“Tree Plantations Are Not The Solution To Climate Change”

 [Everyone loves planting trees, but do they really have the desired impact? I write in YouthKiAwaaz.]

June 5th was World Environment Day, and my social media feed was full of photographs of people planting trees to commemorate it. Planting trees is a great photo op, and it is undeniable that you get a dopamine high when you plant the sapling, shovel earth to cover the hole and sprinkle water on it. I have loved doing it myself too. 

However, how many of the people planting trees take adequate measures to ensure that the saplings survive? Merely planting trees is not enough. They have to be watered regularly for a few months till the roots go deep enough for the trees to be able to fend for themselves. Saplings planted after the onset of the monsoon might survive even without watering, but given how unpredictable the showers can be, back-up arrangements should be put in place.

The saplings need to be protected from goats, sheep, cows and other herbivorous animals which love the tender shoots of new plants. Even if the saplings survive long enough to establish themselves, they are often planted so close to each other, none of them attain their proper shape or girth. Though it has been estimated that only about 40% of saplings planted in mass tree plantation drives survive, we continue to focus on planting new trees.

From an environmental perspective, planting trees, especially on World Environment Day or as a part of a green challenge, is largely tokenism.

What Are The Environmental Challenges We Face Today?

The two greatest environmental challenges that we face today are climate change and loss of bio-diversity, and planting new trees does little to address either issue.

How do trees help reverse climate change?

Climate Change is the blanket term used to define long term shifts in temperature and weather conditions caused due to the increase in the concentration of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. This is caused primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels, and it can be addressed through a two pronged strategy- reducing the use of fossil fuels and removing the carbon di oxide already present in the atmosphere. The rationale given for planting trees is that they absorb carbon di oxide from the atmosphere and sequester it in their trunks.

What we choose to ignore is the fact that when a lone tree is felled or dies due to natural causes, the trunk is exposed to the atmosphere and the sequestered carbon is soon returned to it. In forests, on the other hand, when a tree falls, it gets covered up by vegetation and foliage which traps the carbon di oxide under its layers and prevents it from being returned to the atmosphere. Therefore, planting individual trees does not help much because it is only in forests that the carbon that is sequestered in trees is permanently taken out of the atmosphere.

How do trees contribute to increased bio-diversity?

Most of the saplings used in tree plantation are of non-native trees, some of which are even invasive. A few years back, for instance, Conocarpus was extremely popular because it was fast growing and could be used to “green” an area in a very short time. However, the pollen from the tree causes respiratory ailments, its roots often invade water pipes, and it is not conducive to supporting any biodiversity.

It is now been recognized as a pest, and new plantations are discouraged. Similarly, the “wet bulb” effect which makes summers in the Deccan appear hotter than they are, is partially caused by the proliferation of non-native trees which transpire more than the trees which normally grow in the region.

More importantly, a group of trees alone cannot replicate a forest. Forests take decades to develop, and they include not just the trees, but the mosses and lichens, the shrubs and creepers, and the insects, reptiles, birds and mammals which depend on the forest for their food and habitat. It is unlikely that trees planted as a part of a plantation drive will grow into a forest.

Eucalyptus is a tree that is often planted in large numbers as a part of afforestation or compensatory forestation drives. While the straight rows of eucalyptus trees may look pleasing aesthetically, they are disastrous from an environmental perspective. The trees do not support much biodiversity, and since most of them are destined to be chopped down to feed paper factories, they do not permanently sequester carbon either.

The need of the hour is to protect existing trees and forests

Even if planting trees doesn’t make much of an impact from the environmental persepctive, isn’t it better to plant trees than to not plant trees? On the face of it, one would be tempted to agree. However, when we plant trees, we get lulled into complacency and feel we are doing something for the environment, while in fact we are not.

Instead of planting trees to commemorate various “days”, we should pledge to protect the existing trees and forests everyday. We should vehemently oppose the cutting down of decades old trees and forests in the name of ‘development’. While politicians and government authorities try to present a binary where protecting the environment comes in the way of development, it does not have to be a binary. With careful planning, it is possible to design development projects which do not have an adverse impact on the environment. However, this will happen only if a sufficient number of people start demanding that existing trees and forests shouldn’t be indiscriminately felled in the name of development.

Instead of merely planting new trees, let us also cherish and document the existing ones. About a year back, I started geo tagging old and mature trees. The trees are now on Google maps, and the first tree I tagged has received more than a thousand views. If we similarly document trees in our neighbourhood, we leave a record of the giants who give us so much.

I am certainly not making a case against tree plantation. I have planted many trees myself, most of them in honour of someone I lost as a way of keeping their memory alive.

All I am saying is that even while planting trees, let us not get lulled into the false belief that by planting trees we are doing our bit to save the planet. To truly save the planet, we need to do a lot more than just planting trees.

[The author is not an expert, and these are opinions she has gathered by reading various books and articles. Please do point out errors, if any.]

‘Water in a Broken Pot’ is a memoir we must all read

 “Water in a Broken Pot” is the memoir of Yogesh Maitreya, who is a poet, writer, translator and the founder of Panter’s Paw Publications, which is devoted to publishing literature by Dalit- Bahujan writers. The book chronicles his experiences of pain, loneliness, depravation, alienation, and the growing political consciousness of his caste identity. Maitreya is a person who refuses to fit in and do what is expected of him. His is a search for self, and for asserting his identity in a system which continues to be casteist and exclusionary.

Throughout the book, the author keeps returning to the idea of stories, and how a casteist society denies Dalits the right to their stories. He says his family history is like a broken pot- many shards are missing, and no matter how hard he tries, the family story will never be fully replicated. He talks about his own memories of growing up- “So I have my own memories… my only clue and bridge to my story…. Memory is the only possession that one can take away from a Dalit; otherwise caste-society has the heinous power to make a Dalit forget who they are because they are made to hate themselves.”

During his childhood, he was very close to his father, and they enjoyed watching Bollywood movies. Those were the days of the Angry Young Man, and perhaps his father identified with the hero who was fighting for justice. It was only much later that the author realised that Dalits were invisible in those movies, and that in reality the might of the system was used to crush vocal Dalit voices.

As he grew older, he recognised that his father, like many other Dalits, sought escape in alcohol, and that he took out the frustration of being rendered invisible in the world on his wife. The author’s struggle is to be different from his father- to carve his own identity and to ensure that his voice was heard.

His relationship with women is similarly complex. He has passionate long term relationships with more than one savarna woman, but in each of them, while the woman is willing to invest emotionally and physically in the relationship, there is a reluctance to take it forward. In each case, she takes adequate precautions to ensure that her family does not know about her relationship with a Dalit man, and caste is perhaps the reason for them breaking up. This is symptomatic of inter-caste relationships in India- very few stand the test of time- and as long as it remains socially unacceptable for a savarna (or OBC) woman to marry a Dalit man, we cannot claim that caste has no relevance in our lives.

One of the most poignant passages in the book is when his grandmother dies, and he writes-

Non-Dalits may find it unbelievable, but death for Dalits is metaphorical. An “Untouchable” never existed as a person worthy of respect from society or recognised as a mind. He was simply invisible, except when his labour was extracted, exploited and used for free….. Not existing for others, not being recognised by others, is a condition of simply not being extant. It is in this sense that death is metaphorical for Dalits…. Suffice to say, that as long as the caste system will prevail, physical death for Dalits will always remain metaphorical. Their actual death lies in an inability to be in text, or transform into a text as a story, memory and history.

It is this erasure from history that the author has dedicated his life to fighting. As a poet, as a writer, as a translator and as a publisher, he is doing all he can to ensure that the dreams, aspirations, and reality of the Dalits is documented. Their search for an identity that will accord them the self respect that they deserve, and which has been denied to them by a society built on caste lines.

Why is it important for savarnas to read Yogesh Maitreya’s memoir?

Many well-meaning savarnas believe that the emancipation of Dalits lies in economic prosperity. We recognise that most Dalits do not have access to the education, the role models and the networks that others have access to, and we like to believe that once these inequities are removed, over the course of a few generations, Dalits will no longer remain an oppressed community. However, Yogesh Maitreya reminds us that the problem is far more deep seated- it is the invisiblisation of Dalits that is the problem. Till we start seeing Dalits as equal human beings, and not as units of production, there can never be justice. Dalits deserve to be treated with the same respect as anyone else, and this memoir reminds us that it can only happen with the total annihilation of caste.

[I received an ARC of the book, however my review contains my honest opinion.]

How Manosphere is Radicalizing Young Men

[First published in Women’s Web as Why Andrew Tate’s unprovoked attack on Greta Thunberg shows growing insecurity in men]

Two days after Christmas, former Kickboxing World Champion and ‘manosphere’ influencer, Andrew Tate decided to take a random dig at environmental activist , Greta Thunberg on Twitter-

“Hello Greta Thunberg. I have 33 cars. My Bugatti has a w16 8.0L quad turbo. My TWO Ferrari 812 competizione have 6.5L v12s. This is just the start. Please provide your email address so I can send a complete list of my car collection and their respective enormous emissions.”, he tweeted to his 3.4 million followers.

Twenty four hours later, when the unprovoked post started going viral with over 182K likes and 23.8K retweets, Greta Thunberg gave a fitting reply -

“yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com”.

Though both posts had roughly the same number of views, Thunberg’s putdown garnered over 2.5M likes and 500 K retweets, with people calling it the greatest burn of all times.

An enraged Tate then went ballistic. He first responded with “How dare you”, then tried an extremely puerile-

Beyond the smooth comeback, Greta Thunberg maintained a dignified silence, but Tate continued interacting with his fans indicated that Thunberg needed to be f***ed by Tate, and he saying that she wasn’t ready for him yet. All round it was a pathetic display of immature taunting, insecure boasting and gross male entitlement. That the unprovoked taunting and the subsequent meltdowns took place so publicly also opens up a debate on the corrosive influence that such ‘manosphere’ influencers might have on adolescents and young men who are struggling to find their place in the world and articulate their views on gender.

Tate is probably the best known voice in ‘manosphere’, a virtual space where men allegedly talk about “men’s issues” like fitness, dating, relationships, finance, and father’s rights. While all these are important topics and men certainly need a supportive ecosystem where they can discuss them, ‘manosphere’ doesn’t stop at offering guidance and support. The ‘manosphere’ actively promotes an anti-woman and anti-feminist ideology, where establishing the inherent superiority of men seems more important than helping young men negotiate a world which is striving towards gender equity.

Tate, for instance, describes himself as “absolutely a sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist,” and has gone on record saying that women “belong in the home” and that they are “given to the man and belong to the man.” He promotes a lifestyle that promotes the traditional form of masculinity which describes the male as protector, provider and patriarch, and restricts the role of woman to property which exists only to serve the man. He has, in the past, been removed from a reality show after a video surfaced of him hitting a woman, and he was recently de-platformed from many social media platforms for his extreme misogynistic views. Parents and educators are concerned about the growing popularity of ‘manosphere’ influencers like Andrew Tate, and have expressed their fear that by endorsing male superiority, they are radicalizing young men and challenging the struggle towards gender equity.

With more women asserting their right to greater gender parity at home and in the workplace, men are starting to feel that they are in danger of losing their social status and privilege. The demand for equality challenges privilege, and instead of embracing a more equitable world, many young men are starting to believe that feminism is a part of a global assault on masculinity. ‘Manosphere’ influencers like Andrew Tate work on the insecurities of these men and convince them that feminism will ensure they are emasculated, disposable, disrespected, discarded or even forgotten. They then radicalise the men with their clarion call towards reclaiming their “lost” masculinity and reasserting masculine sexual, physical and emotional authority over women.

This is an extremely worrying phenomenon, because in the guise of empowering them, ‘manosphere’ influencers like Tate are actually radicalising young men. Young men are being taught that it is weak to express emotions, that they are failures unless they have a subservient girlfriend, and that ‘real men’ have the right to exercise coercive control and inflict sexual and physical abuse on women. These radicalised young men feel threatened when women (and men) speak of gender equity, and perceive women’s empowerment as an erosion of their masculine superiority. For them, feminists are the enemy and feminism is ideology to be fought. Their belief of male dominance and female subservience is at odds with the quest for gender parity.

The ‘manosphere’ ideology can only be countered by a two-pronged approach.

Social media platforms should actively prevent the dissemination of problematic views expressed by Tate and other ‘manosphere’ influencers like him. While one can argue that censoring certain kind of content goes against the premise of free speech, it must be realised that freedom of expression cannot extend to hate speech, and extreme misogyny is a form of hate speech. Routine offenders like Tate should be de-platformed, and the reach of their old videos should be restricted.

In the long term, however, the only counter is through behaviour change communications. It is not sufficient that girls and women are empowered, it is equally important to enable boys and men to find their place in a society moving towards greater gender equity.

In a gender just world, men and women are the natural allies of each other. Young men should be empowered to understand that while it may appear that their privileges are being taken away, in reality, equity will enable people of all genders to be themselves instead of being forced to confirm to gender demarcated roles.

While Twitterati largely swooned over Greta Thunberg and the befitting response she gave Andrew Tate when he launched an unprovoked attack on her, his core group of followers still enjoyed how he “put her in her place”. This radicalisation of young men is not healthy, and needs to be recognised and countered.

“Thank you for confirming via your email address that you have a small penis. The world was curious. And I do agree you should get a life”, while also releasing a video of himself smoking a cigar and describing Thunberg as “a slave to the Matrix”

Dear 16 year old Self

 [I am enough of a nerd to worry that communicating with my younger self might potentially rip the fabric of space-time. However, how could I not pass on some lessons to my sixteen year old self. Written for Women’s Web.]

Dear Sixteen Year Old Natasha,

I am your future self, and I am writing to tell you enough to save you a little bit of heartache, without telling you so much that we may end up ripping the fabric of time.

As you prepare diligently for your Board Exams, I know you have your life planned in meticulous detail for the next 10 years. You know exactly which subjects you are going to study in Plus Two and University. You have decided which University/ies you are going to go to for your undergrad, post grad and doctorate. While you have not yet decided where you will do your post-doctoral research, you have a fairly good idea of where that may be. You are well on track to achieve your dreams, and you are willing to put in the effort needed to get to where you want to go.

I salute your single-minded dedication; and yet I worry. Not everything is in our control. Plans get derailed. Life throws curveballs at us. Hard work and perseverance may not always get you what you want. Sometimes, what you think you want is not the right thing for you. Be open to re-evaluating your priorities. Be willing to change your plans.

Instead attempting to chart out every detail of your life, set the general direction of where you want to go, and embrace what life throws at you. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, you may not go where you intended to go, but you will end up where you need to be.

[Speaking of Douglas Adams, do read ‘Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’. His brand of science fiction is not the same as your beloved Issac Asimov’s, but you will certainly enjoy it.]

Not to give too much away, but do not let yourself become too comfortable doing whatever you are doing. You may convince yourself that you are deliriously happy, and do not want to change, but maybe you are just fearful of trying something new? Change is good- do not shy away from it.

Be open to taking calculated risks. If you wait till you have all the information you need before taking a decision, you may end up missing out on opportunities which let you grow. Trust your intuition. Know that if things don’t work out the way you planned, you can always start afresh.

But when you walk away, do not look back in regret. Perhaps the failure was meant to teach you something which you will only realise much later. Like they say, the past cannot be undone, but looking back can ruin a perfectly good future.

Always be open to learning and growing. You have good genes. Your grandmother who never studied beyond grade 5 taught herself English and Hindi after marriage, and is, even now, teaching herself to read and write Kannada. Remember how your grandfather asked you to teach him the binary system of nomenclature- it didn’t matter to him that he was a scientist with a sting of academic papers to his name and you a mere 5th grader- you knew something he didn’t know, and he asked you to teach him. Be like your grandparents- question what you have taken for granted, engage in discussions with people you disagree with, be willing to admit that you were wrong if you are wrong. One day, what will give you greatest pleasure is having your children (yes, you will become a mother someday, though you haven’t planned that far ahead yet) teach you something you never knew.

I know you wonder why you aren’t able to make and keep friends like others your age do. While you don’t envy the popular girls, you think there is something wrong with you because you seem incapable of meaningful friendships. You think you are a misfit. A bit of a freak.

You are not!

You are just an introvert in a world designed by extroverts. Understand that you are different, that normal extrovert things are not for you. Understand that what is a joy for others may fill you will dread. You are an introvert who has learnt to fake it so convincingly that even you do not realise that many of the issues you face are simply because introverts and extroverts react differently to situations.

I know you don’t let people get too close to you, because you are worried they may end up hurting you. But that also means you miss out on friendships that may enrich you. Let people into your life. Some of them will end up hurting you, but overall, it will be worth it.

None of the things I told you till now will significantly change the course of your life- they are things you will learn sooner or later. All that I have done is reduce the heartache you might feel till you come to the decisions that you will eventually come to. But this one thing is different- it will significantly alter how you look at life and how you conduct yourself. I cannot wait for you to discover this on your own because it will take you more than three decades to get there, and we do not have the luxury of inaction- understand Feminism, and be a Feminist.

As a teenager in the late 1980s, you think it is fashionable to declare that you are not a feminist. You think that feminists are bra-burning militant creatures demanding special rights for women, while you are a person who is believes in claiming her place in the world through hard work. What you do not realise is that you have bought into the myth perpetrated by a patriarchal society.

You live in a society which expects a woman to continue to perform her traditional roles while also working in a job as demanding as a man’s. That is not right- both men and women should shoulder the burdens of caregiving, childcare and housework. Over time you will come to realise that it is not sufficient that you be as good as a man; you need to prove that you are much better than the men. You will face discrimination. You will have hurdles put in your path. The way to overcome them is not by ignoring it and working doubly hard to prove yourself worthy- you must first acknowledge the discrimination and then push for a more equitable system.

As a female professional in a predominantly male profession, you will feel the need to be “one of the boys”. You will try to buy your acceptance by laughing at misogynistic jokes and ignoring the discomfort you may feel with some of the men. Don’t! Call out those jokes. Explain why it is wrong to objectivise women. Demand that all women be treated with respect.

Educate yourself on the gender wage gap. Push for a more equitable work environment. Do not look the other way when you witness sexual harassment. Find allies for the gender equity among your male colleagues and friends.

Feminism is deeply rooted in the ideals of equity and justice. Take pride in calling yourself a feminist.

Above all, smile. Find joy in little things.

And get that dog.

Lots of love,

Your 51 year old self

Women in Academia are extremely vulnerable

[First published in Women's Web as St Xavier’s University Kolkata Allegedly Slut-Shames Woman Professor Over An Instagram Story]

A 30 year old Associate Professor at a well-known University, according to an FIR filed by her, was forced to resign because the father of one of her students complained that he found his son looking at photographs of her, which according to him were “objectionable” and “bordering on nudity”.

There are two aspects to this case, which are equally disturbing, and which together make me question where we are heading as a society.

When the father of an 18 year old finds his son looking at photographs of a lady in a swimsuit, he can do many things. What this parent does is to dash off a letter to the University which states:

“Recently, I was appalled to find my son looking at some pictures of Prof. [Guha*] where she has posed in a sexually explicit way causing deliberate public exposure. …[this] is utterly shameful for me as a parent, since I have tried to shield my son from this kind of gross indecency and objectification of the female body. It is obscene, vulgar and improper for a 18 year old student to see his professor dressed in scanty clothes exhibiting her body on a public platform.”

First, the photograph was not on a public platform. The photograph had been posted on a private account on Instagram where it was visible for 24 hours to a tightly controlled audience. The only way the son could have accessed the photographs was if he had sent the Professor a ‘follow’ request which she accepted, or by hacking into her account. If the former, he had reached out to her. If the latter, he is guilty of a cyber-crime. In either case, the Professor cannot be blamed for the fact that her student was ogling at her photographs.

Second, the father says that he has “tried to shield my son from this kind of gross indecency and objectification of the female body”. If we accept this statement at face value, then clearly the parent has failed in his stated duty, since the son had voluntarily sought out content that the parent deems objectionable. To shift the blame to the Professor is just an attempt to cover up what by his own admission is inadequate parenting.

Third, are these the only photographs of “scantily clad” women that the student has gawked at? Surely there must be other women who’s photographs have also come under scrutiny- why then single out the Professor? Don’t teachers have the right to living a personal life? As long as they are competent in their job, and adhere to the workplace code of conduct, how does it matter what clothes they wear and what photographs they post on their private Instagram account?

The reaction of the father smacks of a giant failure in parenting. The child is 18 years old, an adult. Ideally, the father should not be micro-policing what he chooses to do in his spare time. However, this is India, where even people much older are made to feel they are answerable to their parents, random family members and the entire neighbourhood!

The father has caught his child doing something he deems objectionable- instead of holding his son accountable, the father shifts the blame to someone who is not even directly involved in the incident. By writing to the University, and having the Professor removed, the father is sending out the message that his child can behave as irresponsibly as he likes, and the father will always be around to clean up the mess.

The attitude displayed by the University is equally wrong. Ideally, when a frivolous complaint like this was registered, the University should have stood by their staff, and told the father in no uncertain terms that the Professor was engaged to teach, and what she did in her personal life was nobody’s business. Even if the University has a code of conduct which does not permit its staff to put up photographs on their private Instagram accounts, knowing that the Professor had joined only two months earlier, the University should have first asked her when the photograph was uploaded before launching an investigation that ended in her dismissal. In this particular case, the photograph was put up on Instagram stories in June 2021, and the Professor joined the University only in August 2021. Since Instagram stories are visible only for 24 hours, at the time of joining, there were no photographs that could be deemed “objectionable” on the Internet, unless the account had been hacked into and photographs downloaded.

By proceeding with an investigation on photographs taken and uploaded before the Professor even joined the University, they have also set a precedent which leaves women vulnerable to blackmail. Now, any acquaintance who has photographs or videos which are even remotely compromising can threaten to use it to against women in similar positions.

The manner in which the investigation was conducted also exposes how vulnerable women are to harassment in the workplace. According to the FIR filed by the Professor, printouts of the photographs which the parent deemed objectionable were circulated among by the committee members, which included two men. When a woman posts a photograph online, particularly if it is in a tightly controlled private group, it does not mean she is giving consent to the photographs being printed and passed around in another setting. By doing so, the University was invading her privacy, and putting her in an extremely vulnerable position. As she says, “It is a mystery to me till date how the university accessed those pictures. I felt so distressed and humiliated at that moment that I couldn’t bear to examine the rest of the pictures. I was in a meeting where my private pictures were being circulated among people unknown to me, without my consent.”

The Professor also mentions in her FIR that she was repeatedly slut shamed by the members of the committee, most of whom were unknown to her. Though she was dressed in a swimsuit, the members of the committee repeatedly referred to them as “nude” photographs. She, a grown woman of 30 with two PhDs from foreign universities was infantized and asked if her parents knew about and approved of the photographs. There is a decorum to be maintained while carrying out investigations, so the dignity of the woman is maintained, but that was clearly not followed by the University.

More than anything else, this incident exposes how vulnerable women in Academia are. Students and researchers have made allegations of sexual harassment against male professors who were in a position of power over them. Yet, years later, despite those allegations not being properly investigated, those professors continue to hold their positions and are treated as respected professionals. Yes, a woman is slut shamed for sharing photographs of herself with a tightly controlled group of people for a 24 hour period, and is forced to resign because someone who shouldn’t even have access to the photographs made a complaint against her.

This case, if not properly investigated and resolved, can have wide reaching implications for Women, particularly Women in Academia, and each of us should be extremely concerned about it, and should keep raising our voice till the Professor gets justice.

Ranveer Singh's photoshoot should be a non-issue

 [First published in Women's Web]

Stop at any roadside dhaba on the highway early in the morning, and you are sure to come across hirsute men clad in nothing more than a hitched-up lungi and a toothbrush going about their daily ablutions with utter nonchalance. If you stumble upon them, you are the one who backs away in agitation or confusion, muttering barely audible apologies. They, in their partial nakedness, are at home in public. You are the one intruding on their territory.

India is a country where the sight of topless men in public and semi public place is normalised. The neighbour who opens the door when you ring the bell to hand over a couriered parcel. The owner of the kinara store taking a quick nap on the floor in the afternoon. The man who after swimming four laps of the pool stretches out on a deck chair with a mug of beer. The friend who casually takes off his wet shirt after getting drenched in the rain, and remains bare-chested for the rest of the trek.

Men do not think twice before taking off their shirts in public places. Women either back off, or studiously ignore it while completing the transaction they have with the men.

In a country like this, the furore over Ranveer Singh’s photoshoot is rather amusing. The presence of a semi naked male body in public places is certainly not new; what people seem to objecting to is the fact that it is a toned body presented in an aesthetically attractive manner, not a flabby, hirsute one!

Aren’t there more important issues to outrage over than a photoshoot?

The people who argue against Ranveer Singh’s photoshoot say that it goes against their cultural ethos and that they are morally offended by it. Without getting into the details of what constitutes or doesn’t constitute “culture”, I wonder why there is not similar outrage when there are crimes against women? One of the people who filed a legal case against the actor for sharing photographs from the photoshoot on his twitter feed says that she does not want her young daughters to see the photographs and be led astray by it.

I wonder if she is equally outraged by the fact that by conservative estimates one in every three girls is sexually abused at home, often by a relative or a close family friend. Apparently the nation wants its young girls to be protected from the sight of the “bum” of a naked man. But the nation doesn’t care that the same young women are forced to fondle the genitalia of their uncles, cousins and neighbours. Parents do not want their daughters to be titillated by the photograph of an actor, but the same parents protect the relatives and friends who impregnate the same daughters.

Social media allows you to control what you see. Accounts with questionable content can be blocked or muted. Settings can be changed to block images which display excessive nudity or explicit violence. It is much easier to protect impressionable girls and young women from accessing inappropriate content, than to protect them from men who sexually abuse them. Yet, it is a photshoot that we outrage over, not child sexual abuse.

Who decides what is morally offensive?

Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all its citizens, but imposes “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right in the interest of “decency or morality”. Though well meant, this exception is being used to bring in extremely narrow definitions of “decency and morality”, and this is quite a slippery slope to go down. Today, a section of the population decides that a photoshoot by an actor goes against their sense of “decency and morality” and they file a case against him.

What if tomorrow the same people decide that the clothes I wear offend their sense of “decency of morality”. Will the law allow one section of people to dictate how others should dress and how they should conduct themselves? Will tomorrow, a Taliban style ruling be brought which mandates the length of our hemlines and how much cleavage we are permitted to display?

Someone famously said, “your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. Similarly, the right to be morally outraged should end where another individual’s personal freedom is impinged. Just as we do not want others to dictate what we wear, we too should not attempt to curtail what someone else wears (or doesn’t wear).

Should children of an impressionable age be subject to such content?
Children are exposed to a lot of violence, including interactive violence from an extremely young age. Many of the TV shows they watch, including Shin Chan, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle and even our desi Chota Bheem, encourage bullying and violence. The games they play on laptops, tablets and smart phones, are games that involve shooting, fighting and blowing up people and structures.

Despite putting parental settings in place, from a very young age, children can access that is sexual or violent in nature. The only way to ensure that children are not ‘let astray’ is by giving them a solid moral foundation and spending sufficient time with them to ensure that they are able to put the content they consume in the proper perspective.

Given all the content at their disposal, children of an “impressionable age” are unlikely to even come across Ranveer Singh’s photographs, much less be influenced by it.

To sum up, there are many other issues that could and should occupy our mind space much more than aesthetically shot photographs of an attractive actor.

In case of Women's Safety, Life imitates Art

[First published in Women's Web] 

A young couple who were sitting on a bed, presumably kissing, pull apart when the door flings open and four friends walk into the room. “Shot mara lagta hai”, says one. “Haan maara”, replies the boy who is with the girl. “Ab hamari baari”, says the first, striding purposefully towards the girl. She stares in fear and horror till he reaches for a bottle of deodorant and sprays it on himself.

This advertisement has been telecast on prime-time television during cricket matches which are watched by millions of young people. One can argue, as many on and off social media have, that “nothing really happens”, but the intent is very clear. The word “shot” is clearly an innuendo for taking a shot at the girl, and the advertisement plays on ideas of gang rape. It plays on the deepest fears of women- while indulging in a consensual sexual activity, the last thing she wants is for her partners friends to barge in and take their turn with her.

On the same day when netizens took to twitter to protest against the advertisement, another terrifying incident from Hyderabad made headlines.

A 17 year old girl who was returning home from a party was gangraped by a group of teenagers who had either attended the same party, or who offered her a lift while she was waiting to get home. Though details of the crime have not been released, if CCTV footage is to be believed, the incident happened in daylight, and the victim was on familiar terms with at least one of the perpetrators. Clearly, she didn’t think she was in danger when she got into the car, or she would not have gone with them. Yet, not one, but multiple teenagers sexually assaulted her and the incident was so traumatic that she didn’t even realise it was rape till she spoke to trained social workers and counsellors a few days after the event.

There is a clear co-relation between the two incidents. Both involve teenagers- one female and five male. In both, there was some element of consent on the part of the girl, but the boys presumed that since she had consented to a bit, they had the right to do much more. The emotions portrayed by the girl in the advertisement would have been exactly the same as the girl experienced in the real life incident. The only difference is in the real life incident, the boys finished what was implied in the in advertisement.

The advertisement didn’t spring from a vacuum. It was conceptualised by someone in the creatives department of the advertising agency, approved by account management department and presented to the client. The client approved it. The script was written, the actors hired, the film shot and edited. Someone in the television network must have the seen the movie before airing it. Clearly a long chain of individuals, none of whom thought to call the advertisement out for the allusions that promote gang rape.

That the client, the advertising agency and the network knew exactly what they were implying is clear from the other advertisement for the same product. A young woman is pushing a shopping cart in a supermarket when four men come behind her, stand menacingly and say, “We are four and there is only one. So who will take the shot?”, before grabbing the bottle of deo and spraying it on themselves. A supermarket with it’s CCTV coverage should be a safe place for women, but there is palpable fear on the face of the woman- she is clearly terrified of what might happen to her when she steps out of the supermarket weighed down with shopping bags.

Both the advertisements certainly propagate the idea of gang rape. They play on the paralysing fear that grips women whenever they find themselves alone surrounded by men. In both advertisements, the remark of “taking a shot” is addressed to the woman, even if it eventually turns out that it is directed at a bottle of deo. The advertisements normalise making women feel unsafe and insecure, and they create an environment where men do not think it is wrong to “take a shot at a woman”.

In the real life case of the 17 year old who was gang raped, a section of people are indulging in victim blaming- why was she at the party, why was she alone, why did she get into a car with four boys, what was her relationship with them- but none of those questions are valid. Yes, she got into a car with four boys, but she could have been sexually assaulted in a cab also. Even if she was sharing a cab with another girl, one of them would have got off first, and the other would have been alone in the cab with a (male) driver. Even if she was in a relationship with one of the boys, that certainly does not give the other boys the right to sexually assault her. (Importantly, also, the age of consent for women is 18, which is a fact that many couples indulging in consensual sex ignore.)

That the gang rape happened in the manner in which it did is proof that the culture of rape has been normalised to an extent that men think it is their right to make suggestive remarks at women, and to sexually harass them. Consent is something that is unknown to popular media- countless movies, TV shows, music videos, and plays have driven home the message that ‘No’ doesn’t mean ‘no’, ‘No’ only means ‘try harder’

After receiving complaints from netizens, including many Bollywood personalities, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) took note and wrote, "Thank you for tagging us. The ad is in serious breach of the ASCI Code and is against public interest. We have taken immediate action and notified the advertiser to suspend the ad, pending investigation." Despite this, the advertisements are continuing to be aired.

While we know that the advertisements will eventually be taken down, the damage has already been done. One 17-year old has come forward and registered a case of gang-rape. How many more have suffered the same fate, but haven’t come forward we will never know. Until equally strong measures are taken to counter this narrative in unequivocal terms, women will continue living under the fear of sexual harassment or worse.

 

Is Women's Sport more accepting of homosexuality?

[First published in Women's Web]

“Our warmest congratulations to Katherine Brunt & Nat Sciver who got married over the weekend” tweeted England Cricket, the official home of all of the England Cricket teams on Twitter. The two all-rounders who were a part of the team that lifted the World Cup in 2017 and reached the Finals this year, have been a couple for over 5 years, and announced their engagement before the pandemic struck and derailed their plans for a 2020 wedding.

While there were a large number of people who were genuinely happy for the couple, a large part of subcontinent Twitter, quite predictably, had a meltdown. Comments ranged from the innocuous sounding, “both got married on the same day? Where are the husbands?” to the “How they'll have babies?” which presumes that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. There were comments which could have been just smart word play- “Please tell me there was a slip cordon for the bouquet” or “Well, someone certainly bowled a maiden over” (though technically both did)- or may have hinted at worse.

But a large majority of comments (thankfully hidden) were extremely homophobic. The couple were deemed “ugly” and their sex called “unnatural”. They were told that they were sinners and that they would go to hell. There were the comments on how they wanted to convert innocent children to homosexuality, and of how parents should be extremely careful before letting their young daughters play a sport. There were also the comments which spoke of how both of them needed a few nights with “proper” man to sort them out.

This, unfortunately, is the kind of hate all homosexual couples attract. Though homosexuality has been legalised in India, it is still frowned upon and common notion is that it is something that can be “put right”. Lesbian couples, particularly, attract a very different kind of hate from cis-het men who deliberately misconstrue it as “rejecting men”, and also secretly worry about how their position might be eroded if women band together and shut them out.

The subcontinent is known for its homophobia, so it is not a surprise that there are no openly lesbian cricketers from these countries. However, England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have a large number of openly lesbian or bisexual cricketers. It is hard to believe that it was barely a decade back, in 2013, that the Australian cricketing great Alex Blackwell became the first person to come out as openly lesbian. At that time, she had been dating England’s Lynsey Askew for several years, and they got married to each other in 2015.

Following Blackwell coming out as lesbian, many other cricketers did too, so much that senior women cricketers were accused of predatory behaviour, and the presumption became that if you played international cricket there was a high probability that you were either lesbian or bisexual. This, however, is just another manifestation of homophobia. You can no longer “convert” a person to homosexuality than you can “cure” a person of homosexuality.

While there are many lesbian couples in international cricket- Marizanne Kapp and Dane van Niekerk (South Africa), Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu (New Zealand), Lizelle Lee and Tanja Cronje (South Africa), Maddy Green and Liz Perry (New Zealand), Rachael Haynes and Leah Poulton (Australia) to name just a few- there are no gay couples playing international cricket.

Football throws up similar statistics. In the 2018 World Cup, none of the players identified as gay. However in the 2019 World Cup, 38 of the 552 women identified as either lesbian or bisexual. Is this because professional sport is an attractive career for lesbians, or because professional sportswomen who are homosexual feel more comfortable coming out? People who have tried to study this say that it is more likely the latter. Homosexuality is frowned upon in male locker rooms, but not in female locker rooms. Heterosexual women cricketers have said, “I don’t feel uncomfortable walking into a change room knowing that most of my teammates are lesbians.” With men, however, there is the pressure to conform to the heterosexual norm, which could be the reason for the marked difference in numbers of homosexual and bisexual sportspersons in team sports. The fact that there is only one (retired) international level cricketer who openly identifies as gay might also be a factor in ensuring people who are bisexual or gay remain in the closet.

 

How will they have babies, is a question easily answered. Adoption is an obvious route that lesbian couples can take, but IVF makes it possible for them to have a biological child also. After New Zealand cricketers Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu got married in 2017, Satterthwaite who always wanted to have a child chose to become pregnant. The couple welcomed their first child in January 2020, and in the process, she also became the first cricketer to benefit from New Zealand’s maternity leave provision which allowed her to earn her retainer without needing to train or play with the team. The baby travelled with the couple to the World Cup, where, in their words, the baby had “15 aunties” who were happy to pitch in with babysitting duties. All of this points to greater inclusion and acceptance of lesbian couples in the New Zealand team, which will hopefully percolate to other teams too.

Are we likely to see a lesbian cricketer come out about her sexuality in India? It is only recently that homosexuality has been legalised in India, and even today homosexual marriages are not allowed. More importantly, society does not accept homosexuality, and even people who have come out to their families do not talk about it openly. In such a climate, a cricketer could also legitimately fear that if she comes out as homosexual, it may affect her chances of being selected for the team. However, with athlete Dhuti Chand coming out about her sexuality, the conversation has started, and one hopes that in time, it will spread to team sports too. However, a lot of headway needs to be made in accepting homosexuality before that day will come.

One can hope that one day, an Indian will write a post similar to this one-

“Disgraceful, shocking & plain wrong! What self respecting cricketers get married during the season? Seriously though two England greats. Congratulations”

A couple falling in love and getting married is a wonderful thing. We should cherish that.

Can Rapists Be Allowed To Go Free After Marrying The Survivor?

 [No law in the country recognises enabling the rapist to walk free after marrying the survivor. However, in reality, it is something that families and communities often push for. First published in Women's Web]

In the same week where the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 11 May, saw a split decision on the constitutionality of the marital rape exception, another equally reactionary decision was handed by a divisional bench of the Supreme Court when they set aside the conviction and sentence of a man who had repeatedly raped his 14 year old niece

The facts of the case are simple. The accused, K Dhandapani, enticed his 14 year old niece with the promise of marriage and raped her several times. The family came to know of the offence when the girl became pregnant, and a case was lodged against him under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. After trying his case, in 2018, the Sessions Court found him guilty on all three counts, and convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed to the Madras High Court which upheld the conviction and the sentence in 2019.

The girl gave birth in 2017, before the case came up in court. Despite the pending case against him, he continued to have sexual relations with the girl, and she gave birth to her second child at the age of 17.

K Dhandapani filed an appeal with the Supreme Court stating that he had started a physical relationship with the 14 year old child on promise of marrying her and since he subsequently married her and was taking care of her and their two children, the case should be dismissed.

The counsel appearing for the State in the Supreme Court, argued that since the girl was only 14 years old at the time of the first offence, and since both the children were born before she turned 18, the marriage was not legal, and that it might well have been entered into only for the purpose of escaping punishment. After listening to the testament of the rape survivor where she insisted that she was indeed happily married, Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai ruled that the Court cannot “shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family”, and therefore set aside the conviction and sentence.

This case sets several dangerous precedents

POCSO Act was brought on to protect minors from a broad range of sexual crimes ranging from penetrative sexual assault to sexual harassment. The accused was convicted on three counts of penetrative sexual assault on a minor- (a) for making her pregnant, (b) for committing the act repeatedly, and (c) for committing it despite being a relative by blood- and given the nature of the crimes should be subject to the strongest punishment. Even in the appeal, the accused admitted his guilt, so there was no basis for dismissing the case.

The accused petitioned that he has subsequently married the girl, and so the case should be dismissed. At the time of pregnancy and delivery, the child was below the age of 18, which is the legal age of consent and marriage. Any marriage that may have taken place then is not legal, and therefore cannot be used to dismiss the order.

However, the most dangerous precedent is of the rapist using the offer of marriage to escape being punished for his crime. Once the court starts accepting this excuse, there is fear of it becoming a norm, and of rape survivors being coerced to marry the rapist in order to avoid the stigma of the rape and subsequent pregnancy.

Every rape survivor is subject to immense physical, mental and psychological trauma, but in a patriarchal society like India, rape is stigmatised to such an extent that the survivor is additionally made to feel that she has “lost her honour” by “allowing herself to be raped”. Playing on this fear of bringing dishonour upon herself and her family, the rapist often offers to marry the survivor, thereby reducing the stigma of pregnancy. The survivor is often coerced by the law enforcement agencies, the larger community and her own family into going through with the marriage, in order to reduce the stigma of pregnancy, even though it is in no way the fault of the survivor.

No law in the country recognises enabling the rapist to walk free after marrying the survivor. However, in reality, it is something that families and communities often push for. Once the match is formalised, the survivor drops the case, thereby enabling the accused and even convicted rapist to evade punishment.

While this takes place informally, by putting aside the conviction and punishment, the division bench of the Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent which can be used by rapists in future to evade punishment. This will offer greater impetus to the rapists to put pressure on the survivor and her family to “reclaim her lost honour”, by taking up the offer to marry the rapist. While the rape survivor may escape the stigma that clings to her through no fault of hers, she will be forced into a permanent conjugal relationship with the man who caused her immense trauma.

Many individuals and organisations who work with rape survivors have said that it is inhuman and unacceptable to coerce the rape survivor into marrying the perpetrator. They recognise that such marriages may continue to be physically and mentally abusive, and far from getting justice, the survivor may end up in a situation from which there is no escape for them. They have called for strong legislation that declares such marriages illegal- though the rape survivor is free to marry anyone she chooses, her marriage to the rapist cannot be used by him to seek a reduction in punishment.

What can be done to protect the rights of the rape survivor in such cases?

In the absence of adequate legislation, however, communities will continue to believe that by offering to marry the survivor, the rapist is atoning for his mistake, and the survivor will be coerced to accept the offer.

In the short term, it is imperative to define strict processes to track the marriage for a few years to ensure that the marriage was not entered into only to evade punishment. Women’s organizations should be tasked with speaking to the rape survivor to ascertain that she is entering into the marriage through her own will, and not because she is being forced to do so. More importantly, there need to be follow up meetings to monitor her mental and physical well being.

In the long term, what is needed is to provide sufficient financial and emotional support to the rape survivor to ensure her proper rehabilitation and to enable her to live an independent life. This will reduce her economic and emotional dependence on her family and her community, and will empower her to take decisions which are best for herself.

In parallel, law enforcement personnel should be adequately trained, so they recognise that the best interests of the rape survivor can be met, not by marriage to her rapist, but by ensuring timely justice.

Most importantly, there should be a concentrated awareness campaign to shift the blame from the rape survivor to the rapist. As long as the woman continues to be blamed for something that is not her fault, society will continue to consider marriage as a viable option to evade punishment.

Instead of banning abortions, let's stop unwanted pregnancies

 [First published in Women's Web]

The US Supreme Court, through the landmark Roe v/s Wade judgement, protected the liberty of a pregnant woman to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. With the Supreme Court now voting to strike down the 49 year old decision, the state is once again denying women the right to take decisions which impact their bodies and their lives.

The “Pro Life” faction argues that life is sacred and therefore abortions must be disallowed. Despite all the emotional and physical trauma that a pregnant woman might go through on account of an unwanted pregnancy, they argue that the life of the foetus is more important than any suffering that the woman might go through, and so abortions should not be allowed. However, what they conveniently ignore is the fact that easiest way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and if they were serious about ending abortions, what they should actually do is to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Let’s unpick that. Why do women get pregnant? Women get pregnant when men ejaculate inside them. Sometimes, the ejaculation is consensual, but when the man ejaculates despite the woman not being physically, financially or emotionally ready to become a mother, he causes an unwanted pregnancy. Simply put, the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening is for men to stopped ejaculating inside women without their consent. This can be done in either of two painless ways- the man can either use a condom, or pull out before ejaculation.

If preventing an unwanted pregnancy is as simple and painless as using a condom everytime you have sex, why then do all men not use it, except when they are trying to get pregnant? That is apparently because condoms marginally reduce the pleasure of sex and men do not want to compromise on that. So essentially, when a man has sex without a condom, what he is saying is that for a few extra moments of heightened pleasure he is willing to risk getting his partner pregnant. Clearly the man is either unaware of the physical and emotional discomfort of pregnancy, the expense of child bearing and child rearing and the opportunities his partner will miss out on because of motherhood- or, he just doesn’t care.

Essentially, therefore, by causing an unwanted pregnancy, the man is saying that he chooses a few moments of pleasure over something that will adversely impact the entire trajectory of his partner’s life. Yet, by not focussing on ending unwanted pregnancies, the “Pro Life” lobby enables such men to get away, and instead punishes the woman who is already a victim of the selfishness and irresponsibility of the man.

If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, why can’t she use birth control, the “pro lifers” may ask.

More women would certainly use oral contraceptives if they didn’t have a long list of harmful side effects, ranging from nausea and headaches to weight gain and unnatural pigmentation. For lack of a better alternative, women who lead a regular and active sex life may still consider using oral contraceptives. However, it requires daily use and does not allow any disruptions and therefore is not always fool proof.

More importantly, given the fact that it needs to be taken daily, and has a long list of side effects, oral contraceptives do not make much sense for a woman who does not have a regular sex life. You cannot simply pop a pill the morning before you are intending to have sex, and expect it to work- you should be taking it regularly so it syncs with the natural ovulation cycle. While there are emergency contraceptive pills which can be had after an unexpected ejaculation, the efficacy in preventing an unwanted pregnancy is low. These are best used only as a fall-back option in case of failure of other contraceptives.

Other birth control measures which act as physical barriers to the passage of semen also make sense only if the woman is leading an active sex life. More importantly, since most of them can be used only under the supervision of a medical practitioner, it is extremely hard for an unmarried woman to brave societal judgement and access them.

Condoms, thus, remain, the most foolproof and easiest way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If we are serious about stopping abortions, the best way is to promote the use of condoms.

When we know that the use of condoms prevents unwanted pregnancies, why then is its usage not more widespread? The simple reason is that it requires men to take action, but the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy are borne entirely by the woman, not by the man, so there is no incentive for him to take precautions.

Unless the couple are in a relationship, the man may not even be aware of the fact that his irresponsible ejaculation caused a pregnancy. While an unwanted pregnancy can wreck havoc in the life of the woman, the man does not face any consequences at all. It is the woman who suffers the physical trauma of pregnancy and an abortion. If she is forced to bear the child to term, she needs to put up with the physical discomfort for nine months, it is her lifestyle that is curtailed and she is the one who needs to , and has to bear with an abortion. , it is her lifestyle that gets curtailed and she who is judged. She bears the pain of childbirth, and once born, she faces either the emotional trauma of putting the child up for adoption or ends up having to build her life around a newborn child. During all this, the man who has contributed 50% of the DNA may not even be aware that the intercourse led to a pregnancy.

Since men seem unwilling to use condoms, is there any other way to prevent irresponsible ejaculations? The simplest way is through mandatory vasectomies as soon as a man attains puberty. Vasectomies are safe, reversible, and have virtually no side effects except soreness for a couple of days. It is certainly much safer than oral contraceptives with a wide range of side effects, and pregnancy with all the attendant physical and mental trauma.

When a man is ready to have a baby with his partner, the vasectomy can be reversed, and redone once the child birthing phase is over. By preventing 100% unwanted pregnancies, this can virtually eliminate abortions. While there will certainly be men who complain about the sheer number of “unnecessary” medical procedures this will entail, isn’t it is much better than unwanted pregnancies and all the attendant physical and medical issues associated with it?

Seeking a ban on abortions is extremely easy because it involves policing women’s bodies and their choices- something society has been doing for generations. What is much harder is finding a foolproof way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It is necessary to drive the point home that while women bear the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, it is men who are responsible for the pregnancies and should take accountability to prevent them.

If people genuinely want to prevent abortions, the conversation must shift from restricting what a woman can do, to holding men accountable.

None of the birth control options available to women is fool proof and/ or safe, but both condoms and vasectomies are. Before telling women that they cannot have abortions, lawmakers should focus on men and on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

As the joke goes, if men got pregnant, abortions would be available in ATMs. Once men are held accountable for unwanted pregnancies, new and better birth control will certainly be developed, and the number of abortions will fall drastically. All it needs is for men to be held accountable.

Why Leisure is often an afterthought for women

 A group of parakeets was fluttering around the mango tree groaning with flowers. Our househelp was leaning on the balcony, watching them, enthralled. “Won’t you get late?”, I asked, conscious of the fact that the family where she goes after me had already called her three times.

“I get ‘sukoon’ here”, she replied. “Once I am out of here, the ‘had-bad’ starts again.”

‘Sukoon’. That ephemeral moment of tranquillity which she tried to seize whenever she could. The way she brews a cup of tea exactly the way she likes it, pours it into her cup with pink and maroon roses, and savours every sip. Those times when I would catch her watching the raindrops hit the windowpane while water from the open tap flowed over partially washed dishes.

In a life where she deals with an abusive husband, three rarely employed children, and crippling debt, she snatches ‘sukoon’ whenever she can.

I was reminded of her when I read an article on the “Women at Leisure” project on Instagram.

Leisure is any activity that provides happiness or pleasure in itself, and not because it leads to creating value. For women in India, leisure is almost always an afterthought, not something you consciously make time for.

One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the burden of housework, caregiving and child rearing is on the women, which leaves them very little time for relaxation. This ‘time-poverty’ of women has been quantified in many studies- in a week, men, on an average have eight hours more than women for sleep, leisure and recreation. More importantly, the nature of responsibilities shouldered by women is so unpredictable that, unlike men, they cannot count on routinised free time.

For example, men can and do watch cricket matches or movies on TV without interruption. However, even when a woman settles down to watch her favourite serial, she is also keeping an eye on the children, and multitasking by doing something useful like shelling peas or cutting vegetables.

Sociologically too, leisure for the sake of relaxation is almost frowned upon for women. Most of the activities that women categorise as leisure are almost always secondary activities combined with something useful. In traditional communities, women indulge in group activities where they gossip, exchange stories, sing songs and enjoy company while doing something useful. Many of our mothers and grandmothers have fond memories of sitting in the winter sun with their friends after lunch, knitting. While it certainly gave them pleasure, knitting at the end of the day is a productive activity, and cannot strictly be categorised as leisure.

Women have got used to snatching moments of leisure whenever they can. They, for instance, watch birds, hum to themselves or chat with a friend while washing clothes or hanging out the laundry. However they cannot depend on these moments of fragmented leisure- some other responsibility may call out to them and they will be forced to abandon the moments of relaxation. Since women are expected to be on call all the time, it leaves them little time to develop any interests that require a regular investment of time.

The movement of women is also more tightly controlled and their freedom is restricted, which leads to them snatching a few moments of relaxation on the rare occasions when they can go out. If you go any school (or school bus stop) around the time when school gets over, you will find groups of mothers engaged in animated conversation. Picking children up is less of a chore when you know it will give you a few minutes of mental relaxation. That is also the reason why women do not mind making multiple trips to the tailor to pick up clothes, or spend a long time on shopping- it is a chance to get out of the house, and not have to worry about their other responsibilities.

Women, in general, also lack the money to indulge in leisure. While men spend a not insignificant share of their income on sex, drink, food and other recreation, if women are able to save any money, they are more likely to spend it their children’s education or on treats for the entire family. Any recreation the woman indulges in is likely to be a family affair, where one part of her is consciously or subconsciously looking after the children or the elderly.

In a society where women are denied the time and space for leisure, even dressing up and going to work is sometimes deemed leisure. For those few hours, they escape their invisible prison, and indulge in some me-time. Even something as simple as going out with friends to have an ice-cream during the lunch break without feeling guilty about it is a huge freedom for many women.

Festivals are considered a major source of leisure in India- which of us has not written essays in schools extolling the virtues of festivals which provide a break from the monotony of daily life. However, festivals are certainly not a time of relaxation for the women. The build up to the festivals always involves a lot of cooking, cleaning and decorating, all of which is done by the women. While the men meet and greet, the women are stuck cooking the elaborate meals demanded by tradition. Behind the picture-perfect version of themselves that women present in their festive wear, are extremely tired individuals who want nothing more than to put their feet up and rest.

The Lockdown and subsequent WFH ate into most of the leisure time women had carved for themselves. After finishing their daily chores, women in nuclear families had a few minutes where they could put up their feet and do something absolutely unproductive till they started preparing for the children to come back home. Supervising online classes and having to make numerous cups of tea and coffee put an end to that. They also had to compete with the men for the TV remote. While men used the time productively to pick up hobbies or indulge in old passions, women lost out.

Maybe a day will come when women in India will claim the time for leisure as their right. But till them, they will continue to snatch fragmented moments of “sukoon”, because at the end of the day, it is those moments that make life bearable and meaningful.

‘Keeping Our Daughters Safe Has Become A Herculean Task; It Wasn’t This Bad When We Were Younger!’

 [The focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman — the perpetrators and the infrastructure that are the problem. First published in Women’s Web]

“Keeping our daughters safe has become a herculean task. It was not this bad when we were younger.”

This is a statement we hear often- on social media (I have quoted directly from someone who said it on Twitter), on television, and even when people get together and chat at a party or in the office cafeteria.

The statement is wrong on several counts. Let’s break it up-

“Keeping our daughters safe…”

The moment we utter these words, we are focussing on the ‘victim’ of sexual harassment/ abuse. And as long as we continue doing that, we will not find a solution to the problem.

Shouldn’t we move beyond “keeping our daughters safe”, now?

The focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman. There can be no solution till we acknowledge the perpetrators, and focus on reforming them so it is safer for women.

This may seem like nit picking but it is not.

If we focus on the victim, we are looking at enabling conditions to keep them safe. That would include telling them what to do, how to dress, where not to go, and when to return home.

But restricting the freedom of women is not the solution.

The world needs to be made safer for women. And to do that, the focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman.

We need to create conditions that make it difficult for the perpetrators through awareness, better vigilance, and a more accessible legal system. Till we acknowledge the perpetrators and work on the causes, there can be no long-term solution.

“.. our daughters…”

This is the obvious one.

Do only ‘our’ daughters, ‘our’ sisters, ‘our’ wives, ‘our’ mothers, ‘our’ friends deserve to be safe? Shouldn’t we be concerned about the safety of every woman? Why should there be an ownership or relationship with victims?

This feeling of ‘ownership’ itself is a contributing cause for the lack of safety for women. Since men feel compelled to guard the chastity of ‘their’ women, others have sought to assert their superiority by establishing their dominance over the women.

When we stop looking at women in terms of their relationship, and recognise them as individuals who make up roughly half the population, we will move beyond keeping individuals safe and towards making society safer.

“… herculean task”

Yes, ‘keeping’ women safe is a herculean task- it is attempted by policing women, by curtailing their freedom, by telling her what and how she should do.

But do you remember how Hercules cleaned the Augean Stables?

Hercules didn’t use brooms and shovels to remove the muck. He diverted a river to flow through the stables so all the muck was flushed away. The same solution can be applied here.

Instead of “keeping” women safe, if we focus on creating a safer environment, it would be far more effective.

“It was not this bad when we were younger”

Both statistics and anecdotal data may give the impression that women were safer earlier, but were they really?

Have crimes against women really gone up, or are they being reported more because of greater awareness?

Statistics show that states like Goa and Kerala have a higher incidence of reported crimes against women. What is more likely is that these states have better systems for women to come forward to report a crime, in which case, the growth in reported crimes is welcome.

There is also greater awareness among women about what constitutes sexual harassment/ abuse. Till the #MeToo movement gained momentum a few years back, women ignored a lot of inappropriate behaviour because we lacked the vocabulary to articulate the harassment.

Also, women are going out of the house more, which increases the probability of them being sexually harassed/ abused in public. This gives the impression that women are more unsafe today than earlier.

However, this is not the case.

Women (and children) have always been vulnerable to harassment and abuse. However, when the perpetrators are family or close friends, there is a greater chance of the crimes being ignored.

It is only when the perpetrator is a stranger that families recognise that women are unsafe.

Instead of worrying about “keeping our daughters” safe, we should work on creating a safer environment for women.

This can be done by- generating awareness on appropriate behaviour, incentivising calling out harassment and creating an environment for reporting crime. It cannot be done by locking up “our daughters” and mourning about how the world has become unsafe.

When will the so called 'honour killings' end?

[In a patriarchal society, the purity of caste, class and religion is rigidly maintained by controlling the sexual agency of women. First published in Women's Web.]

Trigger Warning: descriptions of extreme violence

Nagaraju and Syeda Ashrin Sulthana, a newly married couple were traveling on their two wheeler in a Hyderabad suburb when they were forced to pull up. In front of Ashrin’s eyes, the assailants attacked her husband with steel rods. She tried to shield him with her body, but she was pushed aside. She screamed and begged bystanders to intervene, but nobody came to her rescue. The assailants stopped only after Nagaraju was dead.

A dazed Ashrin later named her brother as one of the people who murdered her husband. It was what is called an “honour killing”.

Though we often hear of “honour killings” in India, this gruesome murder sent shockwaves because of the audacity with which it was conducted on the busy streets of a city, in full view of the public. It also shone the spotlight on how dangerous it can be for a couple to marry outside their prescribed faith and/ or community.

The crime can be looked at in multiple ways

Their’s was an interfaith union- Ashrin Sulthana was Muslim, while B. Nagaraju was Hindu. It was also an intercaste union- though Islam doesn’t have a formal caste system, Ashrin was a Syed which is considered one of the ‘highest’ communities, and B. Nagaraju was a Dalit.

In a statement made to the press, Ashrin stated that Nagaraju was willing to convert to Islam to marry her, but her family made it clear that they would not permit them to get married even after conversion. To her family, according to Ashrin, Nagaraju was an unsuitable suitor because he was from a lower caste. This is borne out by some of Nagaraju’s relatives who say that he was willing to convert so he could marry Ashrin, but her family was still not willing to accept the union. Even after the wedding, Ashrin feared for Nagaraju’s life, and her worst fears came true when her family killed him in an extremely gruesome manner.

Women ‘owned by their families and community’?

Regardless of whether Ashrin’s family killed Nagaraju because he belonged to a different religion or because he belonged to a different caste, the root cause of the crime is patriarchy.

It is the belief that the woman is the ‘property’ of the family and the community, and that she somehow brought shame upon them by marrying someone they deem unsuitable. For the family, the only way to restore their “honour” is by eliminating the man who dared make “their” woman fall in love with him.

Honour killings are not unknown in India, nor is it restricted to any one community. Whenever a couple ignores the barriers of caste, class or community and falls in love, they find themselves pitted against the might of their community.

“in every house is a life bomb that can erupt at any time. Do you know who that is? Daughters are the honour of the family and the community, and to protect them is our … duty and … culture.”

This statement was made by a VHP leader as quoted in Kavita Krishnan’s book Fearless Freedom, but it could well have been uttered by Ashrin’s brother, or by the families of the countless other women who fall in love with a man outside their community, and are willing to defy their family to marry him.

In a patriarchal society, the purity of caste, class and religion is rigidly maintained by controlling the sexual agency of women. When a woman chooses to fall in love with someone outside her tightly controlled community, she threatens the established order of things. Her family perceives that their “honour” is challenged when a man who is deemed unsuitable because of birth based limitations succeeds in winning her affection.

Everything is tried to break up a couple like this, including violence

When the family finds out about such a relationship, they exert tremendous emotional and physical pressure on the woman to give up the man she has fallen in love with, and marry someone who they deem suitable. Most women give in to this intimidation or are tortured into submission. It takes extraordinary courage for the women to defy the community and marry the man they love.

Even after the couple has got married, the family feels compelled to restore their lost prestige by breaking up the couple. The family attempts to intimidates the couple through emotional blackmail, or by threatening violence. Often, the family of the woman even file false cases of rape and abduction against the man to coerce him into walking away from the relationship. For instance, while analysing all the cases of sexual assault that came up in the sessions courts in Delhi in 2013, it was found that 40% of cases involved parents filing cases of kidnap and rape against young men who their daughters had eloped with- most of whom were inter- caste or interfaith couples who chose to defy parental opposition to the relationship. The family resorts to honour killings when such intimidation fails.

Nothing can get back the dead – what justice?

Ashrin’s brother and his associates have been arrested for the gruesome murder of Nagaraju, and the police has promised to fast track the case. In this case, since the politicians and civil society have condemned the crime and demanded justice, and the entire crime was caught on video, it is likely that justice will be served. In other cases, however, the perpetrators often get away because with her husband gone, the woman succumbs to grief and emotional pressure and doesn’t push hard enough for conviction.

While Ashrin may get justice, that will not bring Nagaraju back to life. Ashrin will not only live with the guilt that it was her love that got her husband killed, she will have to face a family that will continue to blame her for “bringing dishonour upon them” and indirectly causing the imprisonment of her brother.

It is not enough to merely respond to an honour killing after it has taken place. We need to create and maintain networks that support people who are in inter caste and interfaith relationships. This should include proactively ensuring the safety of such couples, but enabling them to file a formal complaint against families that threaten their safety. If required counselling support should also be provided to the families of such couples to help them accept the relationships.

Most importantly, those of us who believe in the right of young women and men to love without fear should stand up against patriarchy, and against a system that seeks to maintain caste and religious purity by breaking up such unions. Till the larger society starts to accept the agency of women to love who they want, such tragedies will continue to occur.