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

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.

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!!!

I was amazed by the passionate responses this post elicited. Reading through your comments was much more interesting than reading my own post =) There was so much brought up through the various comments that I’d like to continue this discussion by highlighting some of the responses and giving you all a chance to react to them.

I’ve been conflicted about whether or not to showcase this particular comment, but I decided that it’s better for us to address it upfront rather than run away from harsh words. So, here it is – straight from the horse’s mouth – a response by a Hindu fundamentalist [not appropriate for children]:

JAI BAJRANGI Wrote:
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 am

You are a bloody bitch which was borned out of a cross between a swine and a dog you must be a secular bastard which is being F****D by MANY Katalas and now you are addicted to being F****D by those BASTARDS and that is why you are saying these things otherwise how can any PURE HINDU because HINDUS were slaves to Muslims & English for many centuries and were being F****D by these BASTARDS they have become IMPOTENT and ready to give their Daughters & Sisters to these MUSLIM BASTARDS like SHAHRUKH KHAN, SAIF ALI KHAN, MANSOOR ALI KHAN PATODI, AMIR KHAN etc.

What stands out most to me about this comment is the sexual insecurity this poor fellow seems to be suffering from. According to him, the only way I – a Hindu – could possibly be saying something like ‘let’s all unite and why the f*** do we need to fight’ is if I myself am having sex with a Muslim. For the record, I’m not having sex with a Muslim and never have (not that I think there’s anything wrong with inter-religious sex). But that’s besides the point. This obsession with sex betrays, in my opinion, the baseness of the fundamentalist psyche. They are being completely driven by prehistoric evolutionary impulses and have lost all ability to control these impulses through rational thought. The fundamentalist says “they steal me women, me kill them dead”.

Where is the religion in all this? Well, I think the “religion” comes into play when these folks meet in groups. There’s something very powerful about a herd of angry men chanting and raving together. An orgy of anger can be perhaps even more intoxicating than one of love.

And, so, to answer some of you who think I am naive….I am not naive. I know what hatred and anger exists in the world. Here you can see it directed towards me. But I refuse to believe that we cannot evolve beyond this baseness. I would choose an orgy of love any day, and I believe there are more people in the world like us, than like them. Gandhi fought with love, and I believe so can we.