The Naked and the Political

A naked man addressing politicians in the assembly should raise eyebrows. But in India this is cause for reverence. It is the same India whose moral police has problems with the way people dress up.

So why is it okay for Tarun Sagarji to be nude before MLAs at the Haryana Assembly, discussing subjects ranging from female foeticide to Pakistan? Because he is a monk of the Digamber sect. This sect believes in being 'sky-clad', and one accepts the different forms of worship and the reasons for it.

However, one does not see other Digamber Jains go around without clothes. Besides, if it is the Muni's religious uniform, then he should be adhering to it in the religious confines. The Assembly is not one. Religious figures of various stripes should not even be permitted in these halls, let alone become political leaders, as indeed some are.

The whole point of abstaining from clothes is to divest oneself of comfort and arrogance, of specific markings and attachment.

Would these ministers listening to him in rapt attention offer the same respect to any other member not clothed according to their moral prism? They would be sniggered at, and if a woman we to dress 'inappropriately', whatever that means, then she would be objectified.

As happens often, much of the reaction is not to the monk, but to a response to him. Music director Vishal Dadlani is said to have "mocked" him when he posted on a site: "If you voted for these people, YOU are responsible for this absurd nonsense! No #AchcheDin, just @NoKachcheDin ."

He belongs to the Aam Aadmi Party, and his chief Arvind Kejriwal was quick to say: "Tarun Sagar ji Maharaj is a very reverred saint, not just for jains but everyone. Those showing disrespect is unfortunate and shud stop" and "I met Shri Tarun Sagar ji Maharaj last year. Our family regularly listens to his discourses on TV. We deeply respect him and his thoughts."

Ideally, Mr. Kejriwal should be questioning religious people being in a political space. But, he is himself at the mercy of them. Nobody should care what he or his family personally believe in, but by stating it as a response he conveys clearly that he is a part of the rotten system. Vishal apologised and says he will quit politics.

We cannot blame only the Hindutva parties, for even the secular ones kowtow to religious leaders from every faith and use them to influence the electorate even though they have precious little real influence.

I am not against religion or anybody practising it. We all need spiritual sustenance (and not everybody can handle their drinks well!), but, seriously, god is in her/his heaven and therefore perhaps nothing is right with the world.

---

Speaking of which, this photograph of Olympics winning athlete P.V. Sindhi on her way to thank the deity. Again, this is personal.

But India's showing at the Olympics is not something to crow about. The few exceptions only underline the apathy. Besides, the athletes have complained about neglect and paltry conditions. It is their talent alone that stands with them despite everything.

If they think the talent is god-given, then it should be looked after by the gods too. Or at the very least the gods should do something about Indian officials.

Indians are big on 'mannat', asking for favours at various shrines and dargahs. In that sense, we are all greasing palms, if not of babus then babas.

---

Speaking of babus and government servants, here is Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Chouhan carried by policemen when he was on a tour of flood-hit areas in his state. Was the water too wet?

Are your jeans distressed by lions?

If you are the sort to shell out over a thousand dollars for a pair of jeans “designed by tigers”, then you have until July 21. Animal conservationists are marketing this bizarre idea to you. Even if you won’t buy the jeans you might feel like you are contributing to the welfare of the poor beasts.

Japanese brand Zoo Jeans includes wild beasts in their design process to create the perfect pair of ripped denim. In order to do this, sheets of material are added to old tires and giant rubber balls and tossed into the animals’ cages at Kamine Zoo in Hitachi, Japan. The lions and tigers then have the chance to chew, gnaw, and scrape at the fabric, taking “distressed denim” to the extreme.

Do they even realise how cruel this is? Lions and tigers are carnivores; they tear into pliable flesh. Bears are omnivores. Denim does not smell or feel like skin or plants, and rubber has a unique scent and feel. The animals probably assume they will be rewarded after they’ve got rid of the ‘excess baggage’.

The zoo and World Wildlife Fund are being horribly insensitive, and to think this is to benefit the animals. WWF and People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) rant about ill-treatment; they file complaints against cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies for using animals as guinea pigs. They have a point, but they aren’t doing any better.

These organisations have a history of regressive ads that put human models behind cages, chain them, or make them wear edible clothes. At the same time they use loaded, even sexual, imagery. With Zoo Jeans too, ripped by animals has a certain ring. It defeats the purpose. They end up perpetuating an idea they claim to oppose – that of the ‘wild beast’ as fantasy.


© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

"Out with stereotypes, feminism proclaims. But stereotypes are the west's stunning sexual personae, the vehicles of art's assault against nature. The moment there is imagination, there is myth."

— Camille Paglia

"Do not put garbage in our mind." This graffiti on the wall outside Tunis City Hall has been quoted to explain the attitude towards women's dress following the Arab Spring.

As happens with all such studies in a cocoon, it uses a small sample and reaches broad conclusions, that too about what the respondents thought 'might' be appropriate but is not necessarily practised. Worse, it is actually based on the false premise of what constitutes "MidEast countries". Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan are not in the Middle East.

While the research, and mainstream commentators, assume a superior attitude towards "secularism", they forget that their obsession with what is termed "Muslim dress" is anything but. They are working their way backwards, and become as veiled as the veils they find constricting when their idea of "women's choice" becomes selective.

This is not even the imagination or myth that Paglia speaks about. It is merely a lame excuse to falsely manufacture how free they themselves are.

The above tongue-in-cheek response in the web world to the research chart shows us just how hollow such statistics and stereotypes can be, using mere mode of dress to formulate a point of view. Are you what others wear?

To paraphrase the graffiti, the garbage is in their minds.

© Farzana Versey

Dressing up for Modi?

In what has been referred to as "Narendra Modi's rally" in Jaipur today, the “diktat" over the dress code is the major news. As happens often, the minutiae has taken over the discourse. According to a report:

BJP's minority cell has asked people from the Muslim community to come dressed in a specific attire. Men have been asked to wear sherwanis and topis and females have been asked to wear burqas. Whether this is Modi's attempt to reach out to the Muslim community is anyone's guess.

Are the men attending a wedding or a special function that they'd dress up in sherwanis? Why is it assumed that all women would be amenable to wearing a burqa? How different is such a dress code from extremists issuing edicts? Will those who do not fall into the stereotype qualify as Muslim enough?

Some other reports have mentioned the presence of clerics from the Ajmer Dargah. They are residents, and would wear what they usually do. We get to see saffron kurtas and bandanas quite regularly. Are those people told what to wear? Does anybody object or applaud them for it? [In the picture that accompanies this post, Modi looks like he is dressed up for a purpose. Or is it the usual entertainment quotient he provides for all BJP functions as “showstopper"?]

One viewpoint is that this appeal was sent by the BJP's minority cell. It would be impossible for the cell to take such a decision on its own. Modi and party must have been kept in the loop.

Besides, how does this qualify as an attempt to reach out to Muslims? If they do indeed wear "Islamic clothes", what else is there to do? This is in no way about wooing the community. In fact, it would help in easily identifying the members and keeping a check on them to see how they react, and then 'profiling' them.

Vote-bank politics is less about appeasement and more about creating ghettos to use and abuse.

© Farzana Versey

Desire under the microchip

Would you want your clothes to become transparent whenever you are aroused, instead of the usual signals? When innovative tech art enters personal territory it becomes both edgy and a matter of some concern.

Artist Daan Roosegaarde, who runs a social design lab, has diversified into computerised couture. He does not call it that. Rather, it has a name more befitting lingerie – ‘Intimacy’. You may opt for the black or the white version.

According to The DailyBeast:

Each dress has a small microchip embedded inside that contains software programmed to monitor different behaviors—in this case, a heartbeat. The garment functions much like a computer: The input is the heartbeat, the processor is the microchip and the output is the foil material, which can change from white to transparent or black to transparent.

Roosegarde does not treat it as merely a techno marvel:

“It creates a situation of total control that the wearer or the one who observes it has an influence over what fashion looks like…With some people you want to show more and some people you want to show less. We thought it would make complete sense that the dress would be proactive in that: either you have control or you lose control.”

Any woman who has been exposed to a particularly cold windy day or the gust from an airconditioner knows how her nipples react. These signals have little to do with arousal, although bracing weather can indeed be utterly enticing.

I assume the person who chooses to dress in ‘Intimacy’ is aware of the consequences. A beautiful and spontaneous reaction is now about control. What if she is aroused by a fantasy, a passage in a book, a scene in a movie, and not the person she is with? Is it not possible that she would try and control herself and withhold a natural expression even though she might not wish to see it through to what is considered a logical end?

The sensual would now become mechanical. Were the woman’s garment to turn transparent due to her partner, then it would express urgency, a preparedness that might pretty much bypass foreplay. Where would the blushing cheeks, the darkening of eyes, the shortness of breath, the slow running of fingers through hair, the biting of lips, the anticipation figure in this?

There is something automated about the dress, and as it is programmed one is not too far from such an allusion.

Besides, while ostensibly giving women the freedom to let their clothes communicate their desires, it actually plays into the male prerogative of perceiving the signals. It assumes that women might not wish to convey what they want – either through those natural expressions I mentioned or proactively by seduction, where she can gauge male arousal. ‘Intimacy’ makes woman the taker, or rather the taken, as does every stereotype in the book.  It chips in with a microchip to assist her to get rid of being able to transmit sexual intent.

Male arousal is seen as a given and in control of itself and of what it desires. The man will know exactly what to do, when and how. The reality is not quite as simple. Men also have issues and inhibitions.

There are plans to dress men, too. ‘Intimacy 3.0’ is a suit that will become transparent when they lie. Roosegarde uses humour to explain it: “That’s for the banking world.” That one-liner itself reveals that men’s command over their bodies in sexual situations is to be taken for granted.  It is unlikely that they would pick up a suit that would expose their lies. If they would wear it in an intimate setting, isn’t it a bit confusing that they would want to fake arousal or lie about interest in their partner? Reminds me of Pinocchio, whose nose grew longer with every lie. It would kind of stick out.

Unless, there is an altruistic motive to get men to be more truthful, aware that their lies would get exposed. The microchip would then work as conscience-keeper. From the body’s reactions to emotions to matters more intimately moral, it would seem a market can be created for robotising and lobotomising everything that is human.

© Farzana Versey

There's a Mughal in your drink

How many of you give your children the health drink Complan? If you are Hindu then you are an insult to your religion. You are glorifying Mughals. The ad for the product is under fire by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) for this depiction:

In a class-room, a (Hindu) teacher asks a boy the name of father of King Jehangir. The student shows as if he is unable to recollect the name and the teacher asks the same question to another student when he answers the question immediately telling the name of Jehangir’s father. The credit of the boy answering the question correctly is given to ‘Complan’.

The organisation wants the company to withdraw the ad and all TV channels to stop airing it. I was surprised by the Hindutva droppings in my inbox were so darned serious. I took a look at the whole letter. Here's one bit:

“Why do you remember only the history of Mughals who oppressed Indians? We are living in Bharat; therefore, we should teach glorifying history of Indians. Teach children history of great kings like Vikramaditya, Harshavardhan, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj etc. else an agitation would be staged in protest. Devout Hindus and Indians will boycott your products. Advertisements of companies like Cadbury and Amul which made mockery of history have been earlier stopped.”

I think all Hindu actors and models should be boycotted too if they wear clothes that are remotely reminiscent of the Mughal era. Why was the film Jodha Akbar not banned? What about Hritik Roshan and Aishwariya Rai? Designers creating Anarkali kurtas and angarkhas should be punished. No cuisine that has any connection with the Mughals should be cooked; those restaurants should be shut down.

Come to think of it, shut down all of Delhi; it has too many monuments. Rashtrapati Bhavan has the Mughal Gardens. The President of India should vacate that little house and apologise to Hindus for walking on those lawns and smelling the outsized flowers.

That leaves the Taj Mahal. All Hindu lovers posing before the monument on that ubiquitous bench are insulting their faith. I think Arnold Schwarzenegger who could not take a look inside since he visited on a Friday should be allowed to take over. He’ll manage it as well as he managed his housekeeper. Given that Complan is manufactured by a multinational it is only fitting that we hand over all things that remind us of the Mughals to the west. I really look forward to a ranch in Humayun’s tomb and Taco Bell at the Taj.

We are living in an age of the ridiculous. Someone really believes that because ‘Complan’ denotes brainpower in the ad and a Mughal king was mentioned, it would immediately suggest that only such knowledge is considered important. There is an ad for Taj Mahal tea where just a sip of it makes the Eiffel Tower disappear, such is the impact. Why not withdraw that as well? Or the soap ad where the mother teaches her child during a bath with a song that goes, “Babar ka beta Humayun, Humayun ka Akbar”?

I know she could have said, “Shahaji Rao ka beta Shivaji, aur Shivaji ka Sambhaji”? Look at it this way. The Mughals were obsessed with the good life – baths, scents, food, milk. The Hindu kings were spartan in their habits, and this is the message of what is unstated. The Mughals were good only for soap suds.

Anyhow, there are many ayurvedic products with rishi-munis telling us what to do with different parts of the body, and Baba Ramdev makes up for it by huffing and puffing. Our children are quite safe. Unless, of course, there comes an ad for male deodorant that would talk about the “Aurangzeb effect” or a hair salon that calls itself Babar’s Barber.

Benetton's 'Friendly' Lip-service

How can you ‘unhate’? Is it like undress or undo? Benetton is known for its use of stereotypes to display its supposed egalitarian stance. Where money speaks who would anyway care about colour or race? The new campaign has images of people in positions of power, supposedly belonging to different ideologies, getting close and comfortable in a liplock. How does a kiss solve problems?

If we take it literally too, lust does not necessarily overcome hate. It could well result in more hate if it is embedded, for together with that emotion will be the added baggage of guilt: I slept with the enemy. People are also known to wreak vengeance through the sexual route. If we do not wish to get that far, then there is the image of social niceties. A ltitle peck, even on the lips, could be seen as a mere gesture, an acknowledgement of existence and being part of the herd. There is a good deal of it at gatherings, besides the overdose of socialite don’t-mess-my-makeup air-kissing.

The fact that Benetton desisted from using images of the Indian and Pakistani leaders due to cultural sensibilities reveals that it is steeped in these archetypes. There could have been a backlash, but it would not be so much about cultural sensibilities as it would for diplomatic reasons To force-feed friendship for commercial gains is pretty disgusting, especially if you know precious little about how the particular governments wish to deal with each other.

As I said, where money talks, the company need bother about bringing ideologies together. Major American companies have outsourced their technological marvels to China, where the workers are paid a pittance and labour in terrible conditions. So where does free enterprise and Communism clash here? One feeds the other.

The same goes for religious figures. The sheer muscle power of these organisations put them at an advantage. They have millions of people who will follow them for no reason other than that they are seen as emissaries of some god. They have not been able to control any undesirable activities within the fold or even within the hallowed precincts from where they operate. And chances of them being quite willing to put up Benetton’s rainbow-coloured banners to promote peace and sell a few threads are not quite as remote as it might seem. There has been sharp reaction from the Catholic Church and the company has decided to remove the Pope’s image with the Egyptian Imam.

Bringing the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in a digital photo-snogg is unlikely to solve the political issue; if anything the images draw attention to the differences.

So, let’s just not play this social consciousness banner game which follows the slapstick prototype rather than anything remotely sensitive to bonhomie. Get the slumboys and girls who work hours to make it happen. No, wait. That too might end up as slcik marketing gimmick. Nothing is left untouched. They’ll dig the muddiest places if there is promise of gold.

Let’s just continue to ‘hate’ without having to dress in ‘unhate’.

- - -

Note: I have used the images because the company cannot titillate and then choose to selectively censor. Besides, the more important issue is not of the photograph but the larger picture of why the need. 

- - -

Update: The Vatican has objected:

Press secretary Father Federico Lombardi said:

"We cannot but express a resolute protest at the entirely unacceptable use of a manipulated image of the Holy Father, used as part of a publicity campaign which has commercial ends. 

"The secretariat of state has authorised its lawyers to initiate actions, in Italy and elsewhere, to prevent the circulation, via the mass media and in other ways, of a photomontage used in a Benetton advertising campaign in which the Holy Father appears in a way considered to be harmful, not only to the dignity of the pope and the Catholic church, but also to the sensibility of believers."

While the al-Azhar mosque did denounce it, the Imam was not quoted.

The company immediately started tearing down the posters. Now, had the objection been raised by the Imam or his emissaries, it would have mmediately been branded as an over-reaction and muzzling of freedom of speech.

- - -

On quite another matter, and a bit on the light side of heavy....

Is Barack's Butting Again?

“I want women to be liberated and still be able to have a nice ass and shake it”

- Shirley MacLaine

But, do we want men to watch? President Barack Obama sure likes to stand behind women. Here he is with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Canberra on November 16:

Two years ago, his hindsight was evident when he looked back at a Brazilian girl under the watchful eyes of Nicholas Sarkozy (not in this picture):

Of course, there was a debate then about the 'lying' pictures. Of course, they can lie. But I am curious why other heads of state, friskier than Obama, have not been so captured.

Will Ramdev Join The SlutWalk?

I’d like to know how many of these women who are promoting the SlutWalk in India are bothered about sluts. Spend a day as a slut, a whore, a sex worker and then tell us what it feels like to be called a slut after servicing upto ten men in a tiny cubicle behind a dirty curtain. Yes, you want to bring awareness to India, then don’t ride on the name of a group of women who don’t wear masks or carry placards saying they are sluts. For them it is bloody work and the only means of earning. And most of them do not dress up in fancy dress even when they have to lure men for their keep.

Some of them should get together and protest against this group of pampered pop activists and prick their bubble.

Women, feminists and others, have been writing about their bodies, about sexual exploitation, about objectification. So, why is the SlutWalk being heralded as something that has finally arrived in India, like some colonial hangover after a rave party?

I thought I’d give this major happening a pass because what does it say that one has not said before? But the people responsible and those opposed are gearing up for it. To sufficiently localise it, they have added ‘besharmi morcha’ to the terminology. What does it convey? That, yeah, we are shameless and so what?

Someone said, oh, cut out the crap about rural women, as long as it works for some. It works for the very people who already don’t give a damn, will dress as they wish at their lounge parties and ask for “Orgasm on the beach’ from a bartender who has seen more cleavages than cognac bottles. It will work for the teen brigade that is looking for a heart-stopping, heavy-breathing cause that is in your face but does not need much work. It will work for a certain kind of feminist who is discovering her ‘ism’ and a walk won’t hurt.

It is true that women are often derided for what they wear, but it is disturbing to see westernised clothing as representative. What about hipster sarees and backless cholis? How many of the girls/women will be dressed in everyday clothes and not hot pants and short skirts? Because this is making it into a garment association and women are objectified even in the workplace not because of what they wear but who they are – talented, confident and achievers. Their achievement is stimulus enough to taunt them.

The SlutWalk is not only about rape, but while Bollywood films of the 80s often had courtroom scenes where a lawyer raised sexist questions, art-house cinema has not been much different – what about ‘Bawandar’ that was based on the Bhanwari Devi gang-rape case? The protagonist was asked: “Were you wet?” She had her ‘odhni’ covering her, but her head was not lowered. Finally she said, looking straight into his eyes, in her dialect, “A woman gets wet when she is intimate out of choice, but when it is forced on her she bleeds.”

It is sad that we begin to be thankful for small mercies, so if someone takes on the ‘challenge’ of portraying a true story, we shower hosannas. But think about it. The rape in the movie was depicted quite graphically. Then at the police station the cop is shown smelling the victim’s ‘ghagra’, swirling in it and finally masturbating. There is also the lasciviousness of the MLA who asks the culprits whether they enjoyed it or not. All this in the name of realism.

Do the Dilli billis know about these aspects? How grounded are they in such real issues and what about the already educated men in the BMWs who commit date rape? What about marital rape and the silence of emotional rape?

Now we have Baba Ramdev who has made the accusation that the cops had plans to rape his female supporters at the Ramlila grounds rally. It is pretty disgusting the way women are used all around. There are several cases where such things happen, but in an open ground with the ruling party watching and seeking electoral brownie points? Isn’t it surprising then that he chose to dress as a woman to escape? Has he ever commented on the Nityanand type swamis and their antics captured on camera? Or the godman who sold pornographic CDs of young boys and girls against the exotic backdrop of the Varanasi ghats and of his wife too with deity pictures in the background? Does Baba have anything to say about these?

The Slutwalk is a minor tic, but today when everyone wants to be a concerned citizen, it could turn into a movement. I won’t be surprised if some media group joins in to sponsor the event. After all, we do have beauty pageants that already flaunt the female body as an example of empowerment. The ramp is the precursor of the SlutWalk. No one calls it ‘besharmi’ because these girls are trained by ‘experts’ and Mother Teresa protégées in diction and clichés. They speak up for causes ranging from global warming to education. Not one of them has spoken up for the real slut. The whore. The sex worker. The woman who works by getting fucked. Really.

If on the appointed day they can walk and show solidarity for those women, then these hawks can tawk.

- - -

(c) Farzana Versey

'Faming' Arindam Chaudhuri

Anybody writing a book on Arindam Chaudhuri ought to be sued – for writing it at all. I mean, he runs some fancy management coaching classes. Are there books about Aggarwal classes or Ghate’s? Now, Chaudhuri has gone and filed a defamation suit against Penguin, Google and The Caravan magazine, the latter two for spreading the bad word and using an extract from the book. He has valued his tarnished image at Rs. 50 crore.

Since only bits are available it is not possible to decide on the defamatory nature except that the title is so long-winded it could qualify as defamatory to language and further to the middle class, success and all sweet smells. Here it is in its full monty form: Sweet Smell of Success: How Arindam Chaudhuri Made a Fortune Off the Aspirations - and Insecurities - of India's Middle Classes.

This sort of reminds one of how AB Corp was accused of taking token signing amounts for their projects from people and then Amitabh Bachchan shrugged and said he had hired the wrong managers. In this case, Arindam is the owner-manager-management guru-dean of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) and he is also a film producer. A sort of Baba Ramdev of the faux elite. It is only natural for people to be upset by what is written about them. Does that make them right? If there is evidence against him or even a discussion about how the management bubble bursts then stuff of this nature can be written. He is a public figure; he markets himself as the institute.

Chaudhuri dotting his 'i'?

A bit of digression here: Call it coincidence or whatever, but last month when I saw this picture of Chaudhari I could not take my eyes off it. I downloaded it and marvelled at the blatancy. What? The first lines that flashed through my mind were how linearity is limiting but what about symmetry? Don’t we look for some order, a pattern to fall into place? Indeed. Then, why does the symmetry of what Mr. Chaudhuri is wearing so off?

I am no fashion police, yet it was beyond amusing. This is the man who is about creating an impression and the impression one gets is that he is trying too hard to fit in (his ponytail is not rebelliousness but being ‘with it’). The blue jacket in a shiny fabric is tight and everything is co-ordinated in the linear fashion. Striped trousers and polka-dot tie and kerchief in pocket? The flap pockets and lapel have white piping while the shirt collar and button front have blue piping. The rims of his shades are white; I am surprised the lenses are not blue. The shoes are not visible, but I’d be damned if they were white or blue.

This is symmetry gone bad. And it is also a metaphor for thinking. This is not revolutionary management that pushes the envelope and thinks on its feet, but a straitjacket.

Part of the problem of any public discourse these days is linearity. Good is all good. Bad is all bad. The context is missing.

Club me tender...

Calcutta Club

I have failed to understand why people object to dress codes in elite institutions. If they are elite, they will have certain rules. If you don’t like them, just don’t go there.

A recent news item mentions that Calcutta Club refused entry to painter Suvaprasanna who had been invited there. The reason was that he wore kurta-pyjama.

There were protests outside the gate. I can imagine the bhadralok sitting with their pipes, reading Chomsky or Sarat Chandra or the Guardian or even the Economic and Political Weekly, going tchah-tchah as they sipped their gin-tonic. Do clubs owe people explanations?

It doesn’t make any sense for you to continue with this colonial rule even as a wind of change is blowing in our state. Do away with this dress code, said a letter to the club that was signed by writer Mahasweta Devi, painter Jogen Chowdhury and Sameer Aich among others.

Isn’t it precious? The Left ruled West Bengal all these years and the clubby atmosphere remained; now a non-Commie government is here and people are talking about winds of change to do away with a ‘colonial rule’. There is nothing colonial about wearing trousers and shirt with shoes as much as you are permitted to wear a formal national dress.

Dress codes have a certain charm. Do people attend celebratory functions in bummy clothes? Do they wear shorts in places of worship? And don’t our army personnel follow these same codes in dress, form of address and how to carry themselves? They are much-respected for it.

Of course, club members are not serving the country but clubs are not public places. The members know the rules. I have visited a couple of Kolkata clubs and they are not much different from those in other cities, except perhaps Delhi Gymkhana where people run to sit by the fireside during winters to “catch a nice place”!

The Great Indian Wedding Turf

A Vijay Mallya could get away with an orange jacket at the Turf Club races but then it is also where lavish weddings with kitschy maharajah type decor is almost mandatory even if the tulips and the cheese are imported. This is also part of the Mumbai reverse snobbery.

In Madras, no one makes a song and dance about what anyone is wearing because everyone knows the rules and loves following them. Yes, these are elite institutions, but the liquor and food is cheaper than in fancy restaurants or even mid-range ones. Also, the winds of change are such that even the most hallowed clubs are now not considered posh, and serve as places for a quiet snooze or a swim. The real action has shifted to the plush lounge bars, especially in Mumbai.

Contrary to belief, clubs are not all about gentility. I have witnessed from a vantage position a general body meeting where people were shouting one another down. Management committee elections are big events where people are bribed with gifts and huge parties are held to make one’s presence felt and votes are bought with promises of some sort of barter. Why would then such gentlemen and a few ladies have the time for kurta-pyjamas? It is simple: product placement. You have the best golf courses, great views, a fairly upper crust membership. These are not important within the confines of the club but for further enhancement outside.

The antique collectors, the ones with land, the ones with private jets and helipads, the ones with arm candies and dandies all have that little ticket. It is pretty much the old order or those who are not in the rat race who are regulars at the clubs – reading in the library, snacking on Welsh rarebit and waffles in the verandah, the sofas upholstered with pale flower prints, watching the crows swinging on the netting that prevents them from entering.

Ah, the dress code of the crows does not work too even though it is a nice black coat.

- - -

Interestingly, I was invited for dinner at a small club in Dubai. On our way out, I could hear the sound of thumping music. It was the nightclub. I wanted to take a quick look. The bouncer refused because "no national dress allowed". I was wearing a salwaar kameez. How that qualified as national dress in an Arab country beat me. Much later I had a brainwave: I should have just thrown off my dupatta or wrapped it like a scarf.

PS: My friend's bomber jacket was acceptable at the club and the nightclub

Whose burden is the burqa?

Those who object to the “moving prison” say nothing about men displaying the physical assets of trophy wives in a consumerist paradise.

If anyone is benefiting from the Islamist idea, specifically the veil, then it is the western elite or the westernised liberals among Muslims. I might have been a part of the latter given my mode of dress, speech and general deportment. I choose, instead, to play devil’s advocate. The reason is that the debate over whether a woman has the right to cover her face and body has become a western discourse. Its validity is reduced partly due to its being co-opted by an alien yardstick and partly because, ironically, it uses the religious paradigm to justify the ban on the veil.

The Quran does not prescribe it, the Prophet did not enjoin it and so on go the arguments. That is not the point anymore, and incidentally men too follow certain dress codes. It is beyond religion and one must understand that the Muslim world, and even the Arab world, is not of one kind. Therefore, discussing anything in such uniform terms reveals paucity of insight. I’d like one single commentator to discuss this issue without bringing in Islam and then let us watch the fun.

Contemporary society has many areas of darkness and every religion is rediscovering its roots. The rediscovery probably has nothing to do with the essence of the faith. The Pat Robertsons often go well with TV dinners for those rushed for time and prayer. Patriarchal paranoia too would be justified if it also took into account how non-Muslim societies choose to treat their women where they are subtly left out of mainstream political and social opinions. Why is the West obsessed only with Islam?

This is an extension of the old xenophobia. Some are upfront and brand others as terrorists or suspects; the others go the other way and play patronising angels who understand the ‘pain’ of the Muslim woman. In France, where the veil was banned on April 11, a very small percentage of its Muslim population wears the veil. Why is the rest of the female population not considered in the arguments put forth? Does the fact that some women defied the ban not reveal that they cannot be herded into an ignorant, backward stereotype?

When the Bill was first being considered Andre Gerin, a Communist Party legislator, had said, “Today, we are confronted by certain Muslim women wearing the burqa, which covers and fully envelops the body and the head like a moving prison”. His 57 colleagues had signed a document that stated it amounted “to a breach of individual freedoms on our national territory”.

Whose individual freedom is it? I may personally not wear the veil but I do not think any woman doing so is infringing on my freedom. If the religion of France is secularism, then it does not as a matter of course mean that no religious choices can be made. Secularism is not atheism. If the issue is regarding security risks, then the government must make it clear that certain checks will be mandatory, but to sneak in ethical arguments is vile.

It is also extremely offensive to question veiled women who believe they feel empowered. Like grand vigilantes, the anti-veil group thinks it is important to probe the basis of such a choice. As a stand-alone poser it is legitimate, but then how many women have access to equal opportunities in the workplace or rights even at home? Those who object to the “moving prison” and contend that male insecurity puts a wife or sister behind the burqa say nothing about men who feel secure having trophy wives and displaying them for their physical assets in a consumerist paradise.

There is a belief that the veil defines a woman completely. It does not, just as a skirt or a lipstick does not. Whether they choose to wear loose ‘tents’ or scarves with tight clothes is only one of the choices they make in life, as much as others do things to please their partners, peer groups or societal trends. The people who can ensure that no one is forced to wear what she does not want to are those who understand the construct and not imposers who come with their own moral values garbed as liberalism. A true liberal is not offended by others and most certainly not afraid that she cannot bond with a face behind a niqab. With botox and cosmetics, not to speak of public facades, what about the masks we wear?

(c) Farzana Versey


The images are posited to emphasise the exaggerated positions and draw home the point that there are several layers between the two aspects.

Published in Countercurrents, April 25, 2011

The Right Thing?

Jairam Ramesh threw off his robes. As a minister for environment and forests, he was making no point, but by discarding the convocation robes at a function, he did send out the right message.

However, he made some wrong points:

“Why can’t we have a convocation ceremony in simple clothes? With the flowing robe and hat, it’s like being decked up like medieval vicars and popes. This practice started in 13th century Oxford. This attire can be stifling in this season...You can come to the convocation in shirts and trousers. Why the robe? The hat is worn only so that it can be thrown up in the air at the end of the ceremony. Why do you wear a hat if you have to throw it?’’

Throwing the hat is symbolic. We throw a lot of things during religious ceremonies…often as purging. This denotes some sort of freedom. As regards Oxford, we flash such credentials at every given opportunity.

“I’ve still not been able to figure out why we stick to such barbaric colonial relics.’’

Colonial it is, not barbaric. In fact, it strived for a specifically stifling dress code to portray a civilisational mode of pomp and pageantry as opposed to savage crudity. It is ceremonial attire to confer a degree, to accept an achievement into the hall of fame. While we must understand that these clothes do not seem appropriate now, there is the more crucial question about how education itself has become a downgraded and ‘barbaric’.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has announced education for all as a basic need. It is honourable in intent, but where are the questions: why do people drop out? Where are the schools in the interiors? Who sells question papers in the open market prior to exam? How has technology intervened in the cheating process?

Also, what about the farce of honorary doctorates being given to ministers and actors and celebrities?

What after discarding the robes? Some more thinking.

- - -



What is this?

The caption says:

In this handout picture released by The Press Information Bureau on March 31, 2010, Incoming Chief of Army staff General V.K. Singh (R) shakes hands with outgoing Chief General Deepak Kapoor (L) in New Delhi”.

I am surprised. I am not sure about the specifics required, but for a profession that talks about protocol and how mandatory it is, why is the Chief of Staff seated? Isn’t it expected that he should stand up? It is not as though some minion is paying respects to him.

If not as protocol perhaps courtesy?

A Bloody Nose for Bloomers?

A couple of days after he had drawn women’s undies, Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi looked like someone back from battle.

The two events may not be connected, but it is interesting to find some connection.

Milan, December 13: At a political rally the PM is left with a fractured nose, two teeth knocked off and bloody cuts on his lips after a man hurled a miniature replica of Milan’s gothic cathedral at him.

After the attack

Brussels, December 11: At a meeting to discuss climate change, the Italian premier draws women’s inner wear and passes the papers around to other heads of state. It causes some embarrassment, some anger and some amusement.

The Daily Mail shows a sample of Victorian underwear

For a moment, imagine you are a world leader attending such a high-level meeting to discuss climate change. The pieces of paper have doodles that include the Egyptian loin cloth, Victorian bloomers, French satin panties, thongs, G-strings.

What would you do?

I think I'd see it as a symbolic representation of how women coped not only with social mores but also with how they chose to cover up intimate parts of their body. It might seem like stretching it a bit, but from the warm Egyptian clime to the cold English one, the way these undergarments were worn does give inkling into the climate.

As a moral issue, one could ask two questions:

1. Why did he choose women’s wear and not men’s? It is simple. He is not interested in men and men as nurturers of the womb of the earth do not have any totem value.
2. Does it become a head of state to indulge in such flippant gestures? It does not, but he could have sketched and not passed them around and then it would have been a secret and they’d imagine he was deeply interested in the talks that were taking place. Ethically, to mislead is wrong. It is quite probable that he was merely revealing the complete uselessness of such summits, and if it comes from someone who is rich and powerful, then it does send out the signal that the world needs to look deeper (and no pun this) instead of merely talking heads.

I am quite certain that were he asked to draw his own underwear he would have gladly done so.

How does it in any way connect with his bloodied face later? Some people were shouting out calling the PM a clown. Clowns are laughed at by people who see them as entertainment or for being silly. They are not seen as vicious enough to be physically harmed.

Was the man who lunged at him a moralist? He has been described as someone who has a history of mental health problems. It could be that he does not like Berlusconi’s politics. It could be that he does not approve of the scandals his PM is involved in. It could be that news of his drawing those thongs and things really was the final straw and he used a Biblical image, that too a medieval one rooted deeply in a spiritual union with god.

He did not use a camera tripod, the way another attacker had done several years ago when Berlo was less tainted.

In both instances the instruments made a pointed statement, and were phallic symbols, if one may say so.