of brilliant poetry, being nominated for an average song at an international level. The contrast between English and vernacular cinema never seemed so obvious. Of course, the last Oscar nominee has clearly reasons to be proud about – Rasool Pookutty has been nominated for sound engineering in the movie. Winning a technical award at an international level is serious business and this award is probably more significant..

Maybe, we are all just over reacting; the Academy Awards are not the Olympics. These are American awards nominated and voted by Americans while the rest of the world applauds the Big Brother doling out awards on the basis of what they make out of world cinema. There is also a perspective difference in our perceptions of this slum world vis-à-vis the West.

Danny Boyle in an interview to Anuradha Sengupta in CNBC TV-18 says that he sees “an incredible amount of energy in these slums” and is humbled “by their ability to survive against all odds”. When we look at these slums, how do we react to it? Most of us want to avoid them (I include myself here) and look at the city through the rosy, tinted glasses of our class. It is uncomfortable to see poverty, stench, people sleeping on pavements and children begging on the streets. This is the India that we want to avoid as we rush to our offices, oblivious of the plight of the people struggling at the other end of India.

I don’t have a problem with the idea of the West making money out of Indian squalor and poverty –c’mon, put money where you want and if people want to watch it, who cares. Quite a few people have been offended by this “slum tourism” that Boyle has marketed in his movie but it isn't all unreal, right? There is a massive underbelly that 20th Century India still carries which seems to offend perpetrators of the Modern Indian Economic Miracle, as seen in Karan Johar movies.

Rocking and Rising India is still loyal to the 80-20 Pareto principle and is not something that we can simply ignore. Ignorance cannot wish away the reality of a massive penury lurking underneath – funnily, this is not an underbelly but actually quite visible on the surface and Mumbai is probably the most conspicuous symbol of this.

Is it too much of a coincidence that as the world struggles in the midst of one of the biggest recessions that it has seen, the world of art and cinema has sought to honour Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger and Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire, both works that look at India’s seamy underbelly with a somewhat no-holds barred approach.

Of course, The White Tiger is pretty dark and does not actually present any form of redemption to the reader while the Slumdog viewer goes back happily with the thought of the 2 lovers meeting finally and performing a dance to everyone’s satisfaction. Maybe, we should simply rechristen 2008 as the Year of the UnderDog or better still Year of the SlumDog………

The Question of Marriage

There is an age when the question of marriage pops up frequently and you wonder whether the time is ripe for such a decision. Friends tell you that when the time comes, you’ll realise while family members are, of course, not too concerned about such inner feelings – entering a certain age automatically qualifies you to get married.

It is difficult to argue against the idea of marriage. Not everybody appreciates the idea of living a reclusive life, away from family and society. There are surely merits in the arrangement of marriage, otherwise this institution would not have survived centuries.

It is almost a tad romantic to think that friends will be there forever with us to share our sentiments. It does not happen overnight that your long lost friend actually looks long lost and you wonder what conversation to strike with him. Familiar topics like marriages within the group, job opportunities, boss bitching and small family talk form the main conversation and then suddenly, you realise that you have run out of words to talk to your good old friend.

As you look back at the passage of time, you realise that things have indeed changed. There are things that you no longer discuss among yourselves, there are family secrets and specific timings to call up friends or not call them.You come to know through rumours that someone’s become a dad and you feel sad that even a news of such importance is not informed; a small realisation that time has moved on. And then friends too become all too busy to visit your place or worse still, welcome you. The writing was always on the wall but you refused to look at it – you know my friends are not like that; we will always keep in touch and all that…

The BIG QUESTION remains – Why marriage? Legal sex is a very simplistic answer but yes, that is surely an important aspect in a country with a repressed sexual climate where S-E-X remains a word that is still discussed in hushed tones (of course, we have still come a long way). But this cannot be a sustenance tool in the long run and there has to be a better reason to get married.

Parents do not work overtime at finding alliances merely to ensure that their offspring’s base instincts are met. They use the word COMPANIONSHIP – the spectre of finding yourself lonely; the prospect of returning from office everyday to an empty house and bed, which cries for attention. The TV, books and Internet become appendages that you start to hate but use it for the feeling of being connected to the outside world – a world that is virtual and is separated by miles and miles of space.

Parents do a good job in driving home the various scenarios that could trouble you. Amma would say:
1. You meet your friends whenever each of them gets married and after sometime when everyone’s married but you, what will happen? Sounds like a question on permutations and combinations
2. What happens if you fall sick – we will not be there throughout to take care of you. Medical angle introduced here but what if “she” falls sick?
3. Maybe you can finally eat South Indian food daily at home, even when in Mumbai. Chance to do away with my dabba, now only if “she” knows cooking
4. We are getting old. Who will take care of us now? Will “she” take care of me in the first place
5. Don’t we want to see the face of our grandchildren and play with them? Oops, this a double whammy scenario- not just wife but even a kid, will lead to performance pressure

Is it difficult to live in this vacuum? Not initially but slowly the thought drives you sad and frustrated. Now, becoming a celibate is a way out but clearly, that it is easier said than done. We are not ready to give up family and society life for a harsh world that requires inner introspection – takes time to introspect and accept realities of life.

In Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha, the protagonist decides to become an ascetic and leaves his family and friends in search of the TRUTH. He wanders aimlessly, gets sucked into a life of wealth, greed, lust and attachment until he finally realises the TRUTH. He realizes that the TRUTH has never changed but it needs one to undergo certain experiences to understand the TRUTH. Marriage is, probably, a hard taskmaster but what lies ahead requires one to go through this phase – to learn the meaning of attachment. In a simplified way, if you need to become the Monk Who Sold his Ferrari, you need to earn the Ferrari first.

Let me quote from a blog I just read which gives a different perspective to the thought of love and marriage:

Many of us have been exposed to the idea that love should be romantic and sweep us off our feet. While this is a natural part of any relationship, the true test of our love comes from our willingness to explore this world with another person; to not only share in the delights that we encounter but also to negotiate the bumps in the road together

Entering into a committed relationship is in fact a spiritual journey that we undertake with another person. By being able to love and care for someone else with an open heart, we will find that we can reach a greater level of personal transformation, evolving along our path and learning powerful not otherwise be able to do on our own.

There will always be doubting Thomases (including myself) but the best way to approach an issue is to experience it first hand and not feed on a third party’s perspective. Each person’s perspective is different and to assume that we can think through every topic logically and analytically may not help in solving it.

Forget the philosophy, loneliness can hurt and the manifestation is not always on the surface; dig deep and the need to call out and share your moments and thoughts with someone is always there.

The Fiscal Rope Trick

It is Diwali time but there is a general pall of gloom sweeping the surroundings. The world economy has slowed down and consequently our economy has braked- so many of our investments have come to a nought, just become some smart alecs sitting in plush offices in US have put their dough in the wrong places. But why do we need to pay the price for someone else’s blunders of avarice?

We were told that an integrated economy is the way ahead. As the world trades more, we will all progress but did somebody forget to tell us that when there is a slowdown we all have to suffer? The stock market, irrational as usual, has come down from the Manhattan towers to the slums of Dharavi and is plunging further still.

So, all that requires the entire world economy to stumble is a few bad loans in US, is it? I mean is this the stable growing economy that we are talking about? Economists have told us for years that Markets are intelligent enough and will correct themselves and that regulations adversely affect the market. Free trade and free movement reflect positive growth but then free falling recessions, bad debts and wages also come hurtling back in bad times.

The news has been full of banks queuing up to collapse in a pile, companies cutting down expenses, B-Schools getting candidates placed wherever they can and TV channels making merry with stories on various fiscal ruins. The Indian Aviation Industry is crying for help and we are all concerned that flight trips have got more expensive but in the midst of all this, our son of the soil remains silent. He wonders what the fuss is all about; many of his colleagues have been committing suicide every year and all that happens is that magazines like Frontline feature articles on them and Sainath rants about government (in) action. Is our pain of greater concern to the Government than that of the farmer who suffers in silence?

Gordon Gekko in his famous “Wall Street” speech remarks Greed is Good and we all believed in it. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made; it's simply transferred from one perception to another. Yes, we realised that he was the villain in the film but once the movie was done, we went back to the rational exuberance of the markets.

The Market is God, it decides fates and it is fun as long as the destiny follows a path of flowers; the moment, the road starts crumbling, we look for scapegoats- the government, the brokers and all the innumerable people who have put money in places where it has just been sucked in through and through. Everyone is to blame except us the poor investors- we just wanted to make some extra money, don’t blame us...

Maybe, just maybe, it is time to decelerate and ask ourselves whether we are moving in the right direction. Introspection comes only during crisis and the world needs earthquakes to question some of its holy cows who have long eaten it hollow. Socialism is a bad word now but as a concept it still has relevance. When Jet Airways decided to fire many of its employees, many felt the pinch because it was much closer home and we reacted strongly to the high handedness of the management but for years, farmers in Vidarbha and Andhra have been suffering a worse fate but they are confined to the occasional blips of our conscience.

Aravind Adiga exposes the dirty side of social and economic disparity in The White Tiger but many have been critical about the fact that it dares to talk about the dark underbelly. As the country marches ahead relentlessly, inspite of the Gods, do we need to talk about them – the ants that are crushed when the Elephant Dances are of little consequence to us. Shining India cannot talk about dirty India, can it? Think of the big picture we are told – somebody has to suffer in the larger interests of the nation and we agree as long as it is not any of us in the firing line.

The current India is akin to the US of the 60s; there is an entrepreneurial instinct which pushes continuously cutting through yards of red tapism. So, the focus is on growth and profits and these alone – people and environment are not of much importance. So, you have more and more construction work happening, cars multiplying and spends increasing. This is an India dazzled by the glow of its own success that turns a blind eye to its areas of discomfort.

Why does a country that is home to advanced high-tech and manufacturing companies still have about 400 million illiterate people and high unemployment? Only 65% of the population can read, and in the villages that number falls as low as 33%. There an almost complete disconnect between the 300 million, high-flying Indians, living in lavish luxury and intoxicated by their own verbosity over globalisation and the remaining 750 million of their countrymen, many of whom seldom get two square meals a day. The "trickle down" theory remains a theory for all practical purposes.

But would this slowdown act as a pill which would awaken to the disasters that are in store when pure economics rules over emotions and compassion? Some lessons to be learnt and some philosophies to be shed and a directional change is required and this crisis will probably cause nations to do that. Capitalism or no other -ism is a final solution; a middle path needs to be evolved and hopefully some things will change now.

Probably things are not that bad despite what Rajdeep and Co may say. We have gone through greater disasters but then in this era of shock and awe reporting, we see all the effects of this slowdown magnified in front of our eyes. Yes, we need to do a bit of pruning down (For the first time in 3 years, I am going home by train instead of flight) but then, it does not hurt to lie low for some time, doesn’t it? Let the market takes it own course............

Being Gay is no Gay Matter

Recently, the Union Home Ministry submitted to the Delhi High Court that “Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. Decriminalizing homosexuality may create breach of peace. If it is allowed, the evils of AIDS would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society”.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, enacted by the British in the late nineteenth century, criminalizes what it calls, ‘sexual offences against the order of nature’. It does not clearly elucidate what comprises “against the order of nature” but same sex relationship is considered under its ambit in India.

The Union Health Ministry, however, has a difference of opinion and wants to scrap this act. Is homosexuality against the laws of nature? Just wonder if some people sitting in Delhi have decided that it is unnatural and so, it should be banned. Of course, there are many people who believe that this is unhealthy and needs to be treated.

Definitions of social vices are very subjective and there is no clear cut consensus on the vices that require to be controlled by the Government (if they ever needed to be). But our custodians of culture have decided that homosexuality is a definite no-no. I wonder if there are any statistics to prove that gay hood is a threat to the society in any way. If homosexuality is a social vice, then what makes heterosexuality any less holy?

The argument that legalizing homosexuality will lead to AIDS and other STDs is flawed. Banning it has lead to the situation of gays not finding an outlet to meet partners, except in dark shady corners, another type of ghettoisation. The fact that this is not legal has led to a sense of palpable sense of fear and a lack of a safety. There is no legal or medical help/counselling available to these people which makes matters worse.

What is the basis to determine what is natural sex and what is not and who determines this? There are probably many gays and lesbians in our midst who are hiding their sexual orientation because of the fear of being ridiculed and harassed. We have been brought upto believe that only opposite sex relationships are in sync with nature; possibly because marriage was linked only to procreation (Actually, with the levels of sex education in India, sex itself is dirty, so forget the question of homo vs hetero).

Why is homosexuality a social vice that needs to be banned? How different is it from hetero anyway? Funny, that the government thinks that homosexuality leads to AIDS while hetero is fine. Condemning any form of behaviour which is not in tune with our perception of what is right is pretty easy. It may not be easy to digest the idea that people of the same sex can actually co-habitate, because of years of conditioning. It is important to at least empathize with the plight of people who cannot express their love lest they are harmed by society.

Being a homosexual does not mean you are a pervert or you are promiscuous (neither of these qualify to be termed as “criminal activities” anyway). If sex is a natural expression, can the government intervene and tell us what is natural and what is not? If it is natural, then you don’t actually need anyone to tell you that, right? It should come to all of us naturally….

Definitions of morality are culture specific and do not have any universal sanction. Morality policed by society and laws no longer remains “natural”. If two consenting adults are involved, does the government have any locus standi to intervene and tell them how to behave?

There is also the peril of pushing Indian society into an increasing state of intolerance, where there is only one set of beliefs that is culturally acceptable, therefore legally sanctioned, and anything that goes against it has to be suppressed and criminalized -all justified in the name of culture.

Media and society perceptions weigh heavily against them making it difficult to express their true nature. After all, who would want to suffer the ignominy of being featured in the exclusive 24 hour broadcasts by TV Channels? Imagine a parent accepting the fact that his son is not actually want to get married to a girl; how scandalous. Society standards require you to marry a person of another sex only and so, many probably live "happy married" lives, supressing their "natural" instincts.

In Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee beautifully portrays the relationship between two men and their intense love. I did feel uncomfortable watching them kiss (I went with a male friend to the movie) but I realize that maybe I could not fully fathom their relationship because of my concept of love. Now, maybe there is more maturity, and I appreciate the fact that the movie broke new ground in looking at love just the way it was and keeping gender equations out of it.

While writing this, I wondered how I would react to the situation if someone in my friend circle is a gay. And then I realize that there could possibly be a gay in our circle but we have never known and would never know. Why would the poor guy ever admit and fear being ostracized by the rest of the group? Same sex relationship would have the same kind of vagaries, fallacies as well as beauty of a man-woman relationship.

Would a day come when the law and society looks at people as individuals who can take decisions in life themselves and not be coerced or conned into believing that there is somebody else sitting within our midst who can judge what is right and what is wrong for us? We are all responsible for our lives, so why let someone else decide what we need to do or don’t need to do?