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.

The Fig and the Wasp

 When you tear a banyan fig open, chances are you will find a colony of tiny insects/ larvae inside it. But how did they get there?

Certain wasp species co-evolved with banyans. An impregnated female wasp carrying pollen enters the banyan fig, deposits pollen, lays her eggs and dies. When the eggs hatch, the male wasp impregnates a female wasp, drills out of the fig and dies. The female laden with fresh pollen, escapes through the hole drilled by the male, enters another banyan fig, deposits pollen, lays her eggs and dies. The cycle continues.

Since the life cycle of a wasp is very short, and they cannot reproduce without banyan figs, the banyan tree produces fruits throughout the year. These figs attract fructivorous birds like barbets and hornbills, ants, small mammals including monkeys and other flora/ fauna. The banyan tree is, therefore, always teeming with life.

The banyan is considered a keystone species since it, in effect, defines the ecosystem.

If you chop off the canopy of a banyan prior to translocation, you not only put the banyan in danger, you destroy the entire ecosystem that is centred around it.

On #NationalConservationDay, let us pledge to save the Banyan, our National Tree.

The Unexpected Visitor

 

I grew up loving lantana. The multicoloured flowers. The dark blue berries I loved to eat (in moderation). The butterflies that visited them. I even like the weird smell the leaves gave out when crushed.

During the pandemic, when sunbirds and silverbills started visiting my balcony, I dreamt of getting lantana too, so the butterflies would come. But people discouraged me. I understood they were an invasive species that messes with the biodiversity and is toxic to herbivores. That they have taken over more than 40% of tiger habitats and are almost impossible to get rid of. Though I really wanted the butterflies, I didn't get the lantanas I craved.

Then this plant sprang from nowhere (not really nowhere- from the belly of a fructivorous bird that must have visited). I rarely weed out the plants that spring up in my pots, so let this one grow. By the time I realised it was lantana, I didn't have the heart to uproot it, and even if I did, unless I burnt it, it would have just taken root wherever I trashed it. Maybe I was meant to have the lantana. And the butterflies I hope they attract.

I just need to make sure the plant doesn’t fruit, so the it doesn’t propagate further.

Book Review: Legal Fiction

 

“Everything in Legal Fiction is fiction. All that is fiction is fiction, of course, but even truth is fiction. If the people, stories, places and incidents at any point appear to be true, it is our collective misfortune. We advise you to consider it a fault of the imagination and move on.”

I read these lines three times, before I thought I could get a glimmer of Chandan Pandey was trying to convey. After finishing the book, I circled back to these lines, and they finally started to make sense.

The book deals with an India where reality and fiction coexist so seamlessly, you cannot distinguish between the two. An India where the enactment of play appears more real than reality itself. An India where life imitates art, and art is based on life.

The story is loosely based on a now forgotten incident where a policemen saved a man from a lynch mob. But the characters and settings are universal. We hear mumbles of similar incidents, which are soon drowned out by tidal wave of fiction and misdirection, till all that remains in the memory is a vague sense of resentment against the favourite enemy!

The book tackles the issues that define small town India- growing religious intolerance, corruption, patriarchy, intimidation, violence and fear. It dares you to look in the mirror to confront a reality you want to avoid. It forces you to look at an India where reality and fiction blend so seamlessly you find it hard to distinguish between the two.

*spoiler alert*
The book ends where you least expect it to, leaving you to write your one ending. Is the writer challenging us to chart our own destiny?
*end spoiler*

The work is a translation, but at no stage did it seem translated. The flavour of the original was captured so well, you almost caught yourself mentally translating them back to the original Hindi/ Bhojpuri.

A difficult read. But if there is one book you want to read to understand the India of today, it is this.

Abortion may be Legal in India but are we doing any better than the US?

[First published in Women's Web]

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overthrew the Roe v/s Wade judgement, women across the world drowned in collective grief because we realised that women have essentially been denied autonomy over our own bodies. Even those of us who are not directly affected were affected because we recognize this as yet another incident that takes the world further away from the dream for gender equity.

One section was, however, quite gleeful about the verdict. Cis-het men from India were gloating about the fact that since abortion is legal in India, we are way ahead of the United States when it comes to the reproductive rights of women. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is true that abortion under certain conditions has been legal in India for 50 years since the passing of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in 1971, and this Act was further amended in 2003 and 2021 to enable women greater access to safe and legal abortion. On the face of it, the legislation is extremely liberal. Unmarried women have access to abortions, and married women do not need spousal permission for seeking medical termination of pregnancies. The law also has provisions for abortions till the end of the 24th week.

However, since the law was essentially brought in as a measure for population control rather than for the emancipation of women, there are restrictions. A pregnancy can only be terminated after receiving the opinion of one (two if the pregnancy is between 20 to 24 weeks) doctors. What this means is that a woman cannot, for instance, walk into a pharmacy and purchase a pill for medical termination of pregnancy without the prescription from a medical professional. 

This exposes the woman to the medical system, where she has to deal with the judgement and harassment of the medical professionals, especially if they are unmarried, or not accompanied by their spouse and mother-in-law. Women from vulnerable communities, especially poor, uneducated, lower caste or tribal women are entirely at the mercy of a system that systematically strips them of their dignity and subjects them to much physical, verbal and mental abuse.

The most recent amendment of the MTP Act specifically lists “contraceptive failure” as a valid reason for women, especially unmarried women, to seek medical termination of pregnancy. However, since the woman still needs the opinion of at least one doctor before she can go in for an abortion, she is at a mercy of an arbitrary system which works at the discretion of the medical professionals. This, obviously, reduces her autonomy over her body. Also, while the Act grants confidentiality to the woman seeking an abortion, since most women are unaware of that clause, they remain at the mercy of a system that chooses to harass them. 

Women who seek a medical termination of pregnancy in government hospitals or in rural hospitals, run the risk of unsafe abortions. Deaths due to post abortion complications is the third largest cause of maternal mortality in India, and over 10 women die every day due to unsafe abortions. Since the MTP Act is applicable only to pregnant “women”, transgender persons and gender non-conforming persons are excluded from the ambit of the Act.
The men who use the existence of the Act to prove how well India performs against other countries do not take any of these issues into consideration. While women in India have access to abortions, the conditions under which they can be accessed are far from ideal.

More importantly, access to abortions is not the only measure by which you can estimate the autonomy that women have over their bodies. In India, it is the spouse and the extended family who often take decisions regarding the reproductive rights of a woman. The sex ratio in India is one of the worst in the world, and this is driven almost entirely by abortions undertaken for the purpose of sex selection. The pressure for a male child is so prevalent in the country that sex determination is rampant, and women are often coerced to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy. In this case, the woman lacks autonomy over her own body, and is at the mercy of her man who takes decisions regarding her body.

Whether it is denying women the right to choose whether or not to abort after an unwanted pregnancy, or coercing a woman to abort a foetus of the wrong gender, it is the woman who lacks the agency to express her choice.

A third of female migrant workers working as sugarcane cutters in Bheed have had a hysterectomy so they can work without being hindered by periods or pregnancies. Many pathological labs refuse to perform PAP smear tests on unmarried women. Anecdotal evidence from oncologists shows that some men refuse to permit their wives to undergo mammograms or mastectomies because they want their women to be “whole”. All of this clearly shows that women do not have autonomy over their own bodies, and decisions around reproductive health are taken by other people.

Given such a situation, it is hypocritical to merely use the fact that medical termination of pregnancy is permitted in India to imply that the nation does better on reproductive rights of women than the United States. Across the globe, there is a growing trend towards reducing the autonomy women have other their bodies. Perhaps the reason why even women who will not be directly affected by the overturning of Roe v/s Wade are devasted by the judgement is precisely because we realise that every step taken towards curtailing the freedom of women in any part of the world eventually affects all womankind. 

“Abortions Might Be Legal In India, But They Strip Our Dignity”

 [Published in Youth Ki Awaaz]

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overthrew the Roe v/s Wade judgment, a section of cis-het men from India took to social media to talk gleefully about how India is way ahead of the United States when it comes to reproductive rights of women.

Yes, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 and its subsequent amendments provides a framework for married and unmarried women to access safe and legal abortions. However, in reality, women in India still lack autonomy in their own bodies.

The MTP Act of 1971 was brought in as a measure for population control, rather than for the emancipation of women, which places many restrictions on the ease with which women can access abortions.

A woman can medically terminate a pregnancy only after receiving an opinion from a doctor. The objective of this was to ensure that only qualified medical practitioners conduct abortions, under proper conditions. However, in reality, it means that a woman cannot purchase a pill for the medical termination of pregnancy unless she has a prescription from a doctor. This exposes women seeking medical termination of pregnancy to an unfriendly and judgemental healthcare system.

Unmarried women are exposed to the judgement of the medical system, and are often threatened with doxing. Married women not accompanied by their spouse (and/ or mother-in-law) are routinely harassed, and the fact that most of them are not aware that they do not need spousal permission to access a medical termination of pregnancy makes them particularly vulnerable. Women from vulnerable communities, especially poor, uneducated, lower caste or tribal women are entirely at the mercy of a system that systematically strips them of their dignity and subjects them to much physical, verbal and mental abuse.

The MTP Act has a very narrow definition of ‘women’ and transgender and gender non-conforming persons are excluded from the purview of the Act, making it close to impossible for them to access safe and legal abortions.

Essentially, though medical termination of pregnancy has been legal in India for over five decades, the conditions under which abortions can be accessed strip the dignity of the woman, and leave her at the mercy of an extremely judgemental and unfriendly medical system.

Indian Women Too Lack Autonomy Over Our Bodies

Access to medical termination of pregnancy is only one part of the picture. The reason why women are drowning in collective grief after the overthrow of Roe w/s Wade is that we have essentially been told that we do not have autonomy over our own bodies.

In India, decisions around the reproductive health of women are almost always taken by the spouse and the extended family, and not by the women themselves. The societal desire for a male child is so high, that women are forced to undergo multiple pregnancies till they deliver a male child. Though sex determination is illegal, a flourishing black market exists, and pregnant women are coerced to undergo medical termination of pregnancy if the foetus is found to be female.

The woman lacks any autonomy over her body, and it is the spouse and his family that take decisions around her reproductive health.

Whether it is denying women the right to choose whether or not to abort after an unwanted pregnancy, or coercing a woman to abort a foetus of the wrong gender, it is the woman who lacks the agency to express her choice.

Women are denied autonomy over their bodies in other ways too. Women, especially poor, uneducated, lower caste and/or tribal women, are often encouraged to have hysterectomies so they can work without being hindered by periods or pregnancies. Studies have shown that a third of female migrant workers working as sugarcane cutters in Bheed have had a hysterectomy, and are suffering the consequences of an avoidable surgical procedure.

Many pathological labs refuse to perform PAP smear tests on unmarried women, even if their doctors have advised them to undergo the test.

Despite overwhelming evidence that shows that vasectomies are faster, cheaper and safer than tubectomies when a family decides to stop having more children, it is often the woman who undergoes a tubectomy.

All of this clearly shows that women do not have autonomy over their own bodies, and decisions around reproductive health are taken by other people. It is thus hypocritical to assume that India does better that other nations in upholding the reproductive rights of women. Despite a reasonably liberal MTP Act, women in India too lack autonomy over our bodies, and we too are vulnerable to social and medical systems that are skewed against women.

Stand up. Speak up. Show up

 [I wrote this in 2019. That was the year when I stopped waiting for ‘someone else’ to do what had to be done. Looking back, I have continued to redeem that pledge I made to myself.]

Last year, on my birthday, I promised myself that I would accomplish three things before I completed another revolution around the sun. I decided that I would learn a new language, get my Open Water certification and start on and complete one large craft project. I failed miserably in two, and barely made much headway with the third.

After struggling to fit the Open Water certification into my schedule, I put it aside for another day. I do still hope to get it someday, but when that will be, I cannot tell. [2022: paused indefinitely, but not yet abandoned.]

The crafting project didn’t ever go beyond the planning stage, though I did put in some effort into learning new techniques which I might apply in the future. [2022: I am not sure I even remember what the project was, though I still have stashes of craft supplies.]

For a couple of weeks, my Urdu lessons progressed well, till I reached a stage when I could make out parts of words in hoardings. But then the complexity got to me, and I stopped. Not gave up, not yet. But put on indefinitely pause. [2022: I made progress here.]

I should be disappointed because I fared so badly on all the three big tasks I set for myself; yet I am not. Because though I missed on on these smaller things, I did well on the Big Thing. The thing that I had chosen as the cornerstone of my life sometime during the course of the year-

‘Stand Up. Speak Up. Show Up.’

It was not easy. At times, it was actually pretty hard.

To stand up for what you know is right, even though almost everyone around you thinks otherwise. To risk antagonising family and friends who are living in a dimension very different from your own. To not let yourself be bullied into silence to keep relationships intact. 

To speak up is hard, when yours is a lonely voice. Staying silent is tempting when you know the hate that will be heaped on you for opening your mouth. Even if you know you are right, it is easy and tempting to attempt to negotiate an uneasy peace by staying silent..

To show up even when you believe that your presence doesn’t make a difference. To stand with a group of strangers holding a placard, to address that letter which may or may not be read, to speak to a stranger and try to convince them of what you are protesting for.

When your life is packed tight, and you don’t have the energy to ‘stand up, speak up, show up’, you can convince yourself that you are doing ‘enough’. That signing a petition on change(dot)org, or liking a post on Facebook is sufficient. That someone else can fight the battle you are too tired to take on. That you don’t have to be there doing everything.

But no matter what you do, it is never enough. Because there is so much to be done. So many battles to be fought, just to hold on to our heritage and ensure equal opportunities for all. Those battles will be fought. Because they must.

I am happy that to the best of my ability, I did stand up, speak up, show up. I could have done more, but at least I did as much as I could. And it counts for something. While I go around the sun again, I want to continue doing just that.

I also want to make more time for people; the people who matter, and the ones who need me. I want to spend more time with beauty; natural and man made. I want to continue living in joy.

And somewhere in all that, I hope I am also able to achieve the three things I promised myself last year.