photo credit: baurazi on flickr

The most harrowing aspect of my childhood trips to India — other than learning how to squat on the “Indian-style” toilets in my grandfather’s Old Delhi compound — was coming face to face with poverty. Riding around Delhi in the backseat of my uncle’s Fiat, I would dread long stops at the crowded traffic lights, turning my face the other way and pretending not to hear the rap-tap-tap on the window or see the glistening brown eyes of that little girl with her hand outstretched. The adults never seemed to notice much, and the few persistent beggars that managed to incite a response would hear the familiar admonishing refrain of “chall. hatt yahan se. kuch kaam kyun nahi karta?” There’s little sympathy for beggars in a family of hard-nosed baniyas who have toiled for generations to amass the wealth they enjoy today. It is difficult for them to understand why beggars don’t get off the streets and find steady work instead. From our perspective, beggars seem like misguided, lazy people who haven’t tried hard enough to make something of themselves. Science would, however, suggest otherwise.

Neuroscience research conducted on children who have been raised in poverty has shown that the stress of a poor childhood has permanent affects on the brain. More specifically, scientists are learning that the working memories of poorer children, especially those brought up in dense urban populations, have smaller capacities than those of their middle- and upper-class counterparts. What this means is that these children will have a harder time remembering things like long numbers or names of state capitals in school, be less equipped to “mug up” for the brutal exams and, as a result, fair poorer in job interviews, even if they are able to actually go to school and get job interviews in the first place.

The implications are obvious — there are explanations beyond laziness for why the poor stay poor for generations. It’s perhaps not fair to blame them for their plight. So, next time you tell a young begger to go get a job, give him a rupee or two along with your advice to take the edge off the stress and make it a little more likely that the kid will have a chance to leave the slums.

follow Prerna at twitter.com/prernagupta

Is happiness really an attainable state for the human mind? I recently read an article in the NYTimes, titled Enlightenment Therapy, about a professor who gave up a tenured position and decided to devote his life to meditation. He spent years practicing and teaching Zen meditation, yet he was never able to attain that elusive state of infinite happiness the eastern religions promise as the reward for such devotion. When Zen meditation failed, he turned to anti-depressants and psycho-therapy, but nothing seemed to work. And now he finds himself visiting a therapist like a regular white-collar American. He is doomed, it seems, to that familiar state of discontentment, loneliness and depression many of us suffer throughout our lives.

How many of us promise ourselves that we’ll be happy just as soon as we achieve this or that success and get this or that material possession? And for how many years have we been convincing ourselves that the watering hole is just on the other side of that sand dune? The eastern ascetics will tell us that we need only to detach ourselves from these fleeting pleasures in order to attain happiness. Yet I find it hard to believe that these lonely old men who have spent years in silent isolation are truly happy. On the contrary, many of them seem as consumed by the search for wealth and power as the most “attached” among us. The search for happiness through renunciation of everything human seems misguided somehow; happiness is after all a human condition, created by human impulses in a human brain. Everyone is different, but companionship is a pretty basic requirement for most humans to be happy.

But if there is no happiness to be found through participation in society, and none found through asceticism…then where the hell is it? Perhaps happiness does not exist at all, but is simply a mirage we create for ourselves so we can always strive for more. It is obvious why we might have evolved the propensity to seek happiness, as this unending desire incentivizes us to keep working for more money / status / progress, increasing our chances of survival as a species. Yet by that token it would seem maladaptive to ever actually attain a state of constant happiness, at least while one is capable of being a productive member of society. In that case maybe we should abandon the search for happiness altogether, and just resign ourselves to a life fraught with duality.

It might be true, but I just can’t accept it. I have to believe that I am capable of attaining infinite bliss, of sustaining that amazing sensation of ecstasy I glimpse every now and again while wrapped in my lovers arms or surfing a perfect wave in the pacific ocean. I must believe happiness is real, and that I am in fact getting closer to enlightenment every day of my life. If not, then what’s the point of it all? What is there to live if not for eternal sunshine? Or, perhaps, if not for the search of it.

Let the businessman seek it in money, the celebrity in fame and the swami in solitude. But I will not seek it thus. For I have found my happiness in simple pleasures and seek only to sustain my immersion in those. I live for love, food, music and natural sunshine.

follow Prerna on twitter at twitter.com/prernagupta

It is too easy to forget what it really means to be the world’s largest democracy, especially for those of us who remain relatively unaffected by the vagaries of Indian politics because we can buy (or bribe) our way out of most problems the government can’t solve.

For the past few decades, India’s educated elite have taken less interest in politics than the uneducated masses. And this has probably been the greatest reason why India’s infrastructure, health and basic education have maintained 3rd world standards even while the educated elite have rocketed up to international levels of wealth. India’s intellectuals have been too busy making money for themselves to bother with societal issues, and so some of the most challenging problems in India remain unsolved. But it is time that we educated elite realize how valuable our freedom is to our continued prosperity; the world’s largest democracy will crumble if we do not begin to participate actively in its well being. We must understand that the plight of the uneducated masses is our own plight, and that it is our responsibility to raise all of India to greatness. If we – who can read and write, who understand why minority rights must be protected, why women should have equal standing as men, and why religious tolerance is essential – do not vote, then how do we expect our democracy to continue to function in a sensible manner? Uneducated voters are more likely to be swayed by manipulative politicians with corrupt agendas and are less likely to understand which government policies will benefit them in the long-run. If we hope to see any improvement in things like water quality, health, education, and sexual freedom, we must make our voices heard by ballot, not just on blogs. A successful democracy encourages voting by all its people, but it demands the active participation of its most educated.

So GO ROCK THE VOTE in the 2009 General Elections!!!

Oh and before you vote, do a quick search on your favorite politicians and make sure they’re not criminals:

http://www.nocriminals.org/

http://www.google.co.in/intl/en/landing/loksabha2009/

A few of you have requested that I give my thoughts on the qualifications of the various candidates. I started to write a post along those lines but soon realized that most of my judgments are not really based on outward qualifications or claims. All the candidates say they want to improve water quality, increase jobs, use technology, etc., so what’s really different about them? Although we have always been taught that we should vote for candidates “on the issues”, it’s nearly impossible to do so when there are hundreds of people all saying basically the same thing. Of course there are some pretty significant differences (e.g., fundamentalist jackasses saying they will cut the throats of India’s Muslims after they are elected), but most of the publicly-approved talking points all have a similar quality of sounding too good to be true. The truth is, all politicians say manipulative things and promise too much. Such is the nature of politics. So how do we wade through all the shit? Should we really vote “on the issues”, or should we just cave into our temptation to vote for the guy (or gal) we’d most like to have chai with? When I choose a politician, I generally ask myself the following questions:

1. is he / she a good person (or, does he / she seem like a scummy, corrupt bastard)?
2. is he / she at least as intelligent as I am?
3. is he / she at least as educated as I am?
4. is he / she open to new perspectives?
5. is he / she tolerant towards opposing beliefs (or, is he / she a fundamentalist)?
6. does he / she understand economics?
7. does he / she genuinely view poor people as humans who deserve basic rights (or, is he / she just trying to win their votes)?
8. is he / she aware of the world, and the importance of our country’s relationship to other countries?

I do not give my vote to anyone who does not pass with a “yes” answer to all of these questions. So I guess it’s a bit of both — I choose on broad issues and on my own affinity towards the person, with a recognition that no politician is perfect and that it’s okay to disagree on some things, as long as we can agree on the most important. Ultimately, I vote for the people I trust to make laws and spend money in ways that are consistent with my beliefs about what is right and wrong, what is important for my personal freedom and what is best for my fellow citizens now and in the future.

Jai Hind.

follow Prerna on twitter at twitter.com/prernagupta

There is a tribe of people in Tanzania, called Hadza, who are the only remaining hunter-gatherers in Africa. Every year men from this tribe risk their lives to gather honey from killer bees’ nests hanging at the top of 100-foot trees. If the men are successful, they return to the village (after gorging themselves on raw honeycomb) as heroes. Humans are evolved for a time when sugar and fat were so scarce that no natural instinct was required to help tell us when to stop eating. In the rare instance that we had ample of either, it was in our interest to eat our fill. Fast forward 12,000 years to the pillar of modernity (the grand United States of America), and you’ll find what might be considered mother nature’s cruelest joke on mankind: it is cheaper and easier to find a meal in America that has too much fat and sugar, than it is to find one that has too little (or even just a healthy amount). Moreover, nutrient-rich calories cost more, per unit, than do “empty calories”. Couple that with a human’s natural instinct to eat as much fat and sugar as possible, and you have a major problem on your hands (and hips).

For example, an American living in Atlanta could choose from one of the following two meals for lunch:

a Quarter Pounder Value Meal from McDonalds for approx $4 (200 rupees), which will get you 1320 calories, 51 grams of fat, 95 grams of processed sugar and virtually no nutrients.

OR

a salad from Whole Foods Market for approx $12 (600 rupees), which will get you 310 calories, 5 grams of fat, 9 grams of unprocessed sugar and many essential nutrients.

The problem for most Americans is that they cannot a) afford to pay $12 for lunch, b) work close enough to a Whole Foods to find such a salad on their lunch breaks, and c) be satisfied eating salad in lieu of a meal. And so the world’s wealthiest, most powerful nation has a raging epidemic of a deadly disease: obesity.

Unfortunately, this is one epidemic that is spreading from the richest country in the world to everyone else, and it is a glimpse into India’s future. Obesity in India is following a predictable trend, in tandem with its economic growth — obesity already affects 5% (50 million) of India’s population and, along with the availability of processed foods and unavailability of wives who stay home and cook, is growing steadily. Indians also have the added misfortune of being genetically predisposed to life-threatening problems like heart disease and diabetes. As Nandan Nilekani points out in his new book, Indians will soon comprise 60% of heart-attack deaths in the world. All signs point to a dismal future for India’s health. On the one hand, we have 456 million people living in poverty, malnourished and barely surviving. And on the other we have the “shining” Indian heading blindly the way of the fat American.

So you see I do not simply believe that Indians should copy all things American. There are many things traditionally Indian that I dearly hope are preserved for centuries to come, one of the most important of which is our food. Next time you sit down to a modern meal, remember this — fries from McDonalds, a slice from Pizza Hut and a cold coffee from Starbucks are the bain of an American’s existence. I hope Indians will learn from the mistakes of others, before it’s too late. I for one will continue to hone my roti-rolling techniques to perfection and will urge my children (male or female) to do the same.

follow Prerna on twitter at twitter.com/prernagupta

You can tell a lot about a culture by its tolerance for PDA. Last September, a married couple was arrested in Delhi for kissing near a train station and were put on trial for obscenity, a sentence which could have put them both in jail for 3 months (in separate cells of course). There was some controversy over the accuracy of the police reports, with the couple denying that they were in fact kissing while snapping pics of themselves with their mobile. Fortunately, the presiding Judge S Muralidhar had some sense and dismissed the sentence, saying that even if police reports were accurate “it is inconceivable how… an expression of love by a young married couple would attract an offence of obscenity and trigger the coercive process of law”. Of course if they had been unmarried, it would have been a different story entirely.

I was personally quite embarrassed by the Richard Gere – Shilpa Shetty incident a couple of years ago. It was not the kiss that embarrassed me, although it looked quite strange (Shilpa really didn’t seem to enjoy being kissed by an old man). Rather, what bothered me was the Indian response, which betrayed our country’s continued backwardness regarding all things sexual. I just don’t get it. Why are we so afraid of sex that we won’t even allow two people to enjoy their time together by showing a bit of affection? I think it’s sick that we are still so repressed that we restrict freedom in this manner. I can already anticipate two of the comments that some of you will give, so here are my arguments against them:

1. your argument: kissing in public will ‘excite animal instincts’ of men.
   • my rebuttal: anywhere you go in india you will find the walls of dhabas and chai stands plastered with erotic bollywood posters. watching a bollywood movie is also a public affair. bottom line, there is plenty of voluntary public consumption of soft-porn across india, so i don’t think a loving kiss between two people is going to add much to the fray.
2. your argument: they can do whatever they want in private, but why must they do it in public?
   • my rebuttal: there are no parks or beaches or other such romantic places to enjoy love in private. denying people the right to enjoy their love is a crime, in my opinion.

Just for fun, I collected a few photos of “public displays of affection” from around the world. Can you guess which couple is from which country? Here are a few options (not all will be used): Brazil, France, Italy, India, Morocco, Russia, Sweden, US

follow Prerna on twitter at twitter.com/prernagupta

I have eaten a lot of meat in my life. Although my mom is vegetarian, she allowed us to eat meat and even bring it into the home. I’m not sure why she was so flexible on something that she felt so strongly about for herself. Perhaps she didn’t want to create yet another reason for us to feel different from our American friends, or perhaps it’s because the morality of vegetarianism is such a complex issue.

Even as I ate meat almost every day of my teenage life, I thought often about the question of whether eating meat is wrong. There were many aspects of meat that were unappealing to me. Meat preparation was unbearably morbid, and the more hardcore forms like steak and ribs were just plain gross. Yet somehow I was always able to convince myself that there was nothing immoral about eating meat. We are omnivores. We have evolved to eat meat. Killing animals for food is part of the natural cycle of life.

During my third year at Stanford, I was introduced to the ideas of Eric Schlosser, who wrote a book called Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Schlosser’s book sheds light on the disgusting practices of the meat industry in America, with vivid imagery of the torture inflicted on America’s factory farm animals. These ideas presented the most compelling argument I had heard against eating mass-produced meat. Animals raised in factory farms are not only killed, they are tortured. Yet I still ignored my gut feeling about the matter and continued consuming meat daily.

In the spring of my senior year at Stanford I took a trip to India, which was accompanied by a two-week vegetarian fast. Although I had done this many times before in my life (i never eat meat when i am in India), something about this trip changed me. When I returned to Stanford, meat suddenly started smelling and tasting like “flesh”. It became increasingly unappetizing to me. I had already stopped eating beef a few years earlier for health reasons, but now even chicken and fish seemed gross. Somehow, after years of justifying my meat-eating habits to myself, I realized that my body was not meant to consume flesh. And so I became a vegetarian. Not exactly for moral reasons. Perhaps it was for health reasons. But more than anything, it was just a feeling I had about what was right for me. I could no longer eat animals.

I have now been a strict vegetarian for nearly five years and have since developed a pretty strong moral feeling about it — i believe eating meat as it is produced today is wrong. My reasoning is based on my own moral beliefs, combined with some hard facts:

Beliefs

Belief #1:  inflicting pain and suffering on any conscious being is wrong. The greater the level of consciousness, the more wrong it is.

Belief #2: prematurely ending the life of any conscious being is wrong. The greater the level of consciousness, the more wrong it is.

Belief #3: humans who have the basic necessities of life (food, shelter, etc), should minimize their negative impact on the environment.

Belief #4: humans who do not have the basic necessities of life should be free to kill animals for food, but they should try to minimize the suffering of the animals they kill and treat the animals with respect while they are alive.

Facts

Fact #1: in order to eat meat, we must prematurely end the life of the animals we eat.

Fact #2: conventional meat production in modern society inflicts severe pain and suffering on animals throughout their lives.

Fact #3: conventional meat production causes severe strain on the environment by emitting massive amounts of methane.

Fact #4: conventional meat production creates “superbugs”, which are resistant to all existing forms of antibiotics, thereby endangering the lives of other humans.

And so, I do not eat meat, and I am encouraged by the growing interest in vegetarianism around the world. However, I still believe the morality of vegetarianism is a complex issue. First, there are a few nuances that raise questions about the beliefs I have stated above.

Nuances

Nuance #1: Professor and Author Michael Pollan raises an interesting question in his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemna: if you remove all the negative stuff that comes along with mass-production of meat (say, for example, by raising and killing meat yourself on a small family farm), then you are bringing animals into this world (i.e., giving them a life that they would not have had otherwise), giving them a luxurious existence (plenty of food and shelther), and killing them without any suffering. Is it still wrong to eat meat in this scenario?

Nuance #2: According to neuroscientist Joseph Ledoux, human awareness of emotion is a bi-product of our having such a large prefrontal cortex. In other words, we are aware of emotions like pain, suffering and anxiety because we have a large prefrontal cortex. So it is possible that animals without a comprable prefrontal cortex, such as cows, pigs and fish, do not experience such emotions at all.

The first nuance is not really relevant for most of us, who do not have easy access to “humane” meat. The second nuance is interesting, but highly speculative. Since science cannot tell us definitively whether or not animals are aware of emotions, I believe it makes sense for us to act based on our intuition. And my intuition tells me that animals can suffer.

My Own Moral Shortcomings

All this said, I must admit to a couple of my own moral shortcomings.

Shortcoming #1: although I have minimized my leather purchases considerably since I became vegetarian, I do still buy shoes that contain leather.

Shortcoming #2: according to everything I have said above, I also really should not consume conventionally produced dairy. While I try to buy organic dairy, I am definitely not strict about this, and dairy is a majory part of my diet.

Why do I continue to buy leather shoes and eat dairy? Because these are part of a happy life that I am not willing to give up. I like to wear leather shoes to my business meetings, and I like to eat low-fat dairy as part of a balanced diet. Each of us has our own limit for self-sacrifice. For most, that limit allows for eating meat. But I hope that every person is made aware of the facts and makes a conscious choice about the amount of pain and suffering they are willing to inflict on others.

follow Prerna on twitter at twitter.com/prernagupta

There seems to be a strong nationalistic sentiment amongst many of you, often accompanied by a fear that India is being subsumed by Western culture. Slumdog Millionaire, some insist, won international accolades only because it was a movie made by a Western director, from a white man’s perspective. The Pink Chaddi movement is a symbol of the contamination of Indian culture by Western modernization. Perhaps there is some truth to these claims, but if so then we have only ourselves to blame. We are the ones who continue to worship white skin.

I grew up in a small town in Oklahoma, at a time when racism was still openly expressed in the “heartland” of the United States. From preschool through high school, I was the victim of racial persecution in varying degrees, and from many sources (teachers, coaches, dance instructors, white kids, black kids, and even red kids). I was brown and nerdy, and the oldest daughter of a relatively wealthy, conservative, immigrant household, giving almost any native of this barren Bible Belt town plenty of fodder for derision. But as I began to establish my identity in the community, I felt most of the explicit racism slowly melt away. The white people began to accept me, and even respect me for my differences. By the end of high school, I was considered beautiful by many of my peers, and I was even nominated as a Football Homecoming candidate my senior year (this is essentially a school-sanctioned popularity contest; the other two candidates were white girls, and a white girl won). That year, I was also voted “Most Likely to Succeed” and “Prettiest Smile” by my classmates. I had crossed racial barriers and proven my worth as a brown girl in the white man’s world.

Since high school, I have felt quite comfortable assimilating into white communities and have made friends of all skin tones with whom I share a very natural, unprejudiced kinship. Yet there are certain times when I still feel that my beauty is under-appreciated because of my dark skin — when I am around Indians. I am always a bit taken aback when I see a commercial for Fair and Lovely, or when an auntie advises me to avoid the sun. As the rest of the world chases the exotic beauty of dark skin, Indians continue to  treat fair skin as the epitome of female beauty. Why?

This obsession with light skin is a relic from a time when light skin meant that you were wealthy, because you didn’t have to work outside all day in the sun. And I’m sure this bias was reinforced by the British occupation. The relationship between light skin and wealth continues to be unnaturally propagated in India today, because rich people still prefer to marry light. And so this baseless obsession feeds on itself. But this archaic distinction makes no sense in the modern economy, where a nice tan is likely to suggest that you have the leisure to go on beach vacations rather than wasting away all day in a cubicle under glaring fluorescent lights. I think it’s preposterous, and somewhat scary, that we are still brainwashed by these backwards notions of beauty.

Dark skin is beautiful. I hope we can start to see our own beauty, because we will never ascend to greatness until we embrace ourselves.

It is difficult to respond with calmness and dignity to comments that unjustly attack one’s moral character, support oppression and violence and are generally inane and baseless. It is disheartening to read these sorts of comments, as it shows how far we have yet to go. We are indeed two Indias, and the repressive India seems to be the larger. Perhaps blogging on these topics is pointless, as many of you have said to me, but I still feel that I must try. If even I cannot sustain the heart and courage to fight back, then who will?

So, let me respond, point by point, to the major themes of the verbal attacks directed towards me in my previous post:

[DISCLAIMER:  To those of you who do not agree with drinking but gave graciously tolerant remarks in support of women's rights, this response is not at all directed towards you. I appreciate your tolerance and respect your views.]

ATTACK 1: I am not fit to be an Indian woman

This line of attack smacks of the same mentality that drives Ram Sene to commit acts of violence against women. If a woman drinks, she is considered a whore. No questions asked. Doesn’t matter what the men are doing, of course, because men can do whatever the hell they want. But women must uphold our backwards ideals of chasteness and purity. And these archaic ideals of purity are tied to religion, so that is ALL the justification we need. And, in the name of RELIGION? Well, we can do whatever we god damn please. We can even kill women who dare to be unchaste and drink a beer with the boys…sound familiar to you? Sounds a lot like religious terrorism to me.

When I said I don’t have shame drinking in front of my aunts and uncles, it is because I do not think it is fair that my uncles are allowed to drink, but my aunts are not. Why should I feel shame for demanding gender equality? I do not. If my husband drinks, I drink. If I do not drink, he does not drink either.

ATTACK 2: I am harming my body and brain by drinking

Of course no one bothered to ask how often / much do I drink.  People just assumed that if I drink I must be abusing alcohol like a dirty old man who gets drunk every night and comes home and beats his wife. For your information, I drink very moderately and quite infrequently (much less than the recommended amount of one glass per day).

Maybe you haven’t heard the news, but studies have repeatedly shown that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol is GOOD for your health. So, sorry to disappoint, but the ‘not good for you’ argument is just plain wrong.

Note that I haven’t said to you, “you are harming your health by not drinking, so please start drinking.”

ATTACK 3: Women should not dress provocatively, because it will incite men’s animal instincts

How many of the people who made this comment have seen a Bollywood movie in the past year? My guess is the answer is 100%. When you watch Priyanka bounce around in a tight dress, do you not feel your so-called animal instincts being stimulated? If you don’t, then you certainly wouldn’t be stimulated by me doing the same thing, because I am not more attractive than she. And, if you do, then why do you voluntarily go watch her? No one is forcing you. Or, is it Priyanka’s fault for doing it? Yes, that must be it. Priyanka is a manipulative whore who forces all Indian men to be “stimulated” against their will.

You might be wondering why, if I myself dress like Priyanka, did I make my post about Bollywood Porn below? The reason is that I think Bollywood is an outgrowth of our sexual repression. Men like you will excoriate me for wearing a revealing dress, but will go in hoards to watch Priyanka do it. Moreover, many of you won’t appreciate a movie that does not showcase a well-endowed woman bouncing around half-naked (see comments to my post about Slumdog). Bollywood has become pornographic because there is DEMAND for it. It is the hypocracy that bothers me, not Priyanka’s dress.

Note that only a small fraction of Hollywood movies have the same level of soft porn that 99% of Bollywood movies do. Why? I thought American culture is profligate and Indian culture is chaste…

ATTACK 4: Drinking and sex are not Indian

Read, my friends. Read the tales from our ancient texts. You are deluding yourselves. Sex is CELEBRATED in our traditions. I pity the repressed fools who think sex is not Indian. You will also find references to Ram and Sita drinking wine together (before having sex). And, as one of our more astute commentors, Nadeem Khan, noted:

“Can you tell me how many Ram Sena and other Sena group members don’t drink alcohol. My dear, do you know the percentage of consumption of alcohol in Indian Army and other departments? Grow up.. stop behaving as kid.
To respect elders there is no specific dress code, we can respect elders in wearing jeans/shorts and as well as in wearing shalwar kurta.
Personally I am in favor of preserving culture and against drinking BUT I can’t dictate anyone.”

Btw, did you know that pornography is one of the largest sources of Internet revenue in India? I’m sure many of you know that from personal experience…

ATTACK 5: Pink Chaddis are vulgar

You mean, pink chaddis make you feel uncomfortable? Yes, that’s because you are sexually repressed. And I’m sure Ms. Nisha took that into account when she planned her ingenious protest. Making an oppressor feel uncomfortable is the point of a peaceful protest.

ATTACK 6: I must be a Muslim in disguise

This is actually an older attack in response to my call for unity. I am assuming by now you are all sufficiently convinced that I do not have any hidden religious agendas, as I do not imagine any Muslim fundamentalist would advocate a woman drinking and going to pubs (please correct me if I am wrong, and I will be happy to provide further proof of my secularism).

p.s. for those who were wondering, the picture of the white chaddis with pink polka dots is not me. it’s a Victoria’s Secret model.

Congrats to Slumdog Millionaire for winning 8 Oscars! And a special congrats to A.R. Rehman for his 2 Oscars. Wow!!! I wonder how the naysayers will change their tune now…

Btw, here is an interesting article that was published in the New York Times just before the Oscars, which asks three famous Indians their opinion of the controversy:  http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/the-real-roots-of-the-slumdog-protests/?scp=6&sq=slumdog%20millionaire&st=cse

About the photo: The friends and neighbors of “Slumdog Millionaire” child actor Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail cheer while watching the Oscars award ceremony on television outside his shanty, in Mumbai, India.

I am a proud supporter of the pink chaddi movement and a recent member of their fb group. Obviously, the purports and actions of the Sri Ram Sene group are abhorrent, and we should all applaud the Pink Chaddi ladies for their innovative form of protest.

I have been going out to pubs since I was a teenager, and I have no qualms about wearing a skimpy cocktail dress when I’m in the party mood. I do believe that women should be free to dress as they please, drink alcohol, celebrate Valentine’s Day, and enjoy any and all freedoms that are afforded to us as citizens of a democratic society. I dress the same at clubs in Delhi and Mumbai as I do in New York or LA, and I will drink in front of aunts and uncles without shame. I admire the women in India who are taking a stand against pigheaded conservatism.

But some, such as Ms. Sagarika Ghose, fear that we are getting so carried away with our westernized partying that we may be leaving any real opportunity for widespread cultural progress behind. Ms. Ghose’s point is simple — there is an increasing divide between the modern elite and the uneducated masses in India. And, by engaging in morally loose actions that politicians can scapegoat, we ‘modern elite’ are providing perfect fodder to help rouse the masses against us. Moral depravity is easier to rally against than economic progress. They can’t fault us for getting an education and earning money, but they can admonish us for going against centuries of religious tradition. There is real danger in what is happening, because these fundamentalists — just like the religious terrorists — are not just grumpy old men…they are recruiting youth to their movements also.

Indian modernization is an interesting beast, because it is happening incredibly fast and incredibly unevenly. We should certainly embrace it, but we should be more mindful of what modernization really means, and what we are giving up in return for our freedom. When we flaunt our bodies and seize male freedoms, we are sacrificing a demure self-confidence which we can never regain. When we celebrate love openly and eschew arranged marriages, we are risking divorce and disappointment. If we approach modernism with greater awareness, we will be less effective targets for fundamentalist backlash.

Go Pink Chaddis!!!