Looking for the Potent Hindu Male?

Sometimes, words are impotent when they shoot in the dark or do not serve much purpose. Yet, they seem to attract a lot of attention. How potent is such impotency then?

"I want to ask him this question that you claim to be such a strong and powerful man and wish to be the PM, and you could not protect the people of Godhra. Some people came, attacked and went, and you couldn't protect. Are you not a strong man?...Our allegation is not that you get people killed...but that you are napunsak (impotent)."

These words by Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid were aimed at Narendra Modi.

The reactions have covered a wide range, from questioning Khurshid’s education to the insult, to other candidates and back to the accuser’s own ‘manliness’. The Faking News had a rather hilarious pictorial depiction of the minister in varied machismo avatars.

However, as the one reproduced here shows, the assumption in that potency/manliness is associated with beefcake – big muscles, big build, big attitude. This is the archetype and has nothing to do with potency, which literally is the ability to perform and (re)produce. A male who is not physically well endowed might deliver quite adequately, even well.

The portrayal of Khurshid is, of course, parody. Tittering about his manliness does not denote the manliness of his target, though. Is there really an issue with the language here? The minister is often not the best spokesperson or face of the Congress party. But is ‘impotent’ the wrong term here? In fact, he is giving Modi the benefit of doubt by conveying that he is helpless, for no one chooses impotency. It is just there.

But, where sexually-loaded language is concerned these words would invariably be seen as a slur.

Rather interestingly, just the other day, Modi had found an unusual niche for his leadership claims – bachelorhood. Singles don’t have to worry about families, he said.

Most people reacted to this with humour, and the opponents quoted examples from other political parties, including Rahul Gandhi.

There is a problem here and it is not restricted to the gentleman who made the statement. It has been said before too by those in positions of power or committed to a cause. I would understand if the individual had taken sanyas and had no strings attached. However, not getting married does not mean you do not forge relationships. Or cannot. But, he was on a different trip:

"Mere liye na koi aagey, na peechhey. Kiske liye bhrashtachaar karunga? (In have no family ties. I am single. Who will I be corrupt for?)…this mind and body is totally devoted to the nation."

He is in effect saying that men become corrupt for their families, they want to accumulate wealth for their wives and children. The impression is that essentially men would have led pretty much clean lives had it not been for the demands the family makes on acquiring things. The signal given out is that of one focussed on the task of changing India without any personal ties. What happens to the larger family of greedy party workers? Why did he feel the need for a makeover? Will he accept it if other politicians, bureaucrats, industrialists turn around and say that all the scams are because of pressure from their families? How would that explain the hoarding by godmen?

The idea of the single man and his assumed celibacy is a potent one. Think Mahatma Gandhi. Think the RSS pracharaks. The allegiance to an ideology imbues them in the public imagination with ammo. In the case of Modi and his tireless campaigning it also gives an adrenaline rush to his followers. It is like an orgy.

Therefore an accusation of “did nothing” is deemed an insult for one who sweats it out. Here, it is not restricted to language, but perception and symbolism.

Does the single man not go against the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s new mantra to protect Hinduism? As its leader Ashok Singhal said:

“Hindus should not restrict themselves to two children per family. Only when they produce five children will the population of Hindus remain stable.”

The Sangh is looking for the potent Hindu male. (It is another matter that population is a problem for India.) Modi’s strategy will be to act as the shepherd who will supposedly lead the people to this stability where conversions by missionaries and over-production by certain others will be curtailed, while at the same time urging them to develop and finetune their natural instincts for the nation. In that, his focus could be seen as potential without any performance anxiety. Also, power without responsibility, due to no ties. Detachment can be potent for it allows a person to spread himself thin while appearing to be self-contained.

© Farzana Versey

---

Images: The Faking News

Murdering a suicide: Jiah, Depression and Misogyny

Should a suicide case that has led to an arrest be decided in the media? Are lawyers permitted to discuss the possibility of a police case holding up in court or its outcome?

When actress Jiah Khan committed suicide, I did anticipate the electronic media rushing for sound bites and social networking sites transforming from RIP factories into warring camps. What I did not expect was the judgmental, callous attitude towards abuse and depression. Those who look down upon Bollywood were quick to jump in with their supposedly contrarian views.

I have desisted from commenting, but now I shall because all barriers have been broken. The first shocker came from Jiah's mother Rabiya. Her pain, anger and suspicion about who was responsible are understandable. I only felt that she should not have called a press conference. A police case had been registered. Jiah's boyfriend Suraj Pancholi was arrested.

Immediately, the experts — real and fake — passed their judgment: It was too hasty, they said, anyone can make such accusations. The accusations were in the form of a six-page letter written by Jiah

It really does not matter when she wrote it. Relationships grow over a period of time and spoil just as slowly.

The latest news is here:

Sooraj Pancholi, arrested for abetting actor Jiah Nafisa Khan's suicide, has allegedly confessed that he had beaten her up following a fight in Goa eight months ago, after which she slit her wrist. According to Juhu police, Sooraj has admitted to being in a live-in relationship with her. Police are contemplating adding additional charge under Section 498-A (harassment of a woman by husband or in-laws) of IPC. Police have also received the medical report from a Juhu hospital where Jiah, also known as Nafisa Khan, had undergone abortion.

I will only repeat the reasons these same lawyers gave about it being tough to pin him down — he has admitted to abuse and a live-in relationship. The law can recognise it as domestic violence.

It is time to visit a pathetic little post that was uploaded on Facebook by an intellectual of sorts. Let me add here, that he is not the only one who thinks this way, although his ‘courage' to stand out and be counted has been lauded. Seriously. Mahesh Murthy's note has made way into the Indiatimes website. It starts with a typical masala formula:

"So this note is likely to piss off many of you, but still...So it's the usual story. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, they are happy, then they break up. Then he sees someone else. At which point over-wrought girl decides her life isn't worth living. Seriously - this is a 25-year old who co-starred with Aamir Khan in a hit film and then later thinks her life is value-less without the continuing attention of some unemployed star-kid?! How the heck was she brought up? What kind of foolish adult mind thinks that someone else's attention is so important that her own life pales in comparison? How dare her parents blame her ex for this ridiculous state of mind? Who gave her these values where "death before losing in love" is a virtue?"

By beginning with a 'this contains adult content' type warning, he grabs eyeballs. He bases his thesis on assumptions about his boy-meets-girl thesis. Was Suraj an ex-boyfriend already? And since when has a young woman with one hit begun to be considered a success? She debuted with 'Nishabd', an unusual story about an April-December relationship. Her co-star was Amitabh Bachchan. The film flopped, partly because of its content. Later, she acted in 'Ghajini', where Aamir Khan hogged the show and she was the second lead.

Curiously, and I shall divert from the bilge here, director Mahesh Bhatt compared her situation with Parveen Babi's. Bhatt was in a relationship with the late actress and has been 'inspired' to make more than one film on her life. The first, 'Arth', had agitated her. She was successful, though, and together with Zeenat Aman, became the face of the 'modern' film heroine. She was also the first Indian movie star to appear on the cover of Time magazine. Her depression was severe, seeking solace in the Church, to the extent of complete isolation where her neighbours did not even see her. They had to break open the door to find her dead body.

Clinical depression is different from mood swings. These may have to do with personal loss or a sense of failure, but not always so.

To return to Murthy's questions about her upbringing, it is clear that he, like quite a few men, are filled with dread of dealing with "difficult" women. Has he ever met a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst to understand that people are not brought up to take their lives? When children commit suicide after failure in exams, do we read reams about 'How dare anyone blame the parents'? In fact, parents are never held culpable, although there is tremendous pressure from them on the kids.

At what point in that letter does he get the idea that Jiah thought taking her life was a "virtue" that her supposedly bad upbringing taught her? Would it be fair to ask why he is so concerned about the moral dimension? She lost self-esteem, and although she also lost her baby she was not pining for that loss. Indeed, she was obsessive, and enough to fall for an unemployed guy. (A small omission is that he was to be launched in Salman Khan's production.) But, what about him? There is not a word about his upbringing, and I raise it only because the other side is being rubbished.

Aditya Pancholi, the father, has had several affairs, is known for his public spats, and his wife, the older Zarina Wahab, had accepted his philandering. This is in the public domain. Although it is a choice between two people, if someone decides on pop psychology it might help addressing this as well.

"So she writes a latter (sic) saying she had an abortion when she got pregnant, presumably by him - again, no one told her about contraception? And even if they decided to forswear protection - it's his fault she got pregnant? Wasn't she equally part of it?"

This is such a load of rubbish, besides being libellous. Who is he to cast doubts about the parentage of the aborted child? Perhaps, his own obsession with "virtue" rears its head when he puts the onus of contraception on the woman. Her letter talks about him forcing her to abort, which is different from saying, "I did not want to have sex with you because I was not on the pill". Did he bother to ask why Suraj was not wearing a condom?

"So yes, she had an abortion, she set her mind to have him, but he moved on after they mutually broke up - but she wanted him back, and he said no, so she took her life?"

Oh, Sherlock Holmes decides they mutually decided to part. There is never a definitive moment when both people decide at the same time and with equal determination to go their separate ways. It may happen technically, but in this case they were meeting. And it is for the cops to decide whether they have a case. Why is he jumping the gun?

Part of the reason for this sort of thinking is insecurity, and it becomes evident soon enough:

"So what's a guy to do if he doesn't want to marry a girl? Or vice versa actually. Report to the cops when he's been proposed to? Take anticipatory bail before he says "No, I don't want to marry you"? Call the counselling lines so they make outbound calls to the partner in advance of him saying no?"

I do hope he has seen more of the world and couples who have broken up and moved on. Not everyone commits suicide. At this point I'd like to know what happens in cases of marriage. The law would immediately come into the picture. So, why can it not in an intimate relationship? Is it the good old "virtue" where a legitimate relationship has more value? Would he say the same about dowry deaths, wife battering, suspicious spouses, womanising all when a couple is married? He has said elsewhere he does not think much about the institution, yet he does not realise that intimate relationships mimic marriage more often than not.

His take on marriage sounds just like what he dismisses:

"In India, you don't need to be married to have a child legally. Or even to inherit and pass on property. Marriage is just a social custom where a bunch of old people shower rice on your head and believe they're giving you their permission (or direction, in some cases) to sleep with someone. As you can imagine, it has little or no legal necessity or significance."

The couple being discussed were not married. They did not seek anyone's permission to get intimate. And, again, why does he assume Jiah wanted the baby? Very conveniently, it makes it appear as though it would have been her responsibility. She did not pop the pill, remember?

In what he probably thinks is his philosophical contribution to this debate, he writes:

"No one grows up with a right to be loved. It's a privilege you earn for yourself. It doesn't come naturally. You earn it. And very often, love comes. And love goes. And love comes back. And goes again. And so on."

People are born with the right to life and to dignity. If either or both are abused, it can cause harm, physical and mental. Not everyone breaks down. And you cannot earn love. This is just too calculating a way to look at it. Of course, love does go and there is new love waiting. But there can be extreme situations.

It is stupid to believe that Jiah Khan lived for marriage. In fact, she wanted a career, until she fell in love and was abused, something her boyfriend has admitted to.

Acting as a PR agent for Suraj, he asks people to stop the "witch hunt", while himself hunting for prey.

"And let's stop glorifying suicide in the name of unrequited love."

Just as people have a choice over their bodies, they have a choice over their lives. It may be a wrong choice, just as getting into idiotic relationships is. It is not about glorifying anything. And it was not unrequited love. It could be that idea of love differ.

I would like to address the issue of depression. I've read celebrities and others discuss this case. It is assumed that women are more prone to it. It's time for a reality check. Many men suffer from bouts of depression. They are suicidal. How is jumping from the terrace of IIT more respectful of life? Is this not about rejection and despondency, too?

What has made some men so concerned about this particular suicide? Are they worried that their rejection will result in suicide and they'd be trapped? Unlikely. For there are many more examples of people who don't. The survival instinct of men can whiff out signs of trouble and they scoot. Men resort to emotional blackmail before getting into a relationship. It is to 'capture the booty'. Depending on how well they mesh, there is an attempt by women to aspire for an equitable equation.

And let us not forget that men too want marriage. They want their sperm to spread and 'create' the world. (There are men who are reluctant to use condoms even when they visit sex workers. Why? Because they will not return to haunt them?)

I will flip the coin. What if a desperate young man who is yet to prove himself in his career, woos a woman, loves her enough to live with her, but is tortured by the pressure to perform as well as his peers and in this state abuses the one he shares a close relationship with? She acts as a buffer against the outside world. He cannot flex his muscles outside, so he tries it within the four walls. There are the usual passive-aggressive moments.

So, who is the one who is sick?

Think about it. I really don't have the inclination to be glib and discuss marriage portals and Karan Johar films. Nor will I resort to the one-line tokenism of, oh, it is sad a life is lost or oh, I feel sorry for the poor guy but...

There will be ifs and buts in everything. Life is amorphous. It does not mean that we abuse what it meant to a woman we do not know.

© Farzana Versey

Digvijaya Singh's Tantalising Politics

Has national politics been reduced to gossip? I am not sure whether it is the Congress party that has anything to do with Digvijaya Singh’s latest “killing you softly” stance. But, it is most certainly not how issues of corruption and wrongdoing at the national level are dealt with.

He should either produce evidence and out those he has evidence against or keep quiet. In an interview to Karan Thapar, he said:

I am a politician and I have been in politics for the last 40 years. What my relations do, is not my business. I never ask them. I have got four daughters and four sons-in-law. What they do is not my business.

This is so clearly trying to absolve a certain Robert Vadra. So, if what relatives and family do is their business, why has he even bothered to insinuate about the families of Atal Behari Vajpayee and L.K.Advani?

Karan Thapar:  And this is evidence that you say if used would embarrass Advani ji and Vajpayee ji.

Digvijaya Singh: We will never use it.

Karan Thapar:  But would it embarrass Advani sahib and Vajpayee ji?

Digvijaya Singh: Yes.

What is this? It is way more devious and dangerous than what can be stated and done with, whatever the consequences.

It would be naïve to imagine that members of the NDA were above improprieties. If the Congress chose to keep quiet, then they betrayed the country. Political parties are answerable to the nation, not to each other.

It is rather unfortunate that now established leaders and parties are behaving as though they are at a Kejriwal rally and throwing darts.

Kingmaker Robert Vadra?

Should Robert Vadra join politics? It is the sort of question one asks at the dinner table if you are awfully fond of your relatives. However, it has become news. This is not the first time that Priyanka Gandhi’s husband has campaigned for the Congress.

There are two factors here:

• The Congress Party wants to act obsequious, so anything remotely connected with the family will be wooed.
• The Opposition sees this as an opportunity to bait.

Let us get a few fundamentals out of the way. Spouses, siblings and even special friends campaign during elections. There is always a trusted group. Atal Behari Vajpayee had his adopted family; L.K.Advani has his daughter; and almost all the ‘maharajahs’ have family members involved. Elections are about immediate and extended families.

Robert Vadra had to make a sacrifice when he married. He broke ties with his own family. Is he looking for some returns? This is what he said:

“I am here for my brother-in-law. For me politics will come if I think I can make a difference for the people, only when I can feel I can focus and I can give my best and full attention for the development of the people. I am totally enjoying what I am doing right now. The family I married into is in politics. It's something I cannot run away from. When the time is right, if it is what is required at that time may be yes but my focus is on my work right now.”

Priyanka said he was misquoted and he is happy with his “vyaapar” (business). The news clip immediately cut to the portion where he did mention that if people wanted he would join politics. Is it unusual? Not quite. He knows that Indians like package deals. We do not consider nepotism bad; it is our birthright. We assume that experience rubs off on those in one family. He used the words “cannot run away from” where he was trying to convey a sense of responsibility. He is also seen as a son of the Gandhis, for he is there on every occasion, especially on death anniversaries, seated in white kurta pyjama to share the moment.

There will be sniggers over this comment:

“Right now it is Rahul's time, Priyanka's time will also come.” 

It is a smart one. That Priyanka has chosen to play homemaker earns him brownie points. It means that while supportive of her aspirations, he is also in control. Her “time will also come” sends out a nice patriarchal promise to a patriarchal society that the lady they think should play an active role might do so in the future, so support her brother now.

Whether as asset or as baggage Robert Vadra will work in favour of Rahul Gandhi. In one scenario, he will be the strong backdrop; in the other, the guy who makes Rahul look so good and correct that he just cannot fail.

- - -

End note:

Rahul Gandhi says that unlike others he has no ambition of being Prime Minister. It is time the Congress initiated him in a real role with some other portfolio. The grassroots stuff is good, but he cannot be walking around all the time. He should put himself to test, if it is the language of politics he wants to talk.

The Ambani Matron Saint

Hamare paas maa hai: Kokilaben with Anil and Mukesh

It does not matter whether the Brothers Ambani – Mukesh and Anil – will do the business tango or not. As the family got together for the memorial of Dhirubhai on his 80th birth anniversary, it was obvious that the Reliance empire is still holding on to Ba’s apron strings. Mother Kokilaben has shown great business acumen earlier and she seems to run the family in just such a corporate manner. Mukesh and Anil may address share-holders, but when it comes to making definitive statements, whether it is about her late husband or her sons, it is the matriarch whose word counts. It may be a mask, but with the sanctity that Indians have for the mother figure it gains extra currency.

She has seen the building of one of the major players in the country; she was with Dhirubhai during his struggling days, the days he fought to find a place, the days he manipulated the System, the days he became his own System. The Ambanis were the envy of many industrial houses because they were together. Dhirubhai did what most corporate patriarchs do not – he reposed faith in his sons. He knew who was good at what and delegated the tasks accordingly. It was not quite equal, but it was just. Just to his shrewd eyes. And that is what mattered. It was left to Kokilaben to be the General Manager or a sort of bureaucrat who knows more about the files than the politician who signs the papers and takes the credit or gets the flak for them.

Bahus can dance saala: Tina and Nita

So, when they met at the village Chorwad in the mansion they have built, it was all about carefully-planned sentiment. The media was allowed to shoot in what was a private ceremony. We caught glimpses of the brothers doing the dandiya, and the bahus playing traditional daughters-in-law as opposed to their more glamorous avatars when in Mumbai and their silent rivalry – Nita with her school, Tina with her art, both doing it for the benefit of society, of course. This was all about custom and it was custom-made. There was uniformity about the clothes, the camaraderie, the smiles.

Who cares whether or not it is good for the economy if the two brothers get together. It may certainly be good for their business, but again it is not an equal game. Kokilaben wearing bright pink spoke before the cameras, she said, “Agar pyaar nahin hota tau saath kaise hote (If there was no love, then why would they be together).” No one would dare to ask why they were together now (though they performed the havan at different timings) and for how long and what would happen once they reached their respective homes and went on their separate holidays.

That is not the point. This was the matriarch’s diktat and a clear signal to the business fraternity and stakeholders: When you buy one, you pay for the other too.

All White

I still remember the beggar girl craning her neck as the couple walked down the road, foreign tourists with straw hats, fair with golden hair. There was a girl with them. A girl as dark as the urchin. A girl who looked like an add-on, who did not seem to belong. Both girls were turning to look at each other, their eyes widening. One had her hand clutching at her adoptive mother’s dress; the other’s had been outstretched a while ago hoping for coins to drop in it.

This was at least ten years ago and the eyes of those kids still haunt me. It can be a story of hope for one, but it isn’t always.

It is not surprising that whites choose to adopt non-black children. This is the reality of choice, not the celebrity market that flaunts different colours.

The data was collected over a period of five years from a website by an adoption agency by a team from the California Institute of Technology, the London School of Economics and New York University.

It showed that non-Blacks were seven times more likely to be chosen over Black kids. It is easy to term this racism, but think about ordinary middle-class homes in the suburbs. If the kids look different they would be ostracised. There is likely to be a bias, but the bias is driven by a need to protect the status quo as well as the social dynamics within which such families operate. Would black parents opt for white kids? The question is not even addressed and is all the more revealing.

The elite can go scouting for babies in Africa, Korea, Vietnam, India because they live a different life. Besides, at one level it would appear that they are doing a good deed and get imbued with such legitimacy that is politically correct. Ever wondered why they do not adopt black kids in their country?

Middle class couples who have to furnish all sorts of papers to show they are capable of looking after the child will not have it so easy. Therefore, they want someone like them.

The study also revealed that girls were preferred to boys even by gays and lesbians. I think that despite the need to bond, there is always the feeling that the child is not genetically the same. The inheritance of name and perpetuity seems to rest on the male and perhaps the parents are a bit reluctant to let an outsider have that privilege.

Gay men might just be more comfortable bringing up a girl to avoid any questions about impropriety and lesbians would quite likely think along feministic lines as also avoidance of the male principle in their scheme.

One could judge the biases harshly but individuals in general choose what is non-threatening and they think mirrors them.

Is Saudi Arabia responsible for all acts of its citizens?

It appears like just another case of legalised paedophilia, but it is important to note that sometimes what individuals do is not always accepted by the government.

A 12-year-old Saudi girl unexpectedly gave up her petition for divorce from an 80-year-old man her father forced her to marry in exchange for a dowry. Despite support from human rights lawyers and child welfare advocates, the girl and her mother, who originally sought the divorce, withdrew the case on Monday in a court in Buraidah, in Al-Qasim province.

Who is to blame here? The mother had earlier approached the government’s Human Rights Commission charging that the girl had been raped; the local media reported it. Now she and her daughter have backtracked. This is a social evil and has to be handled at several levels for I believe it is crucial to look at things holistically.

The father is a piece of scum who sold his daughter for 85,000 riyals ($22,667). The groom is a shameless man who not only paid for this nubile bride but also consummated the marriage. Why was the mother quiet initially, then made a noise and has now withdrawn the case? I can only sympathise with the girl. She has been brainwashed about obedience to parents.

If the Saudi government body was willing to intervene, if the case did reach the courts and the media reported it, then do we reproach Saudi Arabia or the social mores or the individuals concerned? How many such examples are there? Do all of them appear in the public eye? What are the compulsions that drive people to do this? We imagine the kingdom to be rich, therefore what sort of greed was at play here?

We have had cases of men way in their dotage lusting after young women even in the West. The matter of choice is usually mentioned, but what choice can we talk about when there is power at play and the young women are hankering after riches and fame, not to speak about coveting even minor luxuries to keep up with the Joneses?

I think not all is lost in this case. The Saudi government should in fact assert itself and drag the father to court as well as the mother. There must certainly be provisions for forcing a minor through pressure tactics. The media has evidence since the mother had approached a journalist. That 80-year-old man needs to be tried too.

There is always talk about how women are not allowed to drive or go unescorted in Saudi Arabia. These are important enough issues at one level. It is more crucial to address how individuals make decisions that reflect badly on a particular society that anyway has a record for being considered regressive, and in some instances rightly so.

It is, however, time we realise that there are watchdogs even in such societies and they should be encouraged rather than buffering what they are fighting against by giving the negative more mileage.

Also, in the fluffy omelettes we may not notice our own bad eggs.

Nannies and Parents

See that little baby in the arms of a beggar? See those eyes looking blankly? He has been sedated. He has been rented out. He could be your child.

This is a real case and it happened in Bangalore, the city touted as the IT capital of India.

A seven-month-old baby of a working couple who relied on their ayah—recruited from an employment agency, and hence thought to be above board—was used for beggary. The unscrupulous nanny would pack off the tiny tot with beggars for Rs 100 a day, while she settled down to a quiet afternoon in front of the TV set.

Begging is big business here and in some cities doctors help amputate limbs to make the emotional blackmail more potent. Children are often kidnapped. These are usually from poor families.

This time an educated couple is in the forefront. The mother who worked for a multinational company returned home to find her son missing. The nanny audaciously told her that he too was out on work. For three weeks this had been going on. Several questions need to be raised about the work culture and careerism. I don’t see why a woman has to give up everything once a baby is born, but biologically a child needs the mother more at this stage. As long as women are the only ones who can reproduce – and for now we will leave out the experiments of pregnant men – then there is some responsibility to be shouldered. The father can attend to other chores, if a woman feels she does not want to be left with role-playing, but her duty is towards the baby. A man does not produce milk.

This lady had obviously weaned the infant away, but there are other dimensions. Why do cities that boast of getting ahead in life not have basic facilities? Can offices not have special baby rooms if they have rooms that lie vacant for weeks until there is some special conference? Why are there not enough crèches run by accredited organisations that will take responsibility?

Nuclear families are important because it helps new families grow up. However, I am sure a parent of the parents or a relative would be happy to help. Since there is a lot of movement to other cities, it is possible that no family members is around. I am afraid this won’t appeal to a one-track feminist mind but I think the woman can take a few months off or work from home. In this information age where you rarely meet people, it is not a far-fetched idea. When the child is slightly older the father can swap roles to make things on par, if it is of such importance, though I wonder how women who cannot trust men with their kitchens, would trust them with a baby…

This couple is moving abroad, and it must have been planned earlier. They are not filing a police case and want to remain anonymous. I can understand their hesitation. But one nanny losing a job from one organisation won’t solve the issue. I dread to think what would happen had the child been a girl. This is not to say that a boy cannot be abused sexually. A girl is just so much more vulnerable.

A seven-month old has been the victim not only of a greedy nanny but of the new social mores that have canonised go-getting. The couple too is a victim. We all are and the only way out is to out our rusting new ideas.

The Paranoia of the New Gay Family Saga

Maverick: Paranoia of the New Gay Family Saga
by Farzana Versey
Covert, Aug 1-15

A gay friend once called me homophobic. I had mentioned in passing that he was trying to be “too gay”.

“What is too gay?”

Being gay is essentially about a sexual identity, and although sexuality is an important part of human existence it is not something that has to be flaunted. Does it mean I do not accept it?

Alternative sexuality has changed the way we look at families. With decriminalisation, there may be an element of becoming legitimate either by giving relationships a stamp of social approval or retaining the sanctity of gayness. Many ‘pure’ gays have always had a problem with bisexuals; they believe that it is a compromise and seek to co-opt them.

There is every likelihood for a demand to legalise same-sex marriage, which the pure gays again have a problem with and rightly so. They do not wish to mimic heterosexual behaviour and marriage is a most conservative option.

The very idea of homosexuality gains currency due to it being outside the realm of any stratification.

The legal ramifications of consensus are often vague; the likelihood of brainwashing or bribing is not unusual. Last year in Surat, an 18-year-old killed a 35-year-old man for coercing him into a relationship. The boy was arrested for murder. This was not consensual, both were adults and there was a crime committed that could be termed self-defence or revenge.

How often do we hear gays speak up against paedophilia, rape, promiscuity in their community? How many have been arrested, imprisoned and punished for homosexuality? How many gay icons – a part of the celebrity brigade that has joined these carnivals – come out in the streets to oppose police action against innocent young heterosexual couples who dare to marry above their caste or outside their religion?

Don’t prominent gay couples realise that it is only their fame that protects them? A fashion designer in Goa married his French partner and the Indian media went gaga over it. Would the high society types who were blessing them have the same standards if their maid or driver turned out to be gay?

India’s criminal law against homosexuality has looked the other way when well-heeled Indian and foreign gay partners ‘bought’ mothers. Anand in Gujarat is often referred to as the ‘surrogacy capital of the world’. An Israeli gay couple took their baby home last year. These two guys took their time choosing the mother, even sending a psychology questionnaire. Did the woman know that she was helping two men and not a woman?

The gay issue is riddled with patriarchal notions and its proponents tend to ignore the complexities of other factors, promoting instead the luminaries in their midst.

Recently, at Sao Paulo’s gay pride parade the chief guest was an Indian, the ‘Pink Prince’ Manvendra Singh Gohil of the erstwhile Rajpipla royal state. It was double whammy exotica. No one in India had heard about him until he appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show. His father had threatened to disinherit him, but now the king has restored all his titles. He is being idolised only for his position and he plays along by dressing the part of a royal heir in a democracy. On what grounds, then, is he is seen as the “global face of the Indian gay movement”? In an interview he had once said, “Gays are talented, creative, imagine a world without us.”

There is no reason why all gays have to be creative and talented. This reveals a disgustingly posh isolationist attitude.

A few years ago, I had met a top-notch model who happens to be gay. A glossy magazine wanted him on the cover and he refused only because he did not want to exhibit his homosexuality, which was certainly not his claim to fame.

Of late, unfortunately, he seems to have copped out. The man who did not want to flash his sexual choice is now doing just that. He is invited to the best shindigs in town. And he plays to the gallery. Crimson lipstick. Outlandish stoles. Wigs. Feathers. Baubles. In one newspaper photograph, his face looked like a mask.

Isn’t it strange that his true self is revealed only by appearing as a camouflage?

* * *

Additional information not in the column for those not aware about the legal aspect:

India’s attempts at decriminalising homosexuality have been seen as path-breaking. Section Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.”

The new 105-page judgement that wnast to change this has woken up to the fact that, “it is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual”.

However, Section 377 will continue for non-consensual and non-vaginal sex.

When did men acquire vaginas?

It must be remembered that heterosexuals too indulge in forms of carnal expression that may be deemed unnatural legally.