I haven’t gotten around to my weekly linking feature for some time, but here it is, for this week.

In the last few years, Naxalite activity has been prominent in many Indian states and getting a good amount of media attention. I don’t believe that the violence unleashed by the Naxals will lead to any lasting solution, even if some of their objectives are fair enough. Equality and justice are some of the key demands of the movement, except apparently, when it comes to women. Sarbani Bandhopadhyay writes a fine piece, ‘The Revolutionary Patriarch’ on how even revolutionary movements are far from radical when it comes to sharing power with women.

Githa Hariharan has an account of ‘a feminist docudrama’ - a performance based on stories of women who could be considered modern India’s first feminists. Sounds very interesting - I wonder if there is any anthology which deals with the lives and work of these brave women and the challenges they faced, in a much more difficult world?

Nita, one of the most prolific bloggers I’ve come across, writes on the stupidity of legislating women’s right to work, rather than providing safe working conditions. She also makes the valid point that those who need to will any way end up working, perhaps in even more unsafe, dodgy conditions, if working late at night is made illegal.

Enjoy reading!

Posted on September 4th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Thursday Reads | No Comments »

Some days ago, at a function, a distant relative was gently ribbing me and my husband as to who was responsible for cooking at home. Specifically, he was taking a few shots at my expense, that I must be ‘making’ my husband do all the cooking. Most of this was inconsequential small talk; I doubt this relative really cares about who cooks at our place or whether we cook at all. I didn’t take it seriously or feel riled. Still, behind these jokes are some notions so ingrained that we have a hard time recognizing them. The joke exists because the notion exists that a woman must be an excellent cook, devoted to feeding her family.

Read the rest, over at Ultra Violet…

Posted on September 2nd, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Feminism in my life | 5 Comments »

Turning thirty is believed to be a significant moment in an individual’s life. It is not as though the first thirty years don’t have their own milestones. At nine or ten, we enter middle school; I remember how thrilled I was - finally, finally, I was allowed to discard the pencil and take up a pen. For a child, the first pen is a milestone. There are others - leaving school, graduating, turning eighteen, getting married - all these are major occasions. But, somehow, in the twenties, time runs along in such a manner as to suggest that each person gets an infinite amount of it. This night of drunken revelry, those friends made and discarded after a summer internship, the endless experimenting with one’s hair under the assurance that it will grow out alright - all of this seems like it can go on forever.

Turning thirty is not the same. Or atleast, we are primed to expect that it cannot be the same. Those who’ve been there before, warn us that thirty is a big, bad word. Thirty is the end of seeing oneself as young, thirty is when you start being aunty to all the world, thirty is the loss of casual flirting, thirty is the beginning of the end of all things.

Having heard all this, when I turned thirty a few months earlier, I was somewhat surprised when the birthday went by with not even a whimper. I searched myself for feelings of depression, sadness or even just a bit of anxiety. Drew a blank. A day went past, a week, and then another. I felt the same as ever - just as young or as old as I always did. When I look in the mirror, I see of course, evidence of time passing by. I no longer have the stick thinness of my youth as I settle into the hip-heavy figure of the average Indian woman. My face looks fuller, and older in some undefinable way. But, inside, I feel the same as I always did.

It is not that I close my eyes to the movement of time. When I see my parents ageing, when back pain and dizziness and afternoon naps become a routine rather than an event, I am forced to acknowledge that time is passing. Perhaps, even at a pace faster than I would prefer. When faint acquaintances tell me that my biological clock is ticking, there is no denying the pressure to hurry along a child into this world. Still, is it a feeling of immortality or just laziness that I rarely succumb to the insistence of time? Sometimes, it does seem as though time is moving along faster than I can complete everything I’d like to do. But, for the most part, I am happy to be doing whatever it is I’m doing at the moment, and let each day takes it’s course.

(This post was sparked by Shefaly’s post on the passage of time, which in turn was inspired by Usha’s post on the newness of things)

Posted on August 31st, 2008 by apu
Filed under: In General | 2 Comments »

In a heartening development, the Supreme Court has made it clear that nobody has the license to rape a woman and claim that it’s ok because she has already been sleeping with others. The disheartening thing of course is that the Supreme Court is needed to point this out, when it should be perfectly obvious. A woman’s body is her personal property to do with as she chooses; she could sleep with ten people if she likes and refuse the eleventh. She could be a prostitute but still refuse to sleep with someone, because, it is her body and she owns it. Sigh. Why is this so hard to get?

Posted on August 29th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Women & Feminism in India | 8 Comments »

Lately, I’ve been reading a collection of Somerset Maugham’s short stories. I’m reading Maugham after a very, very long time, and I don’t remember enjoying his work, especially the short stories, this much when I was younger. For one thing, I was struck by the clarity which his descriptions produce. Reading them, it is possible to immediately see the South-east Asian countryside setting he describes or an elderly connoisseur of art fallen on hard times or a colonial service official lording it over his minions. Perhaps I am much more impressed by them now that I am trying my hand at short stories more often, and description and setting are things I seem to struggle with. But that’s not really what I want to talk about here.

What really startled me was the casualness with which racial differences and assumptions of superiority and inferiority are presented. Many of the stories are set in Britain’s then existing empire - parts of the Polynesian Islands, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia. Often, the main character is a colonial service man, or a planter or businessman looking to make a fortune in the colonies. In story after story after story, the natives are weak, ineffectual, timid, yet vengeful, cunning and capable of using devious means to achieve their ends. It is not just that the natives are this way, the (white) narrator or protagonists take great pains to remind us that they cannot help being this way. That is the way of their race, after all. Where the natives are presented in a more kindly light, it is as simple children who need the strong hand of the white administrator to guide them. They know little what is good for them, and would be better off trusting the white man’s knowledge.

While admiring the language and craft of the stories, the modern reader finds it very difficult to glide over these generalisations, so easily presented. I was at a bit of a loss as to what to make of them. I could think of three different scenarios.

The first is that these are stories set in the colonial era, where this was likely to be the mindset of most people. As such, Maugham may not have subscribed to them himself, but was faithful to the dominant views of the time. His characters simply think and speak the way most people of the time would have. In this view, there is a clear-cut line between the author and his narratives. In a sense, it becomes easier to enjoy the stories as just stories.

The second is that Maugham himself is likely to have subscribed to the general view of the white people of the time, which is that they were fundamentally different from and superior to other races. The stories lend some support to this - story after story repeats the racial distinction theory in such detail that it is difficult to imagine the author having a very different view. Few characters question this distinction or act in a manner to discredit it even a little. In general though, I’m not a big fan of mixing up an author with what his characters say and do. Further, in some stories, Maugham takes a good poke at other distinctions, such as differences of class. In one story, first class passengers on a cruise liner face the weighty question of whether they should allow second class passengers to participate at a dance. Clearly Maugham makes the episode, and by inference, the distinctions behind it, seem absurd. Why he doesn’t ever do this in the case of race - I don’t know. Does it imply that he identified with the views of his characters?

The third way of looking at it is that the question is not whether Maugham himself was a racist or not. The age in which he lived subscribed to these views to such an extent that it allowed him to portray one character after another in a manner which we find shocking today, but would not then have been anything out of the ordinary. But - Maugham did not live in the early 1800s, he lived from 1874 to 1965. Which means that most of his writing would have been done in the period between 1900 and 1940. Was the early 20th century that primitive in its thought? The question I would then be interested in is, were other contemporary novelists adopting the same tone ? If yes, at what point of time really did it become incorrect to talk of racial distinctions in this manner? Note, I’m not talking about the point when people have stopped generalising about race and behaviour, just the point when people were no longer comfortable doing it in such a blatant manner!

 Perhaps other readers interested in literature and its relationship with caste/race/class can thow some light on this.

Posted on August 29th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: The Literary life | No Comments »

A couple of days ago, I was thinking - that I have no clue how to write in brief. I can’t remember too many short blog posts I’ve written. Well, that changes with this one. I’m not a big one for trivia, but I had to share this. The weirdest search term that has led any one to my blog (this happened yesterday):

“and now, for no reason, here is apu.”

I am suffering from severe low self-esteem now!

Posted on August 22nd, 2008 by apu
Filed under: In General | No Comments »

It is now almost 20 years since the Visakha guidelines were first put in place, to protect working women from sexual harassment at their place of work. Still, it is clear that in many cases, the implementation is not clear at all. Two days ago, Nisha Bhatia, a Director at the RAW Training Wing in Gurgaon, swallowed poison in front of the PMO, alleging that her complaints regarding sexual harassment by top RAW officials were not being taken seriously.

RAW claims that Nisha Bhatia’s allegations have been looked into by a committee headed by deputy national security adviser, Leela K. Ponappa and including two women officials from the National Security Council secretariat and RAW. Nisha Bhatia claims that the committee didn’t really investigate the case objectively, and put the onus of proof solely on her. RAW claims Nisha Bhatia is unstable, or seeking publicity because of a foriegn posting that she was denied. He said, she said, he said, she said.

Shouldn’t there be a better way to do this? For starters, the Visakha guidelines recommend that any enquiry commission should have an outside participant, such as someone from an NGO working with gender issues. Clearly, it was felt that people from within the same organization, or system, would face pressures from higher authorities accused of harassment. In India, where everything is politicized, this is not hard to imagine at all. In Nisha Bhatia’s case, this doesn’t seem to have been done. Even if the committee consists of women, women are not immune to pressure from within the system.

The guidelines also state that the concerned department needs to submit reports to the relevant ministry, on the cases filed in this area, and the actions taken. The Ministry for Women & Child Welfare has stated that this is not being followed by most government departments. If RAW has really probed the case in detail, it is not clear why the organization is giving fairly vague responses. Yes, I know it is an intelligence agency and all that, but giving a clear response on a sexual harassment case is not going to jeopardize national security. Instead, the only responses are that the allegations are false, that Nisha Bhatia is unstable, and that the committee has finished the probe. Whether or not Nisha Bhatia is right to handle the issue in this manner, government departments, working on taxpayer money should be answerable to people and furnish information on how they handle such issues. Surely it will encourage women working elsewhere that their rights can be safeguarded.

Now, the Union Minister for Women and Children, Renuka Choudhary claims that she is going to take it up with RAW. Again, that sounds like a terribly ad hoc measure. How many cases is the Minister going to get personally involved in? And this is a high profile case, with a senior official filing the complaint, and the suicide bid attracting attention. How many such cases are there which never come to light?

Posted on August 21st, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Women & Feminism in India | 3 Comments »

I’ve just finished reading noted anthropologist Richard Leakey’s lucid book on human evolution, ‘The Origin of Humankind’. In school, dreary teaching often made me feel as though science was fundamentally un-understandable. Biology was better than chemistry, which in turn was better than physics, the biggest bogey of all; still, this fear of science was almost as big a reason for my turning to an arts education, as my own interest in literature. Older (and hopefully wiser), in the last few years, I’ve realized the wonderful perspective science offers - the hugely expanded view of the world that it gives us.  

Some people complain that science, and the knowledge it brings, destroys the mystery of things. Reading books like the Origin of Humankind, makes me feel, that there are more mysteries than ever, that science brings along with it. The book details the origin of humankind from the emerging of bipedalism - to the development of tool use and hunting - and finally to some of the features that define homo sapiens, such as existence of consciousness and a sense of self, the development of morality, aesthetic sense and technological progress beyond the ability of other species.

What is interesting is that, we laypeople, often tend to think of scientific discoveries as a linear, accumulative process - essentially, X discovers A1, after some time, Y discovers A1 plus…and so on. But, the scientific world doesn’t seem to quite work like that (or not all the time). X postulates a hypothesis for a particular problem, but Y and Z seem to have equally coherent reasons for quite a different hypothesis. In the world of anthropology, this is compounded by the extremely small quantity of fossil evidence available, and much potential for varying interpretation, since few fossils are ever intact. Take a look at Lucy, one of the most famous, and complete fossil skeletons ever found. She doesn’t really look complete, does she? But finding such an assembly of bones is the anthropologist’s equivalent of buying two lottery tickets that cash in at the same time!

So, the mysteries are not coming to an end any time soon. If the beginnings of bipedalism are more or less settled to everyone’s satisfaction, the reasons are not. And so on - for every problem reasonably solved, ten others spring up.

One fascinating thing about Richard Leakey’s book is that he throws light on how the scientific process, objective as it may be, is not immune to emotional and cultural bias. He talks for instance, about how the idea of Africa as the cradle of humankind was resisted for the longest time, due to racial bias. In more recent times, he points to how the intense desire to see humans as completely distinct and special, makes many scientists contemptuous of any research into animal minds.

The book is 10 years old now - in a field like anthropology, where more fossil discoveries as well as evidence from molecular biology is constantly changing things, naturally, some of the book’s facts may not hold up now. But that is not the point; what is important is that the book provides a view into the origins of humankind, a view that lay readers can understand. The interested reader can always get updated on more recent work.

If only school syllabuses made science seem so human and approachable! Reading wonderful science books like this, makes me realise that science is not something ‘out there’ but makes the here and now more understandable.

Posted on August 13th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Book Reviews, The Literary life | 5 Comments »

4 years ago, Australian tourist Emilie Griggs was raped and murdered on her visit to India - infact, before she even had seen anything of the country, on her way out of the airport itself. Yesterday, a Delhi Court sentenced the 2 accused to death, on the basis of forensic and circumstantial evidence. This may of course, not be the end for these heartless criminals; since this was a sessions court, it’s quite likely that they may appeal, and the case go on to the High Court or even the Supreme Court. Still, 4 years of legal proceedings is not a long time by Indian standards- and while I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, I am glad that the court has decided to give the harshest penalty to these scum. Perhaps more judgements like this will create some fear in the minds of such depraved elements? It is too much to hope that harassment and rape of women will stop on any moral grounds, but atleast fear may make some think twice.

Let’s look at some statistics. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, there were 18,359 rape cases registered in the year 2007.  The NCRB records mention that this translates to 4 incidents per lakh of population. I’m not sure if this refers to female population, since most rape cases involve women as victims. While 4 per 100,000 may look not very high (and it isn’t compared to many other countries), we do know that rape cases are chronically under-reported in India.

First, there is the stigma of having been raped. I’ve heard the most sympathetic of people sometimes condemn rape in the harshest terms, and then turn around and provide some explanation as to why this particular victim shouldn’t have been there, at that particular time, on that particular day. Somehow, there is always something the woman did, which led to her being raped. Maybe she was too friendly, maybe she was wearing a short skirt, maybe she was in the wrong locality, maybe she had a drink, hey, maybe, she existed, that was the problem! The ridiculous obsession with virginity, can make young, unmarried women, feel ashamed of having been raped. She may prefer to bury it rather than pursue the culprit in court. Also, family support to pursue a case may not always be available.

Then, as anyone who has tried to file an FIR at a police station for any reason would know, the cops are very reluctant to take on cases that don’t interest them. Often they suggest that both parties settle it among themselves. Finally, there is the headache of seeing the case through in court, often over many years, with no end in sight. Often, no care is taken to ensure the victim’s privacy. She has to get used to seeing her name splashed in print. Many Indian families will consider this a continuing shame. So, it’s reasonable to assume that the 4 in 100,000 figure is quite low. How much lower than reality, is anyone’s guess.

It’s not just rape. I can’t find the 2007 statistics, but the NCRB statistics for 2006 show another 1,64, 765 crimes against women reported - including kidnapping, molestation, harassment, cruelty from husband/ family and importation of girls. These form a total of 8.8% of all reported crimes for that year.

For these crimes to come down (and I’m talking actual numbers here, not these under-reported ones), we need a combination of three things:

• Public Attitudes to women must change : women are not objects to exert power on, nor are men animals who cannot ‘control’ themselves; It is no woman’s responsibility to make men think decently - men can and should do that themselves.
• Better Policing: Sure, it is impossible for the police to be everywhere, but having a better emergency response system may mean that atleast some victims can be saved. The police also have a big role to play in filing cases properly, and collecting evidence before it is damaged or erased.
• Faster and better enforcement of law; Laws against rape and harassment serve both as punishment for the culprit and as deterrent to potential criminals. But the speed at which cases in India move, means that few victims can see them through. The evidence gathering and prosection in many cases, is also shoddy. Are such cases really likely to serve as a deterrent? On the contrary, most culprits perhaps feel quite immune, especially the ones with political power or money behind them.

The first one will be slow in the making - public attitudes to women are still very, very primitive, on the whole. To deserve respect (and protection), women need to fit a whole lot of criteria. Certainly we condemn rape, but in a qualified way. Infact, even in the Emilie Griggs case, the judges seem to have been influenced by the fact that she was 59 years old and ought to have been viewed as a motherly figure. I don’t per se have an issue with respect for older women - in our country, it is common for any older woman to be seen as a mother and accorded that respect; But, did the judge need to make that a criteria for determining the gravity of the case? Surely younger women are no less deserving of respect. The Court of course, I presume, didn’t mean that, but the remarks on older women points to an uncomfortable hierarchy on the respect scale. It is going to take a long time to reach a state, where no woman, irrespective of age, economic status, manner of clothing and past sexual history, will be seen as a victim who ‘asked for it’. I am hopeful however, that we will get there one day. Perhaps the spread of education will play a role in it.

The second one will be slow to come about too. India’s police forces vary enormously across states in their evidence gathering and crime solving abilities; they are also often under-staffed, have poor infrastructure and little training. In some states, issues like militancy, naxalism and terrorist strikes take up most of the police’s resources - crimes against women are not likely to figure high on the radar.

Which leaves us with the Judiciary. In general, many of us repose a lot of faith in the Indian Judiciary. This seems to be the one arm of the administration, that hasn’t yet been totally corrupted - especially at the higher levels. The system is clogged of course, with far too few cases being seen and disposed, and many more awaiting their turn endlessly. Still, high profile cases are often reported extensively by the media, and judgements in the cases could serve as a warning. It won’t deter criminals completely - perhaps nothing will; but judicial aggressiveness in handing out punishments will help.

Depending on the judiciary alone is not a panacea for the sickening crimes against women. In the long term, it is social change that we need. Even if the majority of citizens are decent and law-abiding, there will always be some monsters around. Let’s not support them even a inch, by providing details of why certain women shouldn’t have been there.

Posted on August 11th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: Women & Feminism in India | 4 Comments »

Atithi Devo Bhava, so the Upanishads say. And one would like to believe that, in a different age in India, this was very much true. I don’t know if it really was; were guests ever welcome at all times? And did it extend to any kind of guest, as our scriptures teach us to welcome? I’m not so sure of that. Still, I do remember a time, even 15-20 years ago, when it wasn’t uncommon for relatives to drop in at home at any time. Telephones weren’t yet everywhere, and even if available, it wasn’t really seen as essential to call in before visiting.

I remember this eccentric old uncle from my dad’s family, who used to drop in unannounced when he felt like it, pedalling in on his cycle, even when he was 70. “Serve me some food, ma”, he would declare, “I’m hungry.” Miraculously, there would always be something to eat, even if the entire family had already eaten, even if it was just some curd rice. If there was no rice, there would always be some dosai batter in the fridge, and my mother would serve that with some podi, in the absence of sambar or chutney.

Still another 20-30 years before that, my dad tells me stories of kids who were freely plonked at relatives’ houses for months. In those days, few people lived in big cities, and their houses were often full of kids from smaller towns, who needed to go to high school or college. And this was in the days when salaries barely covered a middle class families expenses.

Last weekend, quite a heated debate started up when we (me and a bunch of old friends) started discussing this. One view was that, Indians as a whole are taking up Westernised habits, and becoming quite selfish in the process. I don’t know many Westerners personally, so it’s hard for me to judge - but there does seem to be a common view that Western people take ‘personal space’ too seriously, and make even close relationships quite formal in some ways. Calling to visit close friends and relatives was seen as part of this formality. Another view was that we have become too focused on making money, to the extent that work rules our lives and we have little time for unexpected guests.

I have a slightly more prosaic take on it. It is true, that unlike the previous generation, we hesitate to drop in on people without warning. Nor are unexpected guests always warmly welcomed. But I don’t think this is necessarily only because of westernization, though ideas on personal space are changing.

Nuclear Families: I think this is one major reason why guests are not quite so welcome as before. Previously, most families were much larger. Even if one person was busy, another could look after guests. In a sense, everyone had some back-up! The nuclear families of today don’t have this luxury. If one spouse is busy or out when guests drop in, the other may go crazy talking to guests and looking after an infant at the same time.

Working women: IMO, this is the other key reason for hospitality standards getting lower. Once upon a time, the lady of the house was always or mostly available at home. Today’s woman is already stressed out balancing work and home. She may not even be around when guests drop in. Again, earlier, if one woman was out, another one would step in to help. Today, this is not possible. Even if the lady is home, welcoming guests is hard work after a day put in at the office. (Even earlier, while guests were mostly welcome, it was sometimes a strain for women to keep coming up with food in a jiffy, especially with male guests who would not dream of helping out!)

Traffic: I dare not drive for 1 hour from Banaswadi to Bannergatta, and risk my host not being around when I finally land up, after braving pollution, noise and traffic! It makes sense to plan ahead.

General busy-ness: Everyone seems to be busy all the time! If its not work, it’s ferrying the kids to a zillion classes or doing salsa for self-improvement or surfing the net… I wonder if this classifies as being self-involved? In general, I don’t recall my parents generation being so flustered all the time. They worked, did the housework, got some rest, watched some TV - that’s about it.

Defining hospitality: Earlier, most guests would be people known to the entire family. There was little formality when relatives dropped in. The men would sit and chat, women visiting would enter the kitchen and help the host with whatever she was making. The kitchen was often where all the delicious conversations would happen and we would hang around to get bits of it! I’m not so sure about this, but I feel the nature of entertaining itself is changing.  Today, guests may not be just close friends or relatives. In a sense, the circle has expanded, but the depth has gone down. This means that houses need to be ‘presented’ well when guests arrive, and guests can no longer just do whatever the rest of the family was doing when they walked in.

On the whole, I wouldn’t say this is necessarily a bad thing. It is just a response to changing times. What would be good is if we could strike a balance - find some way to be as hospitable as we can, while guests at the same time understand the host’s constraints. I think, in a sense, this is what is happening. We know our limitations as hosts, so we accord others the same courtesy and try to be trouble-free guests. What do you think? Is this “formality” or just a modified version of atithi devo bhava?

Posted on August 5th, 2008 by apu
Filed under: In General | 8 Comments »