Who pays the price in the hijab controversy?

[In the ongoing controversy, the hijabis have become the battlefield, and no matter what the outcome, they are the ones who will lose.]

In January, the group of students at a government PU college in Udupi were prevented from attending classes unless they took off their hijabs. The visuals of these young women in full uniform, mask and headscarf sitting on the staircase of the building, studying for their exams captured the imagination of the nation. Almost everyone had an opinion on it, many even had more than one opinion, but you had to admire the almost Gandhian tenacity of the young women who turned up every day, hoping the school administration would relent and let them attend classes with the headscarf as they were used to doing.

There were essentially three positions that people took, depending on whether they were for or against- 

“School uniforms are sacrosanct; there has to be uniformity”.

“The hijab is symbol of oppressive patriarchy and should not be encouraged.”

“The hijab is an act of faith, and the choice of the young women should be respected.”

Each of these positions could be easily countered, because in a situation like this you do not have a single “right answer”. Yes, in a country like India, the uniform is necessary to reduce visible socio-economic differences, but should the uniform be imposed when it goes against personal faith? Yes, the hijab could be something forced on women by a patriarchal society, but can that be counted by forcing a ban or should it be dealt with through empowerment? Yes, the hijab is an act of faith, but the fact that many women do not practice the hijab shows it is not an “essential practice” the way a turban is for Sikhs. 

While people approached the court and debated the nuances of the case, the young women were being denied their right to attend classes- an outcome that nobody would consider desirable no matter which side of the debate they were on.

Fast forward a few weeks. An incident that should have been sorted out without fanfare blew up. Schools and colleges across Karnataka started barring entry to students in a hijab. The video of a principal slamming the college gate shut on a group of burqa clad girls went viral, and the incident was even picked up by the international media. The next day, another group of young women marched to college wearing saffron stoles and demanded their right to come to college wearing kumkum, flowers and sarees. By the end of the week, it had spread across the state. Students trying to go to college in burqas were intimidated by groups of “students” in saffron stoles. 

Meanwhile, pending a decision, the High Court ruled that no religious symbols will be permitted in the classroom, unless expressly allowed by the rules of the institutions. Some schools and colleges took this interim order to the extreme and forced students (and even teachers) to take off the hijab even before entering the school premises. The videos of students and teachers being forced to take off their hijabs in public have gone viral, and they have touched a raw nerve with every woman who empathises with the pain and humiliation they are being put through. The students who insisted on continuing to wear the hijab have been forced to return home. The trouble is starting to spread to other states where educational institutions are unilaterally preventing the entry of students wearing hijabs. How this impasse will eventually be sorted out is anyone’s guess, but no matter what the outcome, it is young women who will suffer.

In this entire controversy, two essential points were overlooked- 

The first incident of turning back students in hijabs took place at a government run PU college. Unlike in private schools which implement the uniform with greater rigour, in the government school system, the prescribed uniform has always been indicative. Anyone who has ever been to a government school knows that while most of the students turn up in the uniform, they also wear anklets, bindis, hijabs, dangling earrings, bright coloured plastic hair clips, fresh flowers, strappy sandals, just about anything. Despite the stated purpose of the uniform being to ensure uniformity, Government schools always teem with diversity and colour. By wearing a headscarf in the same colour as the dupatta of the prescribed uniform, the students of the PU college were in conformance with the spirit of the uniform.

More importantly, the primary objective of an educational institution is to provide an education, and by depriving the young women the right to attend their classes, the school authorities were failing in their duty. With just two months left for the end of the academic year, they should have maintained status quo and if they really wanted to implement the rules differently, they should have done so from the subsequent academic year after giving due notice to the students and their guardians. By forcing the young women to sit outside the class, they were being denied their fundamental right to an education in a government run institution of their choice.

In the entire controversy, it is important to understand where the pushback is coming from, and how it does not serve the objective it purports to serve. 

There are essentially two seemingly progressive arguments being made in favour of disallowing students to wear the hijab in educational institutions.

The first is that educational institutions are secular in nature and should be free from all religious symbolisms and that personal religious markers should not be permitted. This argument is based on the French definition of secularism, or laïcité, which requires an absence of religion in public spaces. In India, however, Secularism has traditionally been meant to indicate that no one religion will be given prominence over the others. If teachers and students can adorn their foreheads with bindis/ pottus/ vibuti/ kumkum and if married teachers can wear mangalsutras, taalis, shakha or any other sign of a married Hindu woman, then why single out the hijab? More importantly, almost every programme starts with the lighting of a lamp, and Saraswati Vandana is sung during assembly- are these not religious in nature? Taken in this cultural context, the call for banning the hijab in classrooms doesn’t make sense.

The second argument is more insidious. It is the liberal narrative that draws a false binary between hijab and kitab. The proponents of this theory state that the hijab is oppressive and forced on girls, and that the only salvation for the girls will be after they cast off the hijab and embrace education. This argument is based on two contradictory statements- that the women is disenfranchised and is forced to wear a hijab, yet, she apparently has sufficient agency to cast off her hijab for the sake of an education. The argument falls under its own weight- if the woman lacks agency, how will she rebel? Isn’t it better to ensure she continues her education and becomes financially and emotionally independent after which she is empowered to make her own choices?

In all this controversy, who loses? The young women who want to study and better their prospects. For many of them, wearing the hijab is an act of faith and/ or a tradition, and the thought of taking it off in public is so inconceivable, that when they are asked to take it off, they prefer to return hone instead. While a few of them might be willing to remove the hijab in the classroom, the entire process is so disconcerting and traumatising that they hesitate go return to school. Given the atmosphere of hate and mistrust that has been built up, many families too might hesitate to let their daughters go to school or college where there is danger of them being subject to humiliation. All that banning the hijab will accomplish is to make it far more difficult for a woman to get an education.

If a hijab ban is enforced, many families will insist on taking their daughters out of school. Some may be home-schooled, or enrolled in minority institutions, but a large number may be forced to drop out of the education system. If minority institutions come up, even families of young women who don’t wear the hijab may be tempted to take them out of “secular institutions” and enrol them in minority institutions where they will not have to be defensive about their religious identity. This will eventually lead to increased ghettoization.

Even if the Court rules that there is no prohibition on religious symbols in public spaces and upholds the fundamental right of education, this controversy has once again exposed the fault lines in the secular fabric of the nation. Parents of young women may still want to take them out of secular institutions and enrol them in minority institutions where they will be shielded from similar attacks in future. This will adversely affect the diversity of classrooms and young people will grow up with a sense of alienation.

In a battle which is supposedly for their “empowerment”, the young women who wear the hijab have become the battlefield, and no matter what the outcome, they are the ones who will pay the price.

Why A Mob Decided That This 20y.o. Woman 'Deserved' To Be Raped And Beaten Up

[In our toxic patriarchal system, men stalk women in the smug knowledge that the woman dare not turn them down. And if do, they are made to pay the price for it. First published in Women's Web.]

Trigger Warning: this has violence against women and sexual violence and may be triggering for survivors.

In a horrific incident that took place in New Delhi on Republic Day, a 20 year old woman was abducted from her home, mercilessly beaten, sexually assaulted, gang raped, and tonsured in front of dozens of witnesses. Her face was then blackened and she was made to wear a garland of chappals before being paraded in public to loud cheers from the entire community.

All of this was captured on several videos which were shared with impunity by the witnesses, who justified the entire incident as 'punishment' against the young woman.

What had she done to deserve such a barbarous attack?

She, a 20 year old married mother living with her husband, had rejected the sexual advances of a 14 year old boy, who took the rejection badly and jumped in front of a train. His family held her responsible for his death by suicide and sought to avenge his death by physically, sexually and emotionally assaulting her in public.

While everybody who participated in the crime- either directly, or by egging on the actual perpetrators, or silently watching it without making any effort to stop the crime- needs to be punished, the incident throws into focus a much greater issue- the subservient state of women in society.

If you look at the incident dispassionately, there was nothing wrong in the behaviour of the woman- all she did was to turn down the advances of a male she deemed was unsuitable. Even if she was single and unattached, and the male was an adult, she was not obliged to accept his advances. In this case, considering the fact that she was married, there was no reason for the male to think she was available or interested, he should have stayed away from her. To complicate it further, he was a minor and well below the age of consent. If anyone was at fault it was the 14 year old who made sexual advances on the woman. If he could not handle rejection, it is certainly not the fault of the woman.

In fact, had the woman reciprocated his advances, his family would have almost certainly disapproved. The woman, being older than him, would have been blamed for "leading him on". Their relationship would have certainly been broken up, and the family would have done all they could to tarnish the reputation of the woman and her family. In all probability had she reciprocated, the family would have meted out exactly the same punishment to the woman as they did now.

However, since the 14 year old died of suicide, the family chose to blame the woman and attempt to achieve closure by taking revenge on her.

No matter what happens, women are always saddled with the blame

In the toxic patriarchal system where they operate, women are denied the agency to turn down the advances of a man for any reason. Men stalk women in the smug knowledge that the woman dare not turn them down. And if do, they are made to pay the price for it.

This is a storyline that plays itself out in different settings. We have grown up on Bollywood movies, where after the heroine turns down the hero, his friends harass her till she agrees to go out with him. Life imitates cinema, and it has often been seen that whenever a man declares his affection, even for a woman he barely knows, she is expected to accept the advances and get into a relationship with him. If she turns him down for any reason, she is often harassed, stalked, and emotionally blackmailed till she gives in.

I personally know of a bright young woman who strode through college and life with a jaunty step, excelling in academics and anything else she set her mind to. She was cheerfully single because she chose to be that way, till the day a classmate she had never even noticed chose to declare his love for her through his friends. Though she turned him quite gently saying she didn't have the mindspace for a romance, he took the rejection personally and his gang made life miserable for her for the rest of the time she was in college. In their patriarchal minds, he was "doing her an honour by bestowing his interest on her, and she had no option but to accept it with gratitude."

Toxic patriarchy - how dare she turn him down?

It is this toxic patriarchy that was exposed by this gruesome incident. How dare the 20 year old woman turn down the advances of someone who was "paying her a compliment" by declaring his affection for her.

That, also, was the reason why there were as many women as men among the perpetrators. They were the women who nourished him, and expected him to repay that in future. In their eyes, he was a poor innocent Raja beta who was "seduced" by the 20 year old married woman who then broke his heart by rejecting him. They wanted revenge, and who better to take their anger out on than the "seductress" who was (according to them) not even worthy of his attention.

All their anger was poured out on the woman, and they were the ones shouting out instructions on how to physically and sexually assault the woman. They were also the ones who took the lead in tonsuring the woman and blacking her face, thereby sealing the physical and sexual violence by making her as physically unattractive as possible.

I am sure the perpetrators will be caught and will stand trial. I hope that many of the bystanders will also be taken into custody and questioned on their role in the incident. I hope the woman gets justice, and her family is eventually able to heal.

But more than anything else, I hope we recognise how toxic the patriarchal society we live in is, and that we start addressing the issue of gender equity at the societal level. I also fervently hope that there are no copy-cat crimes, and women do not have to fear for their life when they turn down unwelcome advances.

Victim blaming follows every MeToo disclosure

 In light of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct by the legendary kathak maestro Pt. Birju Maharaj, a number of people are asking ‘why now?’ Why is the person choosing to make the allegations public after his death when he is no longer around to defend himself? What is to be gained by sullying his reputation when he is no longer in the world? If these allegations were true, why didn’t we hear of it before?

We will not go into the merits of the case, because all we have at this moment are verbal testaments, anecdotal evidence and whispered comments about how it was “common knowledge” in the Indian classical dance fraternity. We will also not get into the fact that others too have written about how the guru-shishya parampara, with its attendant power imbalance has led to a community of silence which enables sexual predators to escape the consequences of their action.

We will, instead focus on the other and more generic aspect of the case- victim blaming. From the time one dancer went public through a series of stories on Instagram, the classic cycle of victim blaming started asserting itself- deny, disbelieve, discredit, disgrace.

Deny:

“Utter rubbish. If that was the case, we would have heard about it. We have all heard stories about Pt. xyz, but never about him.”

When this was countered by people who mentioned that the Delhi based Indian classical dance community was aware of and spoke about his predations, the next phase began.

Disbelieve:

“She’s mistaken. It must have been consensual. Why should someone of his stature indulge in predatory behaviour.”

By this time, other voices, on condition of anonymity started speaking up too, and it emerged that though the maestro had a history of sexual assault and predation, the victims had remained silent because the hadn’t found a safe place where they could speak on record. By this time, the third phase of victim blaming began.

Discredit:

“Why did she wait till after the maestro was gone before speaking of his predatory behaviour? Why did she present a façade of normalcy as long as he was alive? She is doing it for the publicity.”

The answer to this is obvious. The maestro ruled the classical dance form. He could make or break careers. Had she spoken up earlier, her entire career as a kathak performer and instructor could have been ruined. Who would dare take such a great risk? Anyone would wait till she was no longer vulnerable before sharing her story.

Disgrace:

“She shouldn’t have done it. What does she gain by tarnishing his reputation when he is no longer around to defend it. She should have known better.”

This is probably the most insidious part, where the victim is blamed for speaking up. If anyone is guilty, it is the person who abused his power to coerce women (and even young girls) into granting sexual favours. If he didn’t want his reputation to be tarnished, he should not have indulged in predatory behaviour. Yet, he did, and it is the victim who is blamed. And while blaming the victim, people forget that by speaking up, she provided a safe space for other victims to open up too. Victims who had remained silent about their abuse for years (even decades). Victims who pushed aside the memory of his predatory behaviour, yet could never completely overcome the trauma.

Unfortunately, this is not the only time this has happened. Every time a woman speaks up against a person in power, the same Conspiracy of Silence plays out. Friends and acquaintances of the person who has been accused of being a sexual predator close-ranks on him. He is made out to be the ideal friend, colleague, father, and even husband. Stories of his wit and humour, his intelligence and his talent are told as if any of that excuses him from making inappropriate sexual advances against a woman he had power over.

The mainstream media starts questioning the victim and her motives. She is simultaneously painted as a naïve person who misunderstood his intentions, and as the ambitious woman who encouraged him in order to get professional favours.

Everybody chooses to ignore the fact that sexual coercion is not as much about sex, as it is about power. That where there is a disparity in power between the predator and the victim, it is almost impossible for the victim to defend herself.

The people asking, “why now? Why not when it happened?” choose to ignore the fact that it often takes the victim a long time to recognise the abuse and process it. And it takes even longer for her to go public with her accusations. 

Equally important, even after she has decided to go public with the story of her abuse, she is often held back by practical considerations. In the past, whenever a victim has come forward to speak about her abuse, her career has almost always suffered a setback, even if it is proven that she was the victim.

Coming back to specific case, while one can certainly speculate on the motives of the person who spoke up first, the reality is that by speaking, she has drawn attention to how the guru-shishya parampara creates unequal power structures which leave students vulnerable to sexual harassment and abuse. This will, hopefully, generate more conversations, and an effort would be made to make the classical dance community more safe.

Anyone who has been affected by abuse in the Indian classical dance or music space can reach out to here to document abuse and for mental health support.

Feminists could be allies of MRAs

[While MRAs reserve the greatest vitriol for feminists, if they put their prejudice aside, they will realise that feminists will be strong allies.]

 In the social media storm surrounding the ongoing hearings at the Delhi High Court to seek to do away with the exception provided to marital rape under the IPC, the greatest noise has been made by the self-proclaimed MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists).

These men are mostly victims of the misuse of Section 498a of IPC, which was enacted to protect women from harassment from their husbands and their families. Their contention is that just like S/498A has been used to harass men, similarly criminalisation of marital rape too will be misused to “destroy the lives of men”.

MRAs have chosen to direct all their ire against “feminists”, and hold them responsible for the fake cases filed under S/498A, and for the cases that they assume will be filed after marital rape is decriminalised. However, if MRAs step back for a moment, they will realise that their biggest allies in their quest for justice will be feminists.

Before I go further, I will say that the statistics MRAs quote are misleading. They say "majority" of cases filed under S/498a are "fake". What they actually mean is that of the cases filed under S/498A, less than 15% have ended in conviction. That does not, however, mean that 85% of cases are false, because that figure includes cases that are still pending in courts, cases withdrawn under duress, cases which were settled out of court, and even a few cases that were dropped because the victim lost faith in the system and moved on. The number of cases which resulted in a direct acquittal is actually quite low.

More importantly, a very small fraction of women who are victims of harassment actually approach the police, and of them, the police registers an FIR in fewer cases. So to get the percentage of false cases, one will have to compare the number of acquittals to an estimate of the number of women who experience sexual, physical or emotional abuse from their husbands and their families. This figure is sufficiently small to dismiss all the arguments about how the lives of “millions of men” will be destroyed by feminists once marital rape is decriminalised.

Having said all that, S/498A is certainly misused. Even if the number of men who are victims is low, each of them does face mental suffering which cannot be trivialised. However, far from enabling women to file false charges, feminists will actually side with the victim. Feminists, by definition, strive for an equitable world. We side with the victim who is seeking justice. So if a woman files a fake case under S/498A against her partner, our sense of natural justice will make us side with him, as long as we are convinced of his side of the story.

That apart, there are two other very practical reasons why feminists are against "fake cases".

Every time a woman misuses S/498A, it makes it harder for a genuine victim to seek justice. Anyone who has approached the police to register a case under S/498A knows how the police uses one "fake case" they might have handled a few months back to discredit the testimony of all subsequent victims. The victim seeking to file a case against her husband or his family is subject to a barrage of questions, and the police often delays filing the FIR for several weeks, thereby exposing the victim to prospective violence in her marital home. No feminist wants that, so we will provide as much support as we can to ensure that fake cases are weeded out.

Also, whenever there is a case of spousal violence where the aggressor is a woman, it is used as a whip to lash at all feminists. Thousands of women could be subject to domestic violence everyday, but if one woman hits her husband it makes news, and all feminists are expected to take responsibility for it. We, therefore, want to do all we can to keep down the number of fake cases, so we do not have to expend energy explaining that though we are called “feminists”, we are not responsible for the actions of women who are oppressors themselves.

It is to be noted that feminists are often the first to speak up for vulnerable men- male victims of CSA, homosexuals, physically challenged. We will, similarly, speak up for men who are victims of misuse of S/498A, since we side with the victim against injustice.

I wish the Men’s Rights Activists take some time to understand what feminism means, and instead of targeting feminists all the time, try to get us as allies in their quest for justice.

Book Review: Bad Blood

 Unputdownable is the only word to describe John Carreyrou’s ‘Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup’. Though the story of the rise and rise and rise and ultimate fall of the Silicon Valley bio-tech start-up, Theranos, (and its Founder CEO, Elizabeth Holmes) is well known, the book still reads like a fictional thriller.

I remember reading a profile of the Founder CEO, Elizabeth Holmes in 2014, and being absolutely impressed by her youth, her beauty, and her obvious brilliance. It almost seemed like a fairy tale- a 19 year old engineering student coming up with an idea that will revolutionize medical diagnostics, and setting up a company that will make her the richest self-made female. How could someone so young develop a revolutionary technology, and also set up a successful company, I wondered. The answer lies in this book.

It was precisely her lack of scientific knowledge that empowered Elizabeth Holmes to chase an idea that someone with even a bit of experience would know could never work for practical reasons. Like a primary school student drawing a fantastic beast, Elizabeth Holme’s idea had everything- a single drop of blood drawn from the finger, miniature device, multiple tests conducted simultaneously, results out virtually in real time. She didn’t have the expertise to make any of it happen, but she had the charisma to sell her Vision to others. And she drove them to do what was impossible.

Her youth and her passion impressed a group of very powerful older men, who became her greatest champions. Most of them didn’t understand the technology, but were swayed by her vision, and the fact that others from their network believed in her was sufficient for them. It is often said that men have access to Old Boys Networks in a way that women never do- but Elizabeth Holmes, either despite or perhaps because of her gender was able to tap into them as few others could.

The story of Theranos is the story of many tech start-ups. Fake it till you make it. Holmes never even had a working prototype, but she had the audacity to sell her vision to many. It was a classic case of creating an image and letting the image sell itself- even prestigious medical schools went out of their way to honour her merely on the basis of her assertions. Her Board was so packed with heavyweights, that nobody noticed she didn’t have a single expert from the field of medical diagnostics there. The financial projections were never met, and product deadlines were constantly missed, yet she successfully worked on FOMO to ensure her backers stayed with her.

Carreyrou dismisses any theories of Holmes being misled. From the earliest days, the start up resorted to distortions and untruths. During live demonstrations, fake results would be beamed to impress prospective partners and investors. Code was written to ensure that when the device malfunctioned, instead of beaming an error message, the progress bar would appear to slow down, so people decided not to wait for the results but pick it up later at which time false results would be submitted.

Bad Blood is the story of a Founder CEO who was all image but no domain expertise. Employees were recruited by selling a vision, and then insane demands were placed on them. The corporate culture was personality driven, and nobody was allowed to offer constructive criticism or push back on insane demands. People who left (or were asked to leave) were threatened with lawsuits if they went back on the non-disclosure agreements they signed.

Theranos never had the product they claimed they had- more effort was put on the aesthetics of the product than in the product itself. None of the USPs which Holmes spoke about in public were actualised. Yet, they were able to maintain the illusion for over a decade and raise multiple rounds of funding. Had Theranos been a regular tech start up, a lot of it could have been forgiven. But the consumers were people, and the decisions of life and death were taken based on the test results. Errors, and there were several, could have proved fatal. Which is why employees quit, and the entire investigation was launched.

Bad Blood reads like a thriller- at times, it seems too unrealistic even to be fiction. We keep marvelling at how so many were fooled for so long by so little. The cast of characters is varied and well etched. It is an exemplary piece of writing, which will appeal to many. Above all, it is a cautionary tale.

Boye ped babul ke

 Three young people have been taken into custody for creating an app which “auctioned” Muslim women who have a presence on Twitter.

A group of high school students beat up a Muslim classmate for participating in the garba celebrations.

Young men and women with ‘student’ on their bio are all over Social Media spewing hate and issuing threats to anyone with a different political ideology.

“How did young people develop so much hate?”, we wonder.

Sant Kabir has the answer-

करता रहा सो क्यों रहा, अब करी क्यों पछताए |

बोये पेड़ बबूल का, अमुआ कहा से पाए ||

These young people didn’t get beamed down from outer space. Nor did they need any special brainwashing to get this way. They are all a product of the toxic environment they are exposed to at home and outside. The adults in their life are full of hate, bigotry and gross entitlement, and they grow up thinking that is the only way to be.

My son was 7 when he uttered the words “Sala Musalman”. Since I couldn’t imagine him using the slur, I probed. He’d picked it up from a friend, who’s school teacher used it often. Though I tried to tell the mother of his friend, she was really not concerned. Seeds of bigotry planted early and growing unchecked.

A couple of years later, I overheard another friend of my son ticking off a security guard, “pata hai main kaun hoon? Do minute mein naukri se nikal sakta hoon.” (/”do you know who I am. I can have you thrown out of your job in two minutes.”) The 12 year old was clearly repeating words he heard his father and/ or mother utter. The entitlement was taught by example, and constantly reinforced to a point where it became second nature.

I’ve often observed mothers waiting for their car outside a mall trying to coax their kids to finish a fast-melting softie cone. When surrounded by kids begging for the cone, they shoo the kids away, but dump the cone in a dustbin and rub their hands clean before getting into the car. If you ask them why they couldn’t have given it to the kids, they mutter something about not encouraging ‘dirty’ kids. This doesn’t exactly teach empathy, does it?

I am sure all those children are now pursuing professional degrees in well regarded institutions. In a few years, they will be in good jobs where the starting salary is much higher than the annual income of an average Indian family. Yet, what are the values they have imbibed? Hate, bigotry, lack of empathy, selfishness, taking privilege for granted.

Is it any surprise that these youth carry their sense of entitlement with them, and grow up to be hatemongers? Isn’t it expected that far from being aware of their privileges, these youth grow up thinking they are the victims of an inequitable system?

The environment that our children are growing up in doesn’t help either.

Movies and TV shoes celebrate misogyny and violence. Sexual harassment is mainstreamed in popular culture. Almost none of the popular actors, singers or sportspeople consistently speak against social evils, and many even promote caste pride, religious indoctrination and misogyny through their posts on social media. 

The narrative of hate peddled by the mainstream media boom from our TVs every evening. Video games bring out our violent streak. And even school textbooks present a one-sided narrative. Growing up in this environment, it is hard for youth not to be indoctrinated to some extent.

While it is a relatively small number of youth who actually commit hate crimes, the vast majority carry their toxic ideology with them, and will eventually spawn the next generation of similarly radicalised youth. The vicious cycle feeds itself.

Is there any hope at all?

If you look at the same generation, you do find some exceptional people. Young men and women fighting for the planet, speaking out against atrocities, asking uncomfortable questions to those in authority. There are teenagers who engage in nuanced discussions, and create art that holds a mirror to society. These young people use social media to speak up against bigotry and misogyny. How are they different from their peers?

Most of them come from homes where they were encouraged to speak up. They were allowed to question authority and hold views different from those of their parents and/ or teachers. Their parents instilled the core values of honesty, empathy and respect in them, and they were tasked with the responsibility of standing up for those who were being bullied by others. Many of them read extensively, and learnt to use the internet responsibly.

These are the youth who give hope that with proper effort, radicalisation can be overcome. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Book Review: Kari

 Kari’s smouldering black eyes drilled into my soul from the stark cover of Amruta Patil’s graphic novel for almost a month before I finally gathered the courage to dive into the turgid dark waters of her Soul. Kari, the protagonist, inhabits the same time and space that I called home for several years- we might even have taken the same local train to work or back- yet, superficially, we couldn’t be more different.

Brooding, melancholy, drawn to the dark, Kari introspects on the urban lifestyle, on sexuality and people’s reaction of fidelity, on lesbian relationships and how the heterosexual society often sees it as a temporary deviant, on paternal expectations and the guilt of children, on domestic violence and the studied silence of society when it encounters it. As Kari navigates the labyrinth of ‘Smog City’, collecting symbols like we collect ticket stubs, you start seeing glimpses of yourself in Kari and of Kari in you.

The book is in sombre colours. Like the world Kari inhabits- 

“Smog city looks even more anaemic in the sun. Left to itself long enough, everything in the world withers, wastes, fades away to brown and grey. Tarpaulin and trash. Cinders and ash. Vegetables turn to potty. Red curtains colourless, add to this, streams of women and women, like rotos and slaves, in equally tired colours. We are scared of too much colour.”

But when you least expect it, that monochromatic world gets drenched in colour. Sometimes, it is the colour of the magical, sometimes of the mundane. But colour it is.

Some of her musings are spot on-

“There are settling girls, and there are unsettling girls. The ones who seem to have it in them to be flyers are the ones who want to snuggle into settling. The ones who look as settled as old housedogs want to twist their way into flying. Necessarily, you must be defensive about being a settling sort of girl.”

“The Airlines lady who travels in the same compartment as us day after day, has bruises on her arms and face today and her eyes keep welling, but no one asks her why. Our eyes dart towards her, but we go back to travelling in too much proximity. Two inches from one another and expressionless.”

“I wait to watch their train leave just as I waited to watch their train pull in. I wait till they have disappeared. Until the next train pulls in. I have temporarily regressed to being a guilt ridden and miserable child.”

Amruta Patil’s ‘Kari’, for all practical purposes, is the first graphic novel for adults that I read, so I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect. Having read it, I now wonder if the bar is set too high.