Half Truths & Media Trials

The time we live in today sees an enormous amount of social media influence on a common person’s perceptions. There are also diverse ways in which people can choose to influence others. I mean, the term “social media influencers” has never before even existed. The influence could be good or bad, which we would discuss towards the end of the article. Right now, let’s leave it at that.

Below, I will be discuss some incidents which are right now the “in” topics of discussion on almost all social media platforms, and also news channels. It saddens me deeply that I have to include news agencies in the same sentence as social media platforms but, as a common person, I am left with no other choice.

1. Sushant Singh Rajput

Sushant Singh Rajput left this world on 14^th June 2020. It was a Sunday. I was in the kitchen baking something when I was told about the news. I saw the news, sat on the sofa and caught words like “depression” “suicide” “hung himself” flashing across the news channels. I wasn’t a diehard fan of Sushant’s. In fact, I have seen just one movie of his. I liked his work. He reminded me of what hard work looks like and how achieving recognition and earning a name looks like. After his demise, came the wave of information about who Sushant was, as a person, as a human being. He was interested in the mysteries of space, he owned an expensive telescope that took him and his imagination to places. He was a regular guy. Curious, hardworking, young, with dreams and ambitions. I liked him more as a person when all this information about him poured in. This, I would call the first wave of information that came in in Sushant Singh Rajput’s case.

The second wave had left many of us in shock. A lot of Bollywood celebrities, directors, actors etc came forward by narrating the stories of their struggles and how the powerplay works in the B-Town. Obviously, then a very heated discussion on nepotism started. These discussions in no time started on social media as well. What then unfolded on social media is what we might call a very crude delusional version of social media trial with actors like Aalia Bhatt, Sonam Kapoor, Sonakshi Sinha getting rape threats, trolls forcing some of them to shut down their social media accounts, targeting their mothers, sisters etc and basically, rape threats. This era is what I call a meme age so obviously, a lot of memes also came like Sonam Kapoor standing with her husband and her husband being trolled by people for his grey hair and “not being as handsome as Sushant”. 

 Another section campaigned for petitions to boycott the Khans, Karan Johar, Yash Raj Banner and in the process called the Khans mafia and called KJo “chhakka” and gay (though I fail to understand how being a Chhakka or being a gay could be taken as a form of insult). 

A lot of people from Bollywood also took this as a chance to push forward their own agenda and just talked about themselves instead of Sushant. 

The third and final wave was the one that left most of us braindead when the news channels took their inspiration from supernatural movies and on loop kept telecasting how a psychic spoke to Sushant(after his demise) and even managed to record his voice. 

2. Many comedians now a days are facing a social media wrath. I’d take up here the case of two of them. Agrima Joshua and Rohan Joshi. 

I am taking these two cases deliberately. Agrima Joshua is a stand-up comedian and made some jokes about the Shivaji Statue. Yes, about Shivaji’s statue and about how people wrote about the things they thought the statue would do on Quora. So here, the woman got rape threats by thousands of people for creating humorous content on the comments that people wrote on a yet to be built Shivaji’s statue. Let’s take a moment to soak in this logic. 

Long story short, Agrima apologized, got a lot of hate on social media and a lot of support from the Indian Left and rightly so. Why I introduced the Indian Left here? Read the next incident. 

Rohan Joshi went off Twitter and Instagram after his personal number, address, family details etc. were leaked and his family started getting threats. For what? 

For Tweets like these:

• “Rapes are prevented because men and photos of Mamata Banerjee interact freely”
• “Mamata Banerjee leaves for cock block. RT @NDTVProfit: Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee leaves for North Block #Budget2012”
• “The day Sharad Pawar dies will be our real Independence Day. Putrid evil fuck”
• “Someone needs to wipe this entire Pawar clan off the face of the Earth, like the cumstains they are”
• “I hope Srinivasan resigns, because I don’t really want to see him killed by the smoke monster that comes out of Sharad Pawar’s vagina”

Few points:

• Were his Tweets offensive and sexist? Yes. 
• Should Rohan Joshi and his family be getting threats for these Tweets? No. 

What Rohan Joshi Tweeted was neither comedy nor humor. What he Tweeted reeked of sexism and misogyny. Unlike Agrima, his apology should have come sooner or later WITHOUT HIM OR HIS FAMILY RECEIVING THREATS. No one deserves threats from the so-called gorilla (in this case Right leaning) moral police of the society. Rohan issued a public apology and went off Instagram and Twitter. 

1. A lot of people supported him, consoled him, spoke about how India has lost its democracy and freedom. (their anger here in context to the threats is justified)
2. None of these people in the same breath said anything about how his Tweets were sexist and hate filled and how he made a mistake as a creator and has since grown as a person as well as a creator. (their blatant ignorance of this aspect was not justified especially because Rohan Joshi actually used the same democracy and freedom to tweet those one liners)

This is the double standard that almost every issue these days faces. It’s like there is a competition to “save our own” and in the process, ignore Justice. 

3. Hindustani Bhau

I came across this profile on Instagram after the Agrima Joshua case. It was about 2 in the night (thanks to Covid-19 and the messed up sleep cycle). I read about Agrima Joshua’s case, how she got rape threats and a guy named Shubham Mishra who made an obscene video explicitly explaining about how exactly Agrima should be raped. When I read the issue, police action against Shubham Mishra had not taken place. I then came across an Instagram post by Kusha Kapila where a few comments were of the nature “ tujhe to ab bhau dekhaga”, “tujhe to ab hindustani bhau batayega”. Out of curiosity, I searched for a profile by this name and came across a profile called Hindustani Bhau. What happened next was a 2 hour long shock that lead me to so many videos and comments that just spoke of rape, sodomization and more rape as a way to punish those who “disrespect India and Hinduism or any religion”. 

I started taking screenshots of the comments and started saving videos but then, I got tired. So, anyone who wants to know the kind of content the Hindustani Bhau churns out, pick up ANY video if his and watch it. No video of his is complete without abuses, sexual things being said about the “accused’s” mothers, sisters, wives etc. and all in the name of country and religion. For more vile content, just casually scroll through his comments section and you would see how these videos feed the already violence and rape hungry public’s fantasy and give them some demonic strength and a delusional belief that they are “fighting for a cause”. And here, I am talking about both men and women. A lot of women support these videos, this man, his threats and they themselves also give threats to anyone expressing dissent. 

I myself commented on one of the videos and just as I posted the comment, it was deleted. I again posted another one which too, was deleted. And that made me wonder. Why are comments that talk of peace or democracy deleted but comments from specifically Muslims and people abusing the Hindustani Bhau kept? To deliberately create more hate? Hate fueled by hate? I then tried commenting under a comment so that the profile admins wouldn’t be able to delete my comment and after 10 minutes or so, I got something like “ Arre koi iski bhi ma chodo re”. 

Such people, such hate spewing ideologies exist and we all know it. What surprises me in this particular case is: 

how is this man having a following of more than 3M people? On digging about him further, I figured out he was also an ex Big Boss contestant, is friends with a lot of people from the TV industry. 

I also wonder had he been a person from a minority religion, would he be having a whopping 3M plus followers on social media and still be able to churn out the content that he churns out and talk like he talks and still be on the safe side of the law? 

If we take the above 3 points into consideration now and look at the bucket full of ironies here, 

• netizens calling for justice in Sushant’s case are also the ones giving rape threats to a lot of actor’s kids
• there is very little or no conversation around mental health
• a lot of the so called “influencers” took this chance (without any formal training or qualifications) to offer help to people with mental health issues for making some quick bucks.
• A lot of netizens being hurt about Agrima’s statements are also the ones supporting her rape threats 
• the “liberals” are angered by the threats Rohan Joshi received and believe there isn’t any democracy left in the country
• the not-so-liberals have also royally ignored to acknowledge that the Tweets by Rohan Joshi were so wrong at so many levels and a proof of the “absent” democracy
• people claiming to fight for India are actually acting against its constitution 
• people claiming to fight for their religion are the ones supporting and also giving out rape threats
• people claiming to be devout Hindus are also the ones insulting Hinduism by their very behavior. 

Looking at each of these issues individually, all these problems are too deep seated and have become too complicated and now cannot be simply segregated into Left and Right issues or Religious or Liberal issues. The people and sentiments have become too polarized. It seems now no one is interested in discussing an issue. All we as a society want to do is, pick sides and then just do anything to protect or save people in our camps. How is that any different from injustice, nepotism, casteism, misogyny, is something I don’t understand. 

There are still people left in this society who are neither Left nor Right, neither religion driven nor anti religion and such people are being suffocated in this war that’s blazing that now has a life of its own simply based on “us and they”. 

So, coming back to our first question, are social media influencers good for people? Or, are they bad for the people? 

In my opinion, it is the people who make someone an “influencer”. It is the people who follow their ideas, it is the people who form the “masses”, it is the people who put power in the hands of a few, giving them the power to lead. 

So, when we as a society are becoming so polarized, it is no surprise that the so called “influencers” would be the ones who understand this polarization and decide to cash on these very sentiments. After all, these people too, are a sample from the society itself. Thus, the question here shifts from influencers being good or bad to people being good or bad for the society that we strive to achieve based on our country’s ethics and constitution. 

Finally, I don’t think with social media and everyone having an access to it (which is a good thing) we can do anything about what goes on on these platforms. For rape threats and vile comments and violence that people spew there, the cyber laws are too soft. I tried reporting a few comments on Instagram and all I got was a response from Instagram stating the comment wasn’t a violation to their community standards. The comment was about rape threats given to a woman’s mother. How is that not against any community’s standards, I don’t understand. One step could be, to strengthen cyber laws so that they translate into reality and are actually helpful to people.  

What could be done in the long run is, making sure that the news outlets and news channels are left unbiased so that at least the right fodder reaches the masses. Everyone these days is so equipped and so ready to Tweet that a lot of fake information, false numbers, wrong information gets viral. The recent example of the pregnant elephant being killed by fire crackers is one such issue where people made sketches, cartoons, wrote heart felt poems all based on false information, without knowing the truth simply based on what some other person said. Since I don’t see news channels and news outlets being unbiased any time in near future, not following any one source blindly is the best that can be done and this practice of cross checking and verifying alone can save a lot of confusion and hate. 

I think I was in 8^th or 9^th standard when the English unit test in my school had a question on the influence of TV viewing on children and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. I still remember my answer. My answer is the same today as well. It’s never the medium that’s right or wrong. Be it the TV or social media or “influencers”. It ultimately just boils down to how equipped a human being is, how equipped a society is, to look at things objectively. Till that aspect is not given importance, the medium wouldn’t matter. Today the excuse for rape threats is someone’s death, tomorrow it’d be something else. Today the excuse for threats is religion, tomorrow it could be something else. Today the excuse for raping someone’s mom is the country, tomorrow it would be something else. Sushant, Agrima, Rohan, Hindustani Bhau are all just excuses. The society will need more hate and more violence with or without them and that’s what needs to be addressed. Why do we need hate? Why does the prospect of punishing someone without the judiciary click with so many people? A major part could be because of the system’s failure and loopholes that are there everywhere. Another could be simply because maybe human beings intrinsically are nihilistic. Or, maybe with comfortable lives, a free country, easy accessibility in terms of communication, everyone is a rebel without a cause. Maybe we as a society aren’t able to channelize an enormous amount of energy into something productive leading to a vision. Maybe that’s what we are lacking today. A clear unbiased vision of us as humans and this country. 

Lockdown Day – 8 Poem

Guilty: Review

On a cosy evening, with the weather just perfect, I snuggled in my comforter and started watching a crime thriller on Netflix.  10 minutes in, I saw a notification ping saying “Guilty” was now streaming on Netflix.

I had seen its ads and had probably marked it hence, the notification. I switched to watching Guilty and the next 120 minutes had me hooked onto it.

Guilty is a story of a woman, it’s a story of womankind, it’s a story of humanity, it’s a story screaming why boys need to be raised right, it’s a story of how acceptable victim shaming is, it’s a story of how insensitive we all are as a society.

To review the movie, it’s a very upbeat, young movie with a deep rooted message to which a lot of college kids and youth would identify with as well as the older generation. Based on the #MeToo movement, it’s an extremely urban story. Its so urban that one of the characters in the movie when asked questions about his whereabouts, says “I want to plead the fifth”!. The section of society that has grown up on watching American TV series and Hollywood movies find it eye opening to know 911 isn’t an Indian emergency number and, pleading the fifth is in the American constitution and not in the Indian and this vibe is captured perfectly in the movie. The acting of most of the actors is convincing and the supporting cast is an ensemble of seasoned actors like Dilip Tahir and Niki Aneja Walia. The story of the movie is so powerful that the acting and the actors don’t outshine the story track. You’d remember the cast of this movie by their screen names and not their real-life names and that is a huge accomplishment for any creative team.

What the movie does to the you, is a separate story all together. Like I said earlier, it’s a movie on society, sexuality, gender bias, victim shaming, and the list could go on and on.

What surprises me is, its 2020 and we are still fighting for basic human dignity of a particular gender. Since ages there has been content around this issue. In every century, the story is probably the same. Its just the narration that changes. Watching this movie, I remembered a Hollywood movie I saw as a kid starring Jodie Foster, “The Accused”. The Accused was released in 1988. Guilty is released in 2020. The issue and the insensitivity of the society, the attitude that if a woman is drinking, wearing skimpy clothes, flirting with a man,  is asking for it, is the same. Victim shaming and the victim blaming is the same. The entitlement of men in thinking they have the right to decide who “asks for it” and who doesn’t, is the same and this similarity is what we all as a society should be collectively ashamed of.

In the movie, a girl who accuses the college heartthrob of rape, with whom she had been flirting and wanting to sleep with, wore skimpy clothes and minced no words when said “yes, I wanted to be with him, yes, I flirted with him, yes I wanted to be his girlfriend and yes, I wanted to sleep with him BUT NOT IN FRONT OF HIS FRIENDS” is a statement that probably a lot of people would not even understand because of the expert raising techniques that we practice in our societies.

The film treads on the bold territory of domestic rape, wearing plunging necklines, the coexistence of the possibility of flirting and having the right to say NO, the stark difference in the perception people have of a woman who seeks attention and of a man who seeks attention and, of course, the dirty world of legal politics.

Why the #MeToo movement caught such a momentum worldwide is no rocket science. The logic is simple. There cannot be a woman in the world who has never ever faced any kind of physical abuse. It may be in the form of rape, eve teasing, bottom pinching, slut shaming etc but, it has happened. And all of it falls under one umbrella: treating women as objects.

How hard is it to understand what No means. How have we all raised the boys who went on to become the kind of men that think cleavage, alcohol, short dresses and flirting is a certified indication of “asking for it”?

I remember when I was in college, a bunch of boys used to eve tease us every single day. The police station was walking distance from my college so myself along with two more friends of mine went to the police station to complain. The police officer there took one look at us and told us to wear full sleeved clothes and wear salwar kameez instead of jeans and the “boy problem” would soon vanish.

When would we start holding men accountable for their actions? Why do women have to be cautious for themselves as well as for men? Why is the onus of not provoking men on women?

It takes a village to raise a child and looks like since centuries we have been raising boys in the wrong kind of village.

CAA & NRC

Theoretically, CAA is almost fine.

Why?

Bec minorities in the three said countries are being persecuted. Look at the data ( though Shah exaggerated a bit but the stats are still scary as hell regarding the alarming population fall that the minorities (Hindus/Parsis/Christians/Sikhs/ Jains/Buddhists) are facing in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Why other countries are not included: bec v few ppl cross borders and migrate to india from countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bhutan etc. Thus, the number crossing over from B P & A is staggering and is a problem.

My problem with CAA:

1. If minorities are being protected then what abt the ahmedis in pakistan who face grave dangers and what about shias who again face problems?

2. Apne sambhal nahi rahe dusro ko aur paale.

Here Nehru Liyaquat agreement comes into focus and since the population of the minorities in Pakistan fell to 1-2% from a double digit, it becomes a moral obligation for India to offer this population its protection.

In India, the Muslim population has INCREASED. So, India does have a lot of problems but ethnic cleansing of the minorities is not one of them.

My problem here again:

Agreed to this part 100%.

Also why not include Ahmedis and Shias here? If now we are talking about moral obligations, then isn’t our moral obligation towards all human beings?

The CAA states “ persecution by the sate on the basis of religion “

Shouldn’t it be persecution of minorities? Or ethnic groups? Or any legal term which would be appropriate. Then Ahmedis and Shias could have been included.

Regarding the constitution:

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

When we talk about providing protection, that means the sample in question is not equal.

Eg: a Bangladeshi Muslim crossing border illegally to enter India for better job opportunities is not the same thing as a Hindu/Christian/Sikh crossing border to save his/her life.

The same logic why some people belonging to a particular caste/religion need reservation and others dont. If you are pro reservations for Dalits and Muslims and know a brahmin shouldnt be treated as an equal when talking about reservations, then it shouldn’t be a problem understanding this particular scenario as well and understand why H/S/B/P/J/C should be given this consideration.

Also, citizenship wont be denied to anyone ASKING for it. Through proper procedures. Asylum wont be denied to anyone asking for it. Its the illegal immigrants that are being targeted. And for a country with its own problems, limitations in terms of economy, its India’s right to safeguard its resources.

To my mind, CAA viewed independently is an almost fair act.

Had the bill been signed by Sonia Gandhi or Rahul having the same content, the bill or this act now wont have faced this kind of a backlash.

Congress has again and again said that it is India’s moral duty to give shelter and protection to the minorities in Bangladesh (said by Manmohan singh who said minorities in Bangladesh are facing persecution ) and Pakistan (said by Rajendra parasad , Nehru including Mahatma Gandhi). It was stated clearly in the congress Karyakarini as well.

When I said almost fine, this is what i meant: is ignoring the Ahmedis and Shias deliberate or the CAA is the continuation of a 70 year old problem addressed by various political parties but never acted upon?

CAA is a matter of calling a spade a spade.

The NRC

It was started by Congress ie made into a law by congress.

When u see CAA and NRC together, how does the system makes sure that if both an Indian hindu and an Indian muslim dont have their papers, the Indian muslim wont be illtreated ? Won’t be sent to the detention centres? Bec CAA protects hindus/sikhs/Christians/Jains/Budhhists etc irrespective if they belong to the three said countries.

Amit Shah in his interview took the liberty of explaining in detail the CAA but when asked how would the NRC operate, he just asked people to trust the government. A man who talks so logically in the first half why couldn’t he continue with the same zeal n talk about NRC? The same NRC which excluded Indian Muslim army personnels ? The family of former Indian President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed?

Shah did promise not a single minority would be harassed in the new NRC process. Here, i dont trust the NRC process. Why? Because if we are looking at the history so much, we need to look at the past experiences with NRC and Amit Shah’s ignorance and avoidance in answering the critical questions and look closely at the names the NRC skipped in Assam, what religion were they from? All this happened when NRC was implemented in just one state and had a set of guidelines given by the supreme court.

My heart wont bleed extra for a Pakistani Hindu. My heart wont bleed extra for a Pakistani Muslim. On the basis of humanity i would bleed for humans. They might be Sikhs/Hindus/Christians/Parsis/Budhhists or Jainis or Muslims who may or maynot be Ahmedis or Shias.

The nation is witnessing protests, students are on the roads, the police is in some states doing good and in others doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to be doing.

In the midst of all this, our PM goes on stage and says the protestors can be identified by their clothes. The Prime Minister of a country goes on stage and talks like this. What does it speak about him as a person? Should we still not question his intentions?

The Shahi Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid has said “CAA has nothing to do with the Indian Muslims.” By saying this he has placed his faith in the system (yet again. Must be difficult after the lopsided Ayodhya verdict where again he appealed to maintain peace). He chose to be objective and look at the facts and saw the obvious logical conclusion.

Where the whole of India should come together?

To make sure NRC is not unfair, to make sure Indian muslims are not harassed, to make sure there is no blatant disregard and disrespect for the Indian constitution, to make sure the Shahi Imam doesn’t regret his unbiased stand.

The need of the hour is to be objective.

CAA was facts. NRC is promises. And i have zero belief on our politicians as far as delivering those promises is concerned.

Also,

1. I am no fan of Amit Shah or Modi.

2. That does not mean if they call north pole North Pole, i ll start disagreeing.

And that definitely means if they start calling north pole east pole, i would raise my voice.

Yes, illegal immigration is a problem.

Yes, minorities (H/S/C/B/J/P) are facing ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh Pakistan and Afghanistan.

No, an illegal immigrant does not have the right to stay in the country s/he entered.

Yes, an immigrant can seek asylum anytime its his/her right. Religion no bar.

No, Indian Muslims are not effected by CAA

Yes, Indian Muslims would be effected by an inefficient NRC process.

Calling a spade a spade, guys.

Peace.

Societal Conditioning and Gender equality

“I was so busy in my career that I could not be there for my children during their growing up years”

“Inspite of the affairs, there was no love lost in their marriage and the spouse stood by the artist”

“I have slept with some three hundred plus people.”

Read the above statements.

Did you read these statements and imagine a man in their context?

If so, why? Did your mind automatically reach to that conclusion?

If not, congratulations! You dont need to read the article further!

If it’s the first case, Hi again! And now, another question. Ever wondered how you reached that conclusion?

This is a classic example of societal conditioning.

Now think of all these statements given by women. Just. think.

Would a woman making any of these statements be judged a bit more harshly as compared to her male counterparts ? Would this woman be accepted and respected by the society like most men are? Would this woman be forgiven as easily in the eyes of the world? Would this woman still be considered an idol?

Gender inequality is enmeshed so deep in the fabric of our society that it would take a few generations and some damn strong women and some very secure and evolved men to push the process of bringing about a change to a stage where change in viewpoint actually becomes a norm.

To understand it further, let’s see who made these statements or who are the people in question here:

The first statement is made by Mr Bachchan senior. He has a massive fan following because he is a brilliant actor. He also has people’s respect.

My question: Could a woman have given this statement and walked away with the same amount of respect and love and adulations and idol worship by the society?

The second statement was made about Late Mr Raj Kapoor. He is considered a great showman. his contributions in the world of cinema are immense. People love him. That’s getting his due for his talent. Respect.

Now, he in his personal life had many affairs and hardly made any efforts to hide them. Inspite of all this, his wife always remained by his side. So, people respect her. Because she stood by her husband.

Now the question is, would a woman be getting her fair share of dues had she lived a life to that tune? Would her talent be still looked at objectively? Would her husband be admired for standing by her or the society would have laughed at a man who still sticks to his marriage and his wife inspite of her straying tendencies?

The last statement is made by Sanjay Dutt. In the movie Sanju, this whole unraveling of the number scene is dealt with a streak of comedy. Just wondering would the audience find humour in a scene where a woman in a light hearted manner divulged the number of men she has slept with and also confesses she cant remember the exact number? Would a movie be made on a woman, defending her stand, portraying her as a good at heart human being at the same time being unapologetic about the number of times and people she has had sex with?

This is the entitlement and superiority that most men are used to having. This phenomenon exists all over the world. But, should it? The sad part is, we are so conditioned right from the childhood that unless we are taught to question stereotypes and think out of the box, the societal conditioning is too strong to ignore and too woven in the fabric of the norms to get noticed. It would take immense awareness and a tendency to ask questions and challenge norms to bring about a shift in the mindsets.

So, next time if something feels not-so-right, a joke seems a bit inappropriate, a statement made by someone feels not in harmony with basic human equality and respect, just stop and think. Put a finger on what made you uncomfortable, identify the stereotype and then, QUESTION. Till the time questions are not asked, change would not come. So, question anything that disturbs you on a humane level.

Lets be aware, be alert and be sensitive so that gender equality is not just a concept as per the law but an actual reality in the hearts and minds of the masses.

Thought snippets ~ 1

Our society encourages a woman to have an identity that depends on the relationships she has in life.

Wife of, Mother of, Daughter of.

Some of these roles are so over glorified that they almost become sacred. This indirectly further limits a woman’s freedom to these roles.

It seems the whole system conspires to take away the individuality of a woman.

But, why?

What would happen if women broke the shackles? If women are known first for who they are and then seen in context to the relationships they hold?

I think that would result in an insecure bunch of people questioning their own worth because too many people right now are feeding off of this attitude towards women and trying their best to make women believe they are lesser than the other sex.

Just Stories

I work in the non profit sector. The organisation I work for is a NGO working in the field of education.

The work it does cannot be defined in a sentence or two or written under some “heads”. To be brief, the organisation works with the marginalised community in the field of education.

Working in NGOs and especially in the field of education and not under some fancy heads like “skills” or “livelihood “ etc, one thing that is very hard for us is securing funds for the school that we run.

There are a number of reasons as to why we find it very difficult to find funders. One, the CSR scenario has changed drastically over the past couple of years making it an extraordinarily tedious task to crack it and two, marketing is the need of the hour around which old school organisations find hard to wrap their heads.

To be frank, the insecurity, the sleepless nights thinking about the funds and the hard work are all now a part and parcel of the fabric of the organisation.

There have been months when people have worked without salaries, worked on half their salaries or worked under extreme uncertainty. For some, this might be a relatively easy choice to make but for those who are the sole earning members in their families, who are responsible for providing a certain lifestyle to others, it is a huge step.

The fundings that we do get are from people or organisations who come and visit us, see our work, understand as well as accept that this work would be hard to describe based on indicators or set heads.

Often when we have guests coming over or people trying to find some CSR activities that can be done in our organisation ( mostly in the months from Jan-March) and after looking at our campus, at our groups, understanding how our approach is different from the main stream, what we believe in, they ask us a question that we almost never have a straight answer to. I have in the last 4 years not been able to articulate an answer to this question. I dont know how to approach the answer when people ask us to give details of some success stories.

The world right now is a fancy place to be in. There are terms, there is a specific terminology, there are a set of catch words which if used, can ensure funds and attention and also, with these aspects, there is an increasing scarcity of understanding and recognising ideas.

A lot of organisations in social sector are based on ideas, conviction in the ideas and a lot of patience and hard work to implement those ideas the results of which cannot be measured or “seen” within a quarter of a year or in one financial year. To such organisations, success stories actually mean something very different.

How do i describe the moment in a picture in a report when a girl child of our school successfully negotiated with her parents and postponed her marriage so that she could study for 2 more years? How do I describe the feeling when a mother trusted our teachers so much that she smuggled her daughter out everyday out of the back yard door to appear for exams because the men of the family were against it and guarding the front gates? Can I say when my children in the class amongst themselves reach a conclusion that eating beef or pork is a personal choice and doesn’t make a human being bad or evil, it is a success story? When a four year old stands straight in the Saturday assembly and talks clearly what she wants and puts forward her problems with a 13 year old, isn’t that a success story? The girls who studied with us and are now married are aware and extremely driven to make their girls educated and have a say in their family about this, does this come under the category of a success story? When a group of girls forced us to have higher classes and on their own managed to get their parents consent to study further and completed their school education, how is that as a success story? A woman in an orthodox rural setting who has studied in our school comes to meet us in the office and in front of her husband says she would not be having more than 3 children, I think its an inspiring success story. But for the “market”, is it?

The organisation I work for believes every person has a right to quality education that would make him/her a rational being who is able to contribute as an informed autonomous citizen of this country and the world. Can this be measured? Can this have an “outcome” that can be put on paper? Can this have “indicators” and on a scale measure our success? Probably not.

So, when someone asks me to tell them about our success stories, personally for me it is a moment where all these and many more incidents rush through my mind and I then try and explain how we see such instances and moments.

We have met a lot of warm people in this journey who understood what we are trying to say and even if not monetarily, get interested and involved in our work on a personal level. We have also met a large number of people who in as many words said these aren’t really the success stories that they are looking for.

Success stories now a days consist of someone who has been able to secure a career or score extraordinary marks in exams or goes abroad to study. All this is a result of hard work and dedication and I am in no way denying or doubting that. What I am trying to ask here is, why are the success stories being limited to the areas of competition, career and money? Is a person who is not “winning” or competing in anything but making informed balanced fair rational choices in life not successful? And if s/he is, why aren’t stories of this person not worth telling? Also, can an idea be measured only on the basis of being successful or unsuccessful? If a person goes halfway, understands the essence of an idea but has not been able to change things completely, is that person a part of the world of success stories?

Now I come to my final question. Why success stories? Why not just stories? All stories related to the idea or work we are talking about. Aren’t all stories worth telling? Or listening to?

Lacy lingerie and Consent

#ThisIsNotConsent is the brand new hashtag in town and another reason to feel ashamed and angered at the world and the way it perceives a woman and her choices.

I read this news a day prior to actually writing about it. My first reaction was of anger and that continues to be the strongest emotion I feel about the whole thing.

In the southern city of Cork, Ireland, during the hearing of a rape trial a female defence lawyer showed the courtroom a pair of women’s thongs that a 17 year old rape victim was wearing and had the audacity to label the choice of wearing fancy lingerie as “asking for it” and “consent”.

The actual words spoken by Ms O’Connell were:

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,”

It’s difficult for any sane person to even wrap their heads around such flawed, sexist and misogynistic logic.

Why cant a woman dress up in sexy lingeries for herself? Why does the choices a woman makes make her responsible for the way the world and especially men are going to react to it? How on earth does consent come from wearing fancy lacy lingerie?

As a female, I have always loved wearing fancy lingerie. A lot of us love doing that! We dont do it for anyone. I do it for me. For my happiness. Its a choice we make for us.

The notion that women’s lingerie and her choices of it are for a man alone is the most sexist line of thought i have ever come across.

Somehow, people miss out on a very important factor in any woman’s life and that being, being herself and being the owner of her body and choices and being damn proud of it all.

I remember while shopping for my hospital bag in the last stage of my pregnancy, I went to a lingerie shop to buy some feeding bras. The salesgirl showed me brassieres in whites and skin colour. I asked her to show some good colours and she told me what would those be needed for. Now the thing that I was trying to do during my pregnancy was to control my anger. It took me 10 not-so-slow-breaths to gain stability and tell the girl to just show me what i had asked for. Long story short, i didn’t find any good post delivery lingerie there so I ordered them online. But, the salesgirl’s statement and the shop’s ignorance and mentality about lingerie is something i’ll always remember.

The way female bodies and the body choices are perceived are sickening. Is the female body only for a man? Does a female dress up only for men? Does wearing good lingerie mean trying hard to impress a man?

How on earth all the things that a woman does are supposed to lead to either finding a good man or keeping a man happy or trying to attract a man? What gave the world the false notion that men are more important that a woman’s individuality?

Where the hell is the notion of a woman enjoying herself? Being herself? exercising her choices? WITHOUT BEING JUDGED?

When would the victim shaming stop? In how many cases has a man’s underwear colour been brought up as an “evidence” in a court of law? In how many cases a man is blamed for venturing out “too late” in the night? In how many cases has a man’s open shirt buttons pointed out as giving signals and depicting he’s open for sexual advances?

When would this filth clear from people’s minds?

A woman says yes when she wants sex. A woman says no when she doesn’t. Is the world that deaf that it doesnt hear a No and that insane that it “hears” a panty more than it cares to hear out an actual living, breathing woman?

Shame!

Too touchy now, are we?

Interesting thing about religious sentiments getting hurt is, these sentiments dont focus on an individual but focus on how someone else around the individual is living their life their way in a manner that offends and “hurts the religious sentiments” of the person who had no business of getting hurt in the first place.

Like:

A few years ago, for a Jain festival, it was urged that meat shops in Jaipur should be closed. Why? Because it would hurt the religious sentiments of those who dont eat meat.

Beef ban and the taboo around cow’s meat is another example. Guess it “hurts” so much that people are ready to kill others. I mean, such depth of emotions!

Selling of pork in some areas hurt the sentiments of a certain section. Simple question: are they being forced to eat pork? If not, its none of their business!

Playing high volume bhajans in temples in the name of “astha” for even those who dont want to hear them. Say something and a lot of hurt people would be willing to physically hurt you.

Loud praying 5 times a day even though now everyone has their personal clocks to know and see when its prayer time. Again, pointing that out seems to hurt people enough to hurt other people.

Water pollution after visarjans. Hurting the eco system is okay but stopping it is hurting the sentiments of so many. And that it seems, is not okay!

Road blocks for prayers. Question it and it comes down to not letting people exercise their religious freedom. Oh yeah? What about those who simply want freedom? Their rights hurt the rights of the religious, eh?

Interesting,right? How all the above points interfere with someone else’s life and lifestyle in the name of religion.

And religious beliefs, more than anything else, should be personal and not forced upon others.

The common thing here is, the tendency to assert , to establish, to challenge, to interfere with someone else’s life and routine in the name of God and respecting that God.

Why no mention of respecting the choice to live peacefully without being forced to be a part of some religious force?

Does the though hurt the “hurt”? Just asking.

For justice

Consent as a concept is as alien to people as stopping at red traffic lights is to Indian.

When we speak about consent, it means just two things. Loud and clear, plain and simple :

1. No means no

2. Yes means yes

The recent #MeToo movement has gained immense momentum across the world. There are women who have come forward with their stories, there are women who have re visited the horror and the trauma that sexual violence brings with it, there are women who have finally addressed the elephant in the room and that itself is a step forward.

This movement has given a platform to women and their voices that was amiss even in this time and age.

The movement and the sheer guts of these women who have come forward and spoken the hard truth have made figures like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein crumble and reduce to dust.

As in Hollywood, this movement is gaining momentum in India as well. Be it with Tanushree Dutta speaking again about Nana Patekar or actresses coming forward with complaints about Rajat Kapoor and Vikas Bahl or Gursimran Khamba and Tanmay Bhatt stepping down from their positions in AIB.

Anything that takes place and effects masses is often accompanied with some trends. Out of the many, two trends here are interesting to see:

1. Blaming the complainant and character assassination.

2. Believing the woman just because she is a woman.

To my mind, both these approaches take away the objectivity and the fairness from the case in point.

People are supporting Nana Patekar because he works for the welfare of farmers in Maharashtra, because he is a “senior” artist, because he is aligned with a particular political party. People in the same breath are shaming Tanushree Dutta, asking if the scenes with Emran Hashmi were okay, why did she not feel comfortable with Nana touching her ?

What people are missing here is “consent”. The simple fact that a woman might want to be touched or be physically involved as many times as she likes but the times when she says No, its non negotiable. And this, is probably beyond comprehension for many. Because a woman gave consent previously doesn’t mean she has to give consent every single time. Thats the whole point of coining a concept and word like Consent, right?

Another thing that people bring up to shame the complainant is, why were they silent for so long? The simple thing is, sometimes people dont realise they have been violated, sometimes they are scared and sometimes they dont have a platform to speak from. So shaming and rejecting a woman’s claims for her clothes, choice of partners, number of partners, making out scenes on screen and silence is not looking at right or wrong, its simply finding ways to justify our own lopsided judgement.

Coming to believing something because of the gender of the complainant, it is as detrimental to the case as shaming the complainant because of her life choices. An anonymous written statement about a man should be enough to cost him his job, respect and work? Can a picture of a man along with a written account of his supposed ill behaviour be enough grounds to brand a man as a harasser? That is the reason why #BelieveSurvivors is flawed at so many levels. More appropriate stand would be to #ListenToTheSurviviors. Everything cannot be brushed under the carpet of sexual harassment, every misbehaviour isn’t violation of consent. A man might be mighty rude but that doesnt make him sexually oppressive. Similarly, a man might be smooth as butter but might be a sexual offender. Two different things. Separated by a thin line.

What the social media and different social groups are doing is, they are aligning themselves with gender, positions, choices, ideologies and ignoring the only thing that matters in all the cases and that being, the truth.

Every woman who comes forward has the right to speak, complain and put allegations on a person . As a society we need to support their effort, make sure their voices are not muffled and they are not silenced.

Every man who is in question should also be listened to, given a chance to say his piece and not be judged without knowing his side of the story.

Lets not forget one thing. It was never about men vs women, it was never a war of the genders. It was and should be only about justice. And any injustice denied to any man or woman should be strongly condemned.