How can this happen in India????

That was my reaction when I saw the news about how a man locked up his wife and 2 daughters in a house for 7 years in a place like Vasai. Typical Indians and the indian way of living is often accused of NOT minding their own business and always poking around in another's affairs. We pride ourselves in knowing our neighbourhood. We know our neighbours, where they hail from, we know where their parents & in-laws live, we know what is the current biggest crises in their household, we know their festivals, we know where they work, we know their friends and relatives who visit them, we know their typical daily routine, we actually know pretty much everything that we are required to know and mostly the other gory details too.

I am totally lost how did people not know or care for 3 people who were locked up in a house for 7 years. As Indians we are accused of having acute interest in the neighbour's life and mostly providing it for the gossip mills around as well. If this unwarranted attention & behaviour was of any use to anybody anytime, it was probably at times like this.

Crimes like this in the western suburbs of Bombay, its very very difficult to imagine.

Child custody - who decides?

Ever since I saw this news flashed all over punetimes the last 2 days, its stayed on. The story is simple and is a common one as well with umpteen dozen divorces where kids are involved.

I do not wish to take a stand here for either of the parents and nor am I trying to be judgemental either but have a couple of thoughts brimming in my head.

If 2 sane sensible adults (lets forget all other kind of couples) in a marriage decide to part ways since their wavelengths do not match(forget all other reasons as well) and also for the sake of argument lets say both parents can give the child a secure & comfortable life, who is the best person or people to decide the custody of the child or children?

It is a tough decision to make for either parent. While being a mother I am really tempted to say a mother is more attached, but emotions for your child can not be brought out and measured on a balance scale, maternal v/s paternal. When 2 kids are involved how do you decide to split them even? Which of the parents want to make that choice, son with you, daughter with me? One of the parent must let go or both need to work at getting the marriage to work. Individual's happiness is important but both parents have a far greater responsibility towards the kids. A happy childhood is their right and they deserve it with both or one parent. Also, I think its cruel to split kids, even if there are 3 kids. Putting your child through the trauma of having to answer questions like "Mummy or Dadda" or having a third person, the legal system question the child or exposing them to the world when they are the most vulnerable is very cruel. For the love of your child or kids, parents need to settle that between themselves. If parents can not agree between themselves, one of the parent will still be miserable after the judiciary makes its choice. A divorce should help you live peacefully, happily and let the other person live their life as well. If one continues the custody battle long after the marriage is over, the whole purpose of a divorce probably is lost.

Having to steal/kidnap one's own child, getting to a situation where one needs to hide the child and self is definitely not the way to salvation but muckier waters. A divorce is bad enough, don't make it uglier by pushing the child or children in the forefront by making them your shield to fight your spouse.

Kids & racism

This one is from my drafts. This one was written when blogdom was discussing racism-shilpa shetty issue remember.
--------------------------
Color discrimination is something that Jellybean doesn't understand yet. But I know, she is a little disappointed when stupid neighbours and strangers indulge the peapod and act as if she isn't standing right there. My heart breaks when I see that look on her face where she is staring at the lady who is not looking her way but all eyes for the peapod. I pick her up, hug her and tread off in a different direction. But she keeps struggling to get a glimpse of that stranger with the peapod. I keep thinking, can I shield her? Should I? I can not keep educating stupid people but I just don't entertain such people. Maybe its human behaviour, I don't know. The twins were like this years ago. The jellybean's mom wheatish and the other fair and people kept discriminating even in school. There were kids younger than us who would call her the black-didi. There were people who used to identify her as the black child. It hurts a child and I do not know how people can comfortably be blind to that fact.

Inspite of it all she never got into a complex over her complexion or hated the other twin because she was fair. It was because my parents never made a big deal of it. Infact my mom used to call her the black beauty. Straight facts. My Dad used to just say how he thought she was the prettiest of the 3 anyway. He wasn't exaggerating, he wasn't pampering, he would just state it. He wasn't even looking for approval from any of us. She was punished everytime she went out of line, even if it was because someone called her black. There have been times when I thought it was bloody unfair and have fought dad. But nothing changed. All 3 of us were dealt with equally, no bonus points for being either fair or dark. The one girl I haven't spoken to after a fight in school was the one who hit the jellybean's mom. I don't remember what trigged it, but I was really mad. I hit them back and walked(ran) away never to talk to them again. The families were family friends then and even now, but we kids have never spoken after that. Its probably also because we havent met since school. I remember her everytime I go for my communion. Silly, I know but its never come to me from within. I was just too hurt.

I have no doubts the Jellybean will grow to be a charming & confident little girl like her mom and all these will be forgotten. She like her mom will sit and make fun of it all one day. She will find her own ways to tackle racism or discrimination based on her complexion. Parents will discipline kids with broken hearts knowing their kids were provoked. But its a lesson to teach our kids to love beyond color & appearances by doing so ourselves.

The shoe effect

Though the short term effect of the show hurled at P Chindambaram by Jarnail Singh might end up with the withdrawal of Jagdish Tytler's ticket, the long term effect of such acts might actually help clean up criminals from politics. While gandhigiri movements might work as well but once in a while showing the people in charge the real anger and frustration you feel at the system will keep the politicians on their toes and will force them to provide or associate themselves with only the right people. The pressures that these criminals might impose on a party for their personal gain might not help if they are scared of the aam-janta.

The big dilemma today in voting is whether to elect the devil or the deep sea. Incidents like these might just help us have better options. What do you think?

The concept of free speech and the internet

A very interesting debate is on in the blogosphere around freedom of speech with responsibility and accountability. TOI reported that a 19-year old blogger has been charged with a criminal offense for an offensive comment left by an anonymous against Shiv-senas.

Petitioner Ajith D had started a community on Orkut against Shiv Sena. In this community, there were several posts and discussions by anonymous persons who alleged that Shiv Sena was trying to divide the country on region and caste basis.

Reacting to these posts, the Shiv Sena youth wing's state secretary registered a criminal complaint at Thane police station in August 2008 based on which FIR was registered against Ajith under Sections 506 and 295A pertaining to hurting public sentiment.

...After getting anticipatory bail from Kerala HC, Ajith moved the SC to quash the complaint on the ground that the contents did not have defamation value.

Dragon Fly contains a scathing criticism of the SC’s move. ‘‘Totalitarianism is official now, you may have the ways to express but you cannot express and if you do, be prepared to face the consequences,’’ it says. ‘‘The issue of hurting public sentiments is a bit crap idea. What will not hurt the public sentiments? If someone raises the issue of legalizing prostitution, it hurts public sentiments, if someone raises issue of legalizing alcohol, drugs or even abortions it hurts public sentiments.’’

It might seem ridiculous that a brand like shivsena has to waste their time behind a small time blogger considering their moral policing stand and region based fanaticism and the rave reviews they have got from all around, not just bloggers.

TOI quotes the SC,

"We cannot quash criminal proceedings. You are a computer student and you know how many people access internet portals. Hence, if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct."

The Bench also added,

"You should not have indulged in such activity. You are a student of IT. You are doing something on internet and you should know about it," the Bench said refusing the plea of his lawyer that there was any malafide intention in putting the contents on the internet.

The Bench remained unmoved by the submission that if the case was not quashed, similar cases could be registered in other states and even in foreign countries. "If a case is filed in a foreign country go and face it. You should know what you are doing on internet," the Bench observed.

This brings us to the question of what kind of freedom of expression is within my rights and what is not. I would think I should be allowed to show my support or protest against a political party, establishment, cause or individual as far as I do not cause anybody any physical harm. As a citizen of this country why can't I question the credentials of a media person, an activist, a group, an individual holding or hoping to hold a government position whose job or actions concerns me directly or indirectly. I should be able to raise my concerns, questions using any medium of expression freely. No argument should be headed towards a Big Daddy answer 'because I told you so and you can not question me'. Works only with 5 years old and I doubt it works completely at that age as well. I raise concerns and voice causes because I care for this country. I raise it with whatever limited knowledge I have. The cause I fight for or a campaign I support might not end up with offenders behind bars, or the cause being discussed in the parliament but if the campaign finds enough strength and louder voices, you better take notice. We elected you not to rule us but to serve us, to address our grievances.

Amit Varma of Indiauncut has done a couple of post on freedom of expression in the past which has convinced me that a 'freedom of expression with caveat like responsibility/accountability" will never work and will always be abused under one pretext or the other. Only "freedom of expression with no caveats" can work. In an earlier post I pointed out to an article by Johann Hari, who points out how the defenders of freedom of expression turn out to oppose freedom of expression because of the caveats inserted by religious leaders.

Sanjukta welcomes the SC decision and adds

This would help clean up a lot of shit that goes around the blogsphere, will help us become more responsible and mature writers thereby establishing credibility for bloggers’ opinion and most importantly it would kill the terrible habit of writing all kinds of indecent, uncivilized, abusive things anonymously in the comments thread.

I have discovered a lot of good blogs and bad blogs. I subscribe to the ones I like reading, I forget the ones I do not like. "Indecent, uncivilized & abusive" writings are so, in your perspective, but they could mean differently to a different lot. It is difficult to ring fence blogs as good or bad, its just a matter of personal choice. Abusive or indecent stuff in the comments, is sometimes just for kicks & for laughs. Ignore or Delete it. Why should x be held guilty because Y wanted to kill z and said so on x's blog. Just because X prevented Y from writing it on his blog does not mean Y's intent disappeared. How different would India then be from a communist China? How is this different from people & countries who ban Salman Rushdie and Taslima because they wrote and challenged stereotypes in a religion?

Sanjukta also adds

you cannot just go about blabbing whatever comes to your mind without giving it a second thought, for eg @Gmishra says, “Who defines responsibility? or the border line! Does SC understands blogosphere good enough to judge us ?” This man can actually be booked under contempt of court for suggesting, Supreme Court is incapable of judging a case infront of it.

Maybe SC can book us under contempt of court today, I am not sure. But I don't quite like it that way. As a citizen of this country why should I not be able to voice my dissatisfaction with the verdict freely. It should be perfectly within my rights.

Dhananjay makes a point while he defends the SC's verdict

All that the court has said is that one cannot escape from being accountable for expressions and thus present themselves to defend themselves. That's perfectly reasonable. However it could indirectly hurt freedom of expression due to the burden it places in terms of defense. Defending oneself in a remote state can be an act of punishment itself which could dilute the very strengths the constitutional rights sought to promote. That part does worry me.

But the core of the matter still is one shouldn't be punished for having an opinion. It could be an aggressive one, it could be assertive, it could be provocative but those are just varied styles of expression. People causing physical harm or loss should be punished and not people who write about how they feel. Patrix from Nerve endings firing away says it way better than I do. Please hop over for a decent argument in defence of freedom of expression.

Don't punish people for having opinions and ideas. Punish the culprits who molest women on the road, who destroy public property, who moral police the country. If it helps, please get a blog, a orkut or facebook profile and keep off the roads. That way we can have a blog war and not a drop of blood.

The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech

I was reading this excellent article by Johann Hari(link via Jabberwock). It is a long one, but its worth it. Its in response to an article he wrote earlier this year which had the editor and the publisher jailed. The conditioning of the world currently is such that religion has become a very delicate topic best avoided. Johann Hari has put his arguments through so eloquently that you can't but just nod in total agreement. The article invoked very strong reactions from religious fundamentalists. The article explains how fundamental human right to free speech is compromised under the umbrella of "religious issues" throughout the world and even in the UN.

I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.

This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.

I am a religious person. I believe in a supreme power and hence live by believing things will be fine tomorrow or maybe the day after if it is not today. As a christian, Bible is the answer to all my questions, worries and anxieties. Bible is a part of my daily prayers. As a child when I started reading the book of Psalms, a lot of the chapters did not go very well with the basic concepts of christian values of forgiveness and love your enemies. Slowly, I figured out a handful of chapters I liked and stuck to them like a recorder. Psalms 23, 91, 100 & 121 of the 150 chapters :). I would only read one of these or the proverbs or read the new testament.

It is said it is unacceptable to argue the Bible. As my father explained it, the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, it is the written word, arguing over it without the one who wrote it explaining what was exactly meant is very dangerous. Take what you makes sense to you and go back for the rest latter in the years. (He was pretty scared that after one of our Bible study classes we were just going to argue bad and give up on it.) The so-called custodians of the religion today weren't the ones who wrote it or the ones who even heard the sermons. So they are as good as us when it comes to interpreting the written word. Theological seminaries where the bible is taught I am told a lot of other books/subjects revolving around the history of the place and times is taught as well, which brings in factual or circumstantial evidence which ofcourse the commoners are unaware of. That is the advantage we give our priests. God has given us brains to evolve as human beings and not to stagnate as men and women of the garden of Eden. There is this story in the bible Matthew 25:14-30 that goes such,

A landlord had 3 servants. Since the landlord was going far away for a few years, he called all the 3 servants and gave then x amount each. 2 of the servants invested this money in various other activities and made some more. While the third servant dug a hole and preserved it. When the landlord returns, the other 2 servants had more to offer while the 3rd one had nothing more to offer. The landlord then takes away what was given to the 3rd servant since he hadn't used it anyway and the other 2 are given more.

This story as you can see can be interpreted in a couple of ways and I have heard a couple of them but the only one that appealed to me was, God gives you talent and brains to use it and not to preserve it, so use it. Not using it is a sin.

So the religious books should be open to discussions only then would we be able to evolve to laws relevant to the current times. We can not read Genesis and say God created us naked and that is how nature meant us to be right?

Coming back to the point, the article is not a provocative article, it is only provocative to those who are uncomfortable counter-arguing it.

The protesters said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.

..The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech.

and nothing else. Its never ever violence.

Say No to Sanjay Dutt

Goofy Mumma has done couple of posts and has linked various people who have very strongly opposed Sanjay Dutt contesting elections in India.

There is nothing new I have to add to what many bloggers from the blogosphere have already said about Sanjay Dutt contesting the next Lok Sabha elections and about his views. I write anyway to just show I totally support the cause.

Some of Sanjay & Amar Singh's quotes or opinions are so ridiculous, I fail to see the primary motive to contest

Sanjay Dutt has been quoted to have said:

“Women should not stick to their fathers’ surname after marriage just for the sake of fashion. It will be a disrespect for their husbands if they do so. They must give up fathers’ surname and adopt husbands’ surname”.

Its been an age old tradition. It was invented at a time when women were just faceless, nameless people in a household who would take orders. That is no more the case and so this is a tradition way past its expiry date. I am not against taking on your husband's name but I would like to have that choice and not forced upon me. The foundation of a marriage should be commitment and love, everything else is just frills. The only thing that you achieve by changing names is you can collectively be addressed as Mr & Mrs Dutt. Otherwise it would be Sanjay & Manyata, its not a meter to prove how strong your marriage is. With people who marry and divorce every 5-10 years, the "department of names" would be a busy one to change when married and then change when divorced.

With that settled now, some of your reasons and statements made in the press about you contesting for elections are really ridiculous

To quote ibnlive,

1. Sanjay cited cricketer-turned politician Navjot Singh Sidhu's case, saying "if Sidhu, who faced murder charge, can contest, why can't I"?

Oh so now if you get the ticket, then Dawood Ibrahim can come contest here under the same argument.

2. "..Sunil Dutt's (Sanjay Dutt's father) first job was in Lucknow so Sanjay chose Lucknow as constituency," Amar Singh said.

if you had a choice then why not Bombay? You really take the people of this country for granted, don't you?

3. Amar Singh, however, also said that Sanjay's first priority will be films and politics is only overtime for him

WHAT??? Oh sorry I read "overtime" as "pass time".

Firstly, We do not want a criminal contesting elections in India. Secondly Sanjay Dutt does not seem to have an agenda for Lucknow or have the faintest clue what is required. Last but not the least, from the 10 lines that he has spoken to the media, its kind of clear his thoughts and opinions are way 18th-centurish.

image courtesy: Goofy Mumma

Domestic Violence

Please read MM's post on domestic violence, if you haven't already. I will quote her below because its exactly how I feel.

Here’s my thing. If you let someone hit you, you are as much to blame. Stand up. Speak up. Fight back. Kill the bastard. Shove a knife through his eye when he’s asleep. Don’t let him break you down. Don’t let him break your spirit along with your bones. Ask for help. Don’t be ashamed. You have nothing to be ashamed of. He has everything to be ashamed of. Do not let him tell you that he is sorry. That it was an accident. That he won’t do it again. And again. And again. Do not let him make you feel that you ‘asked for it’. Don’t let him tell you that all marriages go through a little violence. Don’t let him tell you he is ‘disciplining you.’ Please. I beg of you. Walk away if nothing else. For your own sake.

There is no excuse for letting the beast empower you. Take a walk, shut your mouth, drink water, sing to yourself. Do anything that distracts you before you transform into a beast. Walk away from the situation if you think you can not handle or control yourself. Get yourself help if you find yourself frequently in the same state of mind.

Fight back with vengeance the first time you are hit to ensure your spouse knows the consequences(walk out, slap back, call the police) if there is a second time. Its generally an argument going wild in households with no issues around alcohol or insanity. If you do not raise hell the first time, there will be a repeat sooner or latter. Your silence after a physical abuse will be considered as your acceptance of the beastly behaviour. So do not shut up & sulk. Defend yourself. Seek help. And be on your guard after the first time.

Admist your fight do not loose your 'spirit'. Live life to the fullest with or without your spouse. Don't waste it sulking, nagging and living a sad life.

Domestic violence is highest among people like you and me, eduacted & rationale, as this report suggests. So the bottom line is

Physical abuse should not be tolerated. It should not be justified. PERIOD.