Sare kuttey bhai-bhai?

Excuse my language! I think it is time I graduate this blog from being a PG rated one to a PG-13 rated blog at least. I wrote about the Ruchika Girhotra case some time ago. Though a big ruckus had been created over it something told me things were going to stay the same. I have been following the news on Rathore and even though the government is trying to create a show and dance about justice being served, I don't think anything significant or of consequence is being done. This piece of news caught my eye. The government will start the procedure of reducing Rathore's pension. This was reported on January 29th. Sounds promising, doesn't it? Well, to me it sounds like someone is dragging their posteriors in the hopes that this issue, like million others, will die down so that those in power can go around abusing power and position like before. This is just one news report on the matter. There are plenty others which show that nothing is actually being done. Except a song and a dance. Bleddy hypocrites!

What actually prompted the title of my post was this piece of news: Former DGP of Punjab police, KPS Gill thinks Rathore should not be stripped of his medals. He says in other countries, only those who have committed treason or are involved in international criminal activities are stripped of their medals. So this means "small" crimes like molesting a teenage girl and then driving her to suicide shouldn't carry such penalties? One needs to remember that this is the same KPS Gill who was convicted of sexual harassment of a senior female IAS officer. In this case, the victim was an educated lady who knew her rights and stood up for them. She might even have had some power, though not as much as Gill obviously. And even then, she was only able to get Gill a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and a simple imprisonment of 2 months followed by 3 years of probation which was later reduced to just probation. I am sure strings must have been pulled to accomplish this. And it took 17 (!!!) years to accomplish this. Can you see why I am so doubtful anything will come of the Ruchika Girhotra case? 

On one of the articles someone has posted a comment saying since Rathore got the medal in 1985 and the molestation happened in 1990, the medal should not be taken away because it was for past performance. I think now that the molestation has come to light, the medal should be taken away keeping his "past performances" in view. What do you think, my 2.38 readers?

You know what? If something does happen in this case, and IF Rathore does get his just dues, I will eat my words right here on my blog. Until then I will maintain reservations about the big show being put up for the benefit of the gullible. And pin my hopes on youths like this one. Sad as it may seem, people who take law into their own hands seem to be our only hope.

Homosexuality - Are Heterosexuals Right In Being Righteous?

Note: Previously posted on Desicritcs.org

What I really, absolutely don't get is how or why people consider homosexuality 

1. immoral

2. unnatural

3. criminal 

Looking at it as a rational human being, I see two adults who love each other enough to want to spend their life together and, of course, have sexual relations with each other. They are not harming anyone. They are not imposing their views and choices on anyone. What they do in the confines of their homes is, and should be, none of our business. No one peeks into a heterosexual couple's bedroom to see what they are doing, do they? Then why do some people consider it their right to poke their noses into a homosexual couple's business?

Is it unnatural? If yes, how? People wouldn't do something, which obviously generates so much hate in many others, if it weren't somewhere a part of their nature, their being. I fail to understand what is so unnatural about feeling sexually attracted to another person of the same sex. It can happen. Who can understand exactly how a human mind works? Why do we like certain people enough to be ready to have sexual relations with them, while we wouldn't even imagine it with some others? If the opposite sex was the only thing that mattered in sexual relationships, there wouldn't be so many dating and match making sites out there, right? 

I have a lot to say on the topic but my words usually get lost in the outrage I feel when I see people being so intolerant about something that doesn't even affect them in any tangible or intangible way. Yes, some would say it weakens the moral fiber of our society. What moral fiber? The moral fiber that allows people to kill girl children just because they are girls? The same moral fiber that advises a victim of molestation to "be more careful" instead of punishing the perpetrator? Or the moral fiber that binds the society into inaction and silence when they see a woman being harassed on roads and other public places? Or maybe they mean the moral fiber that bound a certain class of people in the category of untouchables for generations? No, really. PLEASE explain it to me.

I read this article in The Times of India. This is the pits of civilization - people barging into other people's homes. Even if the door was open, it didn't mean an open invitation to come in and invade the privacy of the person living there. There are so many things wrong here. Students thinking they can play moral police. The University's administration even entertaining the students’ attempt to bring Dr. Siras' homosexuality to light. The administration questioning and suspending him. The local TV channel making "news" out of this. (Is this "news"?? I shudder at what's considered news these days. But that is material for another post). What saddens me the most is that Dr. Siras is leaving without disputing the administration's decision. I think he should have stood up to them, but then I have not lived his life. Who knows what else he had to undergo? The humiliation this incident alone must have generated must be crippling.  

Then I found a link to this article under the above mentioned article. Really? Decriminalizing homosexuality means (I quote) approval of "one more way of largescale sexual exploitation of children" ??! How does one make THAT leap of conclusion? I fail to understand. When I see such ignorant remarks my mind just stops functioning and I am reduced to a sputtering, blubbering mess.

In my opinion, unless the human race learns tolerance, it won't be progressing very far. People from different religions will kill each other, heterosexuals will kill the homosexuals, young will kill the old and countries will wipe out each other. Maybe we SHOULD let that happen. Then we can start from scratch and hope that the next "batch" of humans has more sense and tolerance.

Take the blinders off!!

Ever since I read this article in The Hindu , I have been itching to post my views on it. Or on the point of view expressed in it, to be more accurate. I found a link to this article on Indian HomeMaker's blog and she, as always, has written very well on it already. Normally, if I see someone else do such a great job of commenting on something (and if I know I cannot do a better job on it than them) I leave well enough alone. But this article just raised my hackles so much that I couldn't stop myself from commenting on it. Such a one-sided view of this issue is guaranteed to get a rise out of me every time. I wrote on this topic a little while ago as well here and here.  Do read Indian Home Maker's post too - it is more detailed and better composed.

Where do I begin? I have something to say to almost every line/ statement of the article. Some sentences start out on the right note then abruptly take the most absurd turn. 

Far too many people see things in only black or white. Pro-life means valuing life (I get that) but pro-choice means one WANTS to take lives?? Where does one get THAT interpretation from the word? Pro-choice means just that - someone who favors the option of giving a woman the choice instead of making the decision for her. Who says the woman WILL choose to take the life she is carrying? Maybe she will decide to keep the baby. At least the decision will be hers and she will be more at peace with what follows.

Similarly, the debate of Stay-at-home-mom vs. Work-out-of-home mom seems starkly black and white in some people's minds to me. Take the author of this article for example. She made the decision to stay at home after she had her kid. The decision worked out well for her. She enjoyed staying at home with the baby, did not have any considerable financial worries or ambitions in her prfessional field. I say "Good for her!!" But then to go on and bemoan the fact that women these days value career more than getting married or having kids just highlights the "holier than thou" attitude that many people advocating SAHMs sport. 

I don't disagree that there ARE many women out there who consider house work below their dignity just because they are "highly educated and/or working". They suffer from the same monochromatic view of the world, I think. What the proponents and opponents of working out/staying home forget is that as long as the working out of home or staying at home is THE WOMAN's choice, and as long as she makes sure her children are well cared for, it is NO ONE ELSE's business what she chooses to do!

Most mothers, who work out of home, do make sure their kids are well fed, well taken care of and get to spend time with them. NO ONE except the mother and her children, can determine how much time is good enough for them to spend together. Exceptions are there in every case. For every mom who stays at home and takes great care of her kids, I can point out one who doesn't. Similarly there are working mothers who take care of their kids and homes and there are working mothers who don't. Instead of blaming feminism, the ever-popular scapegoat, maybe we should try and understand that there are all kinds of people (and thereby, mothers) in this world. How they handle things (or don't) depends a lot on what kind of a person they are and less on a movement that started to get women their rightful place in the society.

This article offends my sensibilities at so many levels that the mind boggles. Take this part - "I get the feeling fertility is a disease. When the contraceptive pill was first introduced, it was a triumph for working women, a symbol of liberation. Women then were keen to get on it; today we know the side effects include “blood clots, diabetes, depression or anxious emotional states” and many women are keen to get off it." Now if one were to pause for a second and think - WHY were women so eager to get on the pill? Because they wanted control over their own fertility! How many times have we heard women complain they have to stay on the pill because their husband refuses to consider options like condoms or vasectomy? So the options for a woman are to beg her man to use condoms or be ready for a pregnancy she might not want? I'd rather be brainwashed by feminism, thank you!

The author left her job after she had a kid because, in her own words, "The juggling act between the home and the job would leave me exhausted and stressed." Did she consider asking her spouse to pitch in with the child care and house chores? That way they wouldn't have had to rely excessively on the maids for child care. Yes, it is good for a child to spend a big chunk of their time with a PARENT - who, quite not so obviously to many people, CAN be the dad as well. Even if she didn't, leaving the job was HER decision and I respect that. She is happy with her decision, more power to her! But other women don't necessarily have to follow her example. My husband shares child care duties and house chores with me equally. That is another way. A friend works full time, brings home a sizeable salary, her job provides health insurance for her family while her husband runs his business from home and is the primary care provider for their three daughters. Who is to say this arrangement is inferior to the other two arrangements? Who gets to decide what is a fair arrangement? The couple! And NO ONE ELSE! I don't judge others who don't follow what I do. And I don't get why others get their knickers in a twist when some women prefer to go out to work instead of staying at home, whatever their reasons be. I also don't get it when someone makes a "concession" for the mothers who work because they need the money. Money isn't the only motivational factor for finding employment. Many women work because they like their job. And I do believe every woman should at least have the qualifications and capability to be financially independent, even if she chooses not to work outside of home.

The article does not outright condemn the working mother. (Another term I have a bone to pick with. ALL mothers work, whether they stay at home or step out of it to earn a living). But the way the author pointedly asks "Are money, career, and power the only measure of success? Family, health, love and memories should count much more. Shouldn’t feminism mean greater power, freedom and, above all, greater happiness for women?" she is single-sidedly assuming that mothers who step out to earn a living (or peanuts, like me) are doing so BECAUSE they don't value family, health, love and memories. Who died and made her the queen of all such insights, is what I want to know! Yes, feminism means greater power and freedom for the women. Which, in turn, should bring greater happiness (and peace of mind) to the women. Now WHAT brings a woman that happiness and peace should be up to a woman to decide, right?!

How the tables were turned

I had been "training" M for two things since a long time. That training completed a couple of months ago when M finally learned to answer two questions:

Q: Who is the Drama Queen?
A: (patting herself) Ninni daama qeen!!

Q: Who is the boss?
A: Mamma bossh!!

I showed off a few times in front of friends by asking her these questions and having her answer them "correctly". Of course, J and S could not tolerate my success so they started a campaign of their own. They taught M to answer these questions as follows:

Q: Who is the Drama Queen?
A: Mamma daama qeen!!

Q: Who is the boss?
A: (patting herself) Ninni bossh!!

This generated much laughter and whooping around the house. Then I managed to turn the tables on them. It went this way:

J: Ninni, who is the drama queen?
Ninni: Mamma daama qeen!

Mamma: No, MY daama qeen!!
Ninni: No, MY daama qeen Ninni!!

J: No, no. Ninni who is the dramam queen? Say "Mamma"!
Mamma: No, MY drama queen!!

Ninni: NO, MY DAAMA QEEN NINNI! MAMMA BOSSH!!

Goes to show who really is the boss ;)

If I knew then what I know now

I would have

1. Ran away

2. Not agreed

3. Not said yes

4. Fought more

1.

I would have ran away and lived in a hostel instead of sucking it up at my uncle and aunt's. It wasn't only mental and emotional torture I went through at their hands. They successfully stopped my career from even taking off by stopping me from following promising opportunities that came my way. I can't blame them though - they only did what I allowed them to do.

2.

I wouldn't have agreed to J's "suggestions" of not getting a job anywhere away from my parents' home because he thought that would help us convince his parents to let us get married. His parents would have agreed no matter what because if he really did want to marry me, he would have stuck to his guns (which he did, BTW). I can't blame him because I did not put my foot down or think it through before agreeing.

3.

I would not have said "yes" to J's dad's condition that I won't work after getting married if I wanted to marry his son. As I said, if J wanted to marry me, he would have stuck to his guns and his parents would have had to agree anyway. I can't blame J's dad because I accepted the condition wholeheartedly. 

4.

I would have fought more with J to go back to study when things were simpler for us and we HAD the money to spare, however little. He thought other things were more important for us or that I should ask my company to pay for the courses I wanted to take. I couldn't make my company do it and then the time for it was gone. Now we don't have the time OR the money. I can't blame J for it though. I knew how important it was for me, J didn't. I should have fought more.

I am struggling heavily with all these demons from my past. Demons of MY bad decisions. Like I told J last night - it is MY life and I am responsible for my decisions. ALL my life I thought of others. Thought of how it would affect my parents if I ran away. Thought of how I should stand by J in trying to convince his parents. I should have had the sense to realize that if it took this much sacrifice from me to convince them, the decision WILL come back to haunt me some day. Why am I writing this down? So, one day, when (or IF) my daughters are ever in a similar situation where they need to make a life altering decision, they'd read this and think a bit more before deciding anything. I hope they grow up to have more sense and awareness than I did.