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 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!!!

My mother never told me to get an arranged marriage. She simply wanted me to choose someone who fit her ideal of a husband for me. And one of the most important criteria was of course: how much money is he going to make?

There is something deeply disturbing to me about the idea of love being tied to money. An arranged marriage is, without much disguise, a transaction between two families. The more beautiful the girl or the more influential her family, the higher the suitor’s net worth. The girl gets a lavish, secure life and the boy gets a pretty girl who promises to bare bear and raise pretty kids. And while our modernized Indian parents might pretend that they want us to choose our own mates, the reality is that they still view romantic relationships through a lens of pragmatism. Love is a nice side effect that should come eventually from a proper marriage, but it is not a requirement.

This is sad to me. Why must I defend the value of love against money? I personally don’t see any point to a life of grandeur without love. There are an infinity of moments to be lived between the time you are married and the time you die, thousands of nights to be spent in the same bed, and all the money in the world won’t take the misery of loneliness out of them. Perhaps I too think of marriage as a matter of pragmatism – I would rather spend those nights on a modest bed with a passionate lover than a bed made of gold with a man who sleeps next to me only so he may fulfill his duty to his mother.

It’s not that I think arranged marriages are all horrible. My parents have a good marriage. They love each other, and they are wonderful parents. I admire them for finding a way to make things work for so many years, even though they are so different from each other. I can’t imagine such an unlikely couple staying together successfully in any situation other than an Indian arranged marriage.

But I just don’t think a marriage should be something that we have to ‘make work’, or that a life partner should be someone with whom we ‘make due’…this is love we’re talking about for God’s sake! LOVE. It is the one thing beyond food, water and shelter that we all need from the moment of birth. And it is something that is celebrated and adorned in our ancient traditions (poems, scriptures, music, dance, sculptures, paintings…and the list goes on). So to continue to treat it as a second-hand emotion is tragic, and completely distorts the true meaning and purpose of life.

I seek riches only so that I may have the freedom to spend more time with my love. Happy Valentine’s Day.

UPDATE: incidentally, the marrying for money phenomenon is not just confined to Indian arranged marriages. It happens in Western ‘love’ societies too. And, when rich people lose their fortunes, what do you suppose happens to their marriages? A recent article in the Economist discusses the effect of the recession on marriage…