Lies. All of them.

I was trying to respond to a conversation I have having with someone on Twitter about this, but my facebook messaging was not working. This is about this article (the full version of the news clipping mentioned in the last post). 

So, I am using this instead:

What I had been trying to say, and I am not sure if the meaning was lost in twitterverse or if you just misunderstood me, was this:  

Amod Kanth is supposed to help advocate for children's rights. However, what he is doing here is using dubious assumptions and his personal prejudices to perpetuate homophobia, all the while pretending to be advocating for child rights. I am alarmed by this both on account of being passionate about LGBT rights and on account of being involved with child rights.  

Here are a few select quotes that demonstrate that:  

1. "In 1992, it is mentioned that WHO had removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses in its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10); however, in the same classification gender identity disorders, trans-sexualism and disorders of sexual preferences, such as, fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism and pedophilia, have been listed in the broad categories (F-64 and F-65) of the Disorders of Adult Personality Behaviour. The conclusion appears contradictory since most of these disorders happen to be widely prevalent amongst lesbian women, gay men, bisexuals and transgender groups (LGTB), whose sexual orientation and public conduct stand legalized and endorsed through this Judgement."  

He's making the claim that (let alone WHO and the psychiatric world's dated/biased stance on trans-sexuality) "disorders of sexual preferences" are not just widely prevalent amongst LGBT people, but that they are prevalent: implying that, if not a majority of, a very significant number of LGBT have these disorders. Does he have anything to back this up? Secondly, the judgment does absolutely nothing to "legalize and endorse" this judgment: it merely decriminalizes private consensual sex between adults (where does the public conduct even come into the picture)?  

2. "However, the said Judgement which is likely to seriously impact the physical, psychological, emotional and sexual behavior of the children and adolescents in India, in their continuous process of development, 18th year of age, being the end of childhood may not change the situation overnight."  

While I am willing to acknowledge that, no, the 18th birthday doesn't suddenly make one capable of better judgment, why does he not hold the rules on consensual heterosexual contact to this hypocritical standard as well? Am I supposed to be less capable of determining my consent to sex with women than sex with a man?  

3. "Question is being raised whether the sexual rights of any individual is unilateral since ‘sexual orientation’ itself refers to a person’s erotic response and tendency, bisexual or heterosexual, towards other persons of the same or other sex."  

Does this even require responding to? While this could be an interesting complex question to consider for sexuality theories, what does this have to do with the judgment? Even if it is not "unilateral", provided the manifestation of "erotic response and tendency" is not affecting non-consenting individuals (or consenting individuals below legal age), how does it matter?

4. "It is also argued that amongst the ‘sexual minorities’, there are multiple issues- ranging from the substance and alcohol abuse resulting in serious psychiatric problems to potential for serious societal disruptions in India’s highly applauded family set-up having  well  defined positions and roles for husband and wife, grand parents, parents and children,  their related fabric and norms, which will get distorted and ultimately disappear in case such practices are accepted.  

Even if we don’t accept the strong religious feelings across the communities against legalizing homosexuality or recognize the scientific evidence of mental and physical aberrations in homosexual practices, it is evident that promoting these behaviors may aggravate problems like HIV AIDS, anal cancer and anxiety disorders, justifying the adage, “personal freedom ends when public peril begins”." Where do I even start on how epically distorted this is? Yes, I'd be willing to accept there might be higher rates of alcohol and substance abuse amongst LGBT populations, but does Mr. Kanth think about why that is? It is in response to the feelings of utter isolation and depression felt by members of the LGBT community, because "India's highly applauded family set-up" (this calls for a whole other post. Do not get me started on how this inherently patriarchal set-up is actually harmful to Indian society) does not accept them, and forcibly brushes their issues under the carpet. Decriminalizing consensual sex between adults will not exacerbate these problems. In fact, acceptance, at some level, at least from the legal code, might help reduce the instances of anxiety disorders, high risk sexual behavior, substance abuse etc. when at least the LGBT community does not feel like criminals in addition to feeling like outcasts.  I accept, just as any rational person would, that until we have a reasonable alternative to the provisions of Section 377 of IPC, it cannot be delete. However, that does not in anyway justify Mr. Kanth's seriously flawed arguments in opposition of the reading down of that Section. His arguments seem to be based much less on fact, and much more so on his close-mindedness and bigotry. The entire article reads like one written by a man with a political agenda; whether that agenda is one of discrimination, or seeking funds, or winning friends, I don't know.  Besides, why is Prayas or the DCPRC even wasting their time with this? Why are they wasting precious effort and energy opposing something on the shakiest of grounds? I know Prayas recognizes just as well as other child rights groups do, that there is a pressing need for much more comprehensive protections from sexual assault of children: sexual assault is not just through penetration: what about attempted penetration? Forced oral sex? Molestation? (Talking about male children here, I believe these provisions do exist for female children). If I'm not mistaken, there are also no provisions to account for sexual assault on boys by multiple people at a time. Why is DCPRC not concentrating more on fixing these?  This is seriously appalling. And someone needs to set these people right now.

Equal Rights are not a Zero-Sum Game

I wholly intended to write a blog post sooner about the decriminalization of homosexual acts in Delhi, but I just haven't had the time to sit down and jot my thoughts, in a way that is comprehensive enough to do justice to the complexity of the situation. 

However, for now, I am posting a response I wrote to an article by former Indian Today editor Swapan Dasgupta that was published in "The Pioneer" yesterday: 

Equal Rights are not a Zero-Sum Game

 

It is painful to note well-educated, prolific and intelligent people propagate misleading and ignorant beliefs. That is the first feeling I had when I read Mr. Swapan Dasgupta’s article “Aggressive Gay Evangelism.” In his article, published in Pioneer dated July 5, 2009, Mr. Dasgupta claims that the Delhi High Court judgment amending Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code may “open the floodgates” to his eponymous term “aggressive gay evangelism.”

He fears that the decriminalization of same-sex carnal relations will eventually, and invariably, lead to such frightening things as lowering the age of consent, accommodating gay marriage, and allowing the right of adoption to gay couples – all ideas that, presumably, go against the “natural order of society.” Why should these ideas be such frightening prospects to Mr. Dasgupta. It is not as if sexual and gender minorities fighting for further rights would personally be harmful to him in any way.

Mr. Dasgupta is concerned about “in-your-face-gayness” and militant gay activism, and believes all gay activism to be defined by this “perverseness.” This concern can be addressed with two brief points. The first is that some amount of what he terms “in-your-face-gayness” is required for increasing the visibility of an otherwise invisible minority. The second is simply that not much gay activism is militant or “in-your-face” at all – a lot of this activism is happening in the courtrooms, on editorial pages such as these, and in day-to-day lives of people living their lives honestly and openly. 

He further has the audacity to claim that “the invocation of equality and the principles of non-discrimination” with regards to LGBT rights might be a “double-edged sword” as the assertiveness and desire for equality by the LGBT rights movement could very well “spin out of control.” Perhaps Mr. Dasgupta, and others that hold similar beliefs as him, need to understand that equal rights are not a zero-sum game. When a particular minority group gains equal rights, it does not necessarily come at the cost of those same rights that were already afforded to the majority or to other minority groups. For instance, the legalizing of gay marriages does not undermine the validity or sanctity of heterosexual marriages, and altering school curricula to remove heteronormative assumptions does not in any way indicate, as Mr. Dasgupta appears to believe, that “man-woman relations are not the natural order of society.”

Perhaps the reason some heterosexual (or male or upper-caste or rich) people question the needs and demands of minority groups fighting for equal rights is simply because they are worried not about losing their own rights, but about losing the privilege that their status as a part of the majority with exclusive rights had guaranteed them. To use a rather politically incorrect analogy, finding that their domestic help has happened upon an inheritance that makes him richer than they are would decidedly make most people uncomfortable, because it forces them to question what they took for granted about their personal superiority that came from being wealthier, and thus, more privileged. Mr. Dasgupta’s knee-jerk reaction to LGBT communities fighting from equality might stem from a similar concern – what happens to his heterosexual privilege when those homosexuals could have the same rights as he presently does, when their relationships are recognized as valid as his, when their human dignity is considered every bit as respectable as his own?

Decriminalization of homosexual behavior may indeed serve as the starting point for further LGBT activism in the country – indeed, moving towards full equality, as part of the same “gender-neutral, non-denominational, secular, uniform civil code”, in Mr. Dasgupta’s own words, desired by the makers of our Constitution. And since it’s not a zero-sum game that we are playing, perhaps this full equality for sexual and gender minorities would only strengthen the unity of the country. 

And just for kicks, a closing quote from Tocqueville (that great scholar of democracy): 

"If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."

Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America

Delhi and Racism

Delhi and racism don’t seem to be immediately connected. At least, I never really saw the connection until I encountered Diepiriye’s fascinating youtube videos (look them up, if you like). I can’t say I took his videos too seriously at first but they did lead me to observe things.
The first observation was not one I made in Delhi. It was a little incident that happened back at college. I was coming back to my dorm from the lounge I study in around 4 am, around finals time. The (African-American) guard at the entrance desk looked really tired, so I just decided to say hello and engage in conversation. After a while, he asked me if I were Sri Lankan. I replied, no, I am Indian. To which he said that he was surprised because Indians were usually not friendly at all. Now I don’t if that reflects on our race consciousness or on our class consciousness, but whatever it is, does not reflect well on our society.
The next was on the very first day after coming back to Delhi. My grandparents wanted to talk to me about America and they were eager to share their experiences from the early nineties as well. They asked me if I had encountered any racism and I said, no, not really (because they obviously expected me to encounter obvious racism?) Then talk somehow turned to crime in DC and how New York City is so unsafe and my grandmother said something about all the Negroes cause all the trouble there. That’s probably not a very different attitude than that of several Americans but it’s still disturbing to hear something of the sort coming from a family member I had always thought was very intelligent and open-minded. I think I must have made one of my usual justifications and got that out of the way somehow. Then, yesterday, again, my grandmother asked me if I had any black sahelis (Hindi equivalent of amigas/amies/friend(f)). Now, I don’t think I actually have any female friends of African origin but I do have male ones so I nodded anyway. Then she had the gall to ask me, “So what is their IQ like? Can they do well in their classes?” Oh my gosh! This was just unbelievable. Thankfully my grandfather quickly jumped in and asked her to not generalize in such a manner.
So, there end the actual observed events. Now for some commentary.
Indians have a definite post-colonial hang-up and that is something most Indians would admit, some readily, some with more shame. We, as a people (though really, I think I mean North Indians, rather than Indians in general), are obsessed with white skin (and as a corollary, fairness) and consider white skinned Caucasians superior to all others (don’t believe me? Come watch Indians fawning over any, and I mean any, fair-skinned person). This could be explained as a remnant of our colonial past, when Indians were made to feel strongly inferior to their British administrators, but I somehow doubt that theory. Anyhow, I am not a sociologist so I don’t have an explanation for our worship of white skin.
Not unrelatedly, Indians can be the most virulently racist of any other people towards people of African origin. A close friend’s father, who was a post-doctoral fellow at Duke University in the 90s, spoke of how his Indian colleagues refused to sit next to or even speak to African-Americans. It is easy to imagine how alienated and unwelcome any person of African origin (no matter what country s/he is a citizen of) would feel in this city.
A group that frequently encounters rampant racism in this city are the people from the North-East of the country. The fact that their racial and ethnic heritage differs from that of the North Indians (most of whom would not hesitate to tell you that they are Aryans) apparently makes them fair game for racial slurs of all sorts. Insults like “chinky” are liberally thrown around in every direction.
Another unfortunate aspect of this is that North Indian men (who are really not well known for their woman-respecting ways) tend to view white women and Northeastern women as “easy”. This, of course, means that these women have to suffer even more sexual harassment than your average Delhi girl (exceeding which, in itself, is a considerable feat).
Now, most Indians will not be willing to acknowledge that they are racist. They will however be willing to say stuff like my grandmother did and think that it is the gospel truth. Indians certainly have strong regionalist tendencies (Punjabi vs. Mallu vs. “Madrasi” vs. Marathi), and I think everybody that knows anything about India knows about casteism. To this delightful mix, I think we can safely add racism as well.
Naturally, different forms of exclusion and discrimination are not unique to North Indian society, but where we take everything several steps ahead is in our hypocrisy when it comes to facing the truth (seriously, go read the comments on Diepiriye’s videos). Oh well. I’ll write on Delhi-ites and their great powers of self-delusion later.

Delhi... and WEDDINGS!!!

All right, so tonight, my mother dragged me to the wedding of her friend(acquaintance)'s daughter. I did not expect to know anyone there, and certainly did not want to go, but my mother wants met to "socialize" (why she won't let me do that with my own friends is beyond me!) so she forced me to tag along.
Anyhow, to my surprise, the mother of the groom (my mum knew the mother of the bride) turned out to be my ninth grade math teacher. Which meant that I "ran into" a lot of high school teachers and had to exchange the usual pleasantries (the "where are you going to college?", "what course are you studying?" "Do you like it there?"... just the usual). Thankfully, it was much better than I would've dared to imagine in my head. I suspect my mother already knew that the groom's mother had been my high school teacher, which might be really why she dragged me here (because she knew I was not likely to visit my high school and the teachers; but I just want to put that phase of life behind me. Anyhow).

So, Delhi weddings (I think most North Indian weddings, Punjabi ones in particular) are spectacles in their own right. This one was fairly regular by Delhi standards: the Punjabi food, the Rajasthani food, the "South Indian" food, the "Chinese" food, the chaat, the several different types of desserts and hors d'oeuvre (though no one here calls them that) , the over 500 guests, most of them only vaguely known to the hosts, the loud music. And did I mention the girls? Oh man, the girls were just so gorgeous. And there were so many of them, the pretty ones, that is. The bride looked spectacular as did her younger sister and a lot of her friends. Certainly reason enough to have stayed there much longer than I did, but I can't really use "I want to ogle at pretty girls" as an excuse to get my parents to stay longer, can I?

Now, one very interesting thing about Delhi weddings is how people dress. Winter weddings, which are much more common than summer weddings, are all right, because the weather is usually bearable (though sometimes it can be frigidly cold). However, summer weddings and the way people dress becomes a total disaster. Women will be decked out in heavily embroidered saris and salwar-kameezes and chaniya-cholis, with pounds of jewelry and more often than not, inches of make-up. How glitzy one's outfit is, is supposed to be some sort of status symbol. Such a shame. The men go to the other extreme. There were men at tonight's wedding dressed in sports coats, Hawaiian shirts and eve ratty jeans t-shirts! Seriously, faded jeans at a wedding that is not Harley-Davidson themed? That's definitely wrong! How difficult is it to be appropriately dressed even if ti is a million degrees Celsius out? The least they can do it wear a wrinkle-free linen or cotton dress shirt. And plenty of deodorant, for goodness' sake!

Anyhow, the wedding brought up the topic of my own wedding in the car. Because, of course, the daughter is now almost 19, and needs to be married in the next six or seven years. Now, I have already clearly told my parents that I will not have an arranged marriage, though they did not take me seriously. Besides, I am beginning to think an arranged marriage may be the best option for me (for my American friends, in case you want to understand this phenomenon of arranged matches in its entirety, ask me) since when it comes to a love match, I do not foresee the notion of my wanting to marry person I could only marry in six countries or two US states (at present) going down very well with my parents, if you get the gist of what I am saying.

Well, marriages are complicated things, but the wedding ceremonies are usually fun events. Too bad that I don't want a ceremony at all (though, really, there is no way around it -- my parents simply must have a grand celebration for their only daughter's wedding due to social obligations). Oh dear, Delhi's great middle class and its social dynamics. Sigh.

Delhi/Gurgaon... and corporate offices

I have a summer internship at a multinational consulting company. Now, because Delhi doesn’t really have a culture of undergraduate summer interns and I know nothing about accounting, I don’t have much to actually do. So when I am not reading fanfiction, or looking into colleges to transfer to, I observe things.

It is fascinating to note the sort of work culture that this place has. It’s quite different than anything I would have expected, because on the one hand I think of sloppy government and bureaucratic offices in Delhi and on the other hand I think of corporate offices as somewhat cold, mechanical places on the other. However, at this company’s office, and I am made to understand that the case is not much different at other corporate offices around here, there is a whole different atmosphere. People work quietly at their laptops, yes, but it is not entirely unusual for some folks to just sit together and chat or gossip. And they talk about anything, though the most frequent topics seem to be GMATs and business colleges in the US. Hmm… what does that say about why people are here in the first place? Yep. You got it. So that they can get the requisite “work-ex”, as it referred to here, and then go to the US for their MBAs, which will naturally lead to bigger and better things in the future. Aha! So the American dream lives on? Not quite. If you listen some more, you’d realize that while they are all for getting their degrees at US colleges because of the brand value such degrees hold here, they do want to come back and “serve their country”. Except if you listen some more, it isn’t that they want to serve their country, but to exploit the fact that they can easily have chauffeurs and domestic helpers and all sorts of other things to make life easier for them, that they could not have afforded in the US or in a western European country due to the much higher costs of labor. So that’s what this is about!
Also interesting to note is that though the place has a little gym, hardly anybody uses it. Which is not unexpected, of course, but I just wonder why it is there at all.

Another thing interesting about the workplace here is, that despite the fact that this is the office of a company based elsewhere, the office itself is distinctly Indian. And by the office I mean the people, not the office building. This is quite an odd thing to observe – that the office building is so un-Indian. It is all glass and concrete, which is astounding impractical for a hot country like India, and centrally air-conditioned, naturally, which makes it an absolute environmental disaster. Besides, central air-conditioning and buildings that are meant to be in a temperate climate just don’t work here on so many levels. One of my biggest grouses with them is how little ventilation they have. You need to smell the kitchen area to know what I mean. The smells of Indian spices and masalas are overwhelming to the point of being nauseating!

I guess I can’t really provide much more than a surface look at the corporate offices here though, because I don’t have insight into the how the higher echelons work or anything of the sort. Maybe that is a topic to be discussed later, or for you to tell me?