Cultural Context and Public Spaces
Last weekend, I watched a movie in a theater after a long time. The movie was KungFu hustle and a better spoof is yet to be made. But I digress, this post is not about the delightful movie and the outrageous special effects. I was with a group of Indian grad. students, mostly North Indian types. Their behaviour in the theater was atrocious, talking loudly while the movie was being screened, talking on cell phones *inside* the theater and happily continuing with the conversation in the face of loud hisses, keeping up a relentless barrage of commentary about every thing on the screen and off the screen. Eventually, they pissed off a group of people sitting behind us, so much that they decided to pay my companions back in their own coin - loud never ending laughs, claps at inappropriate moments and so on ! but I dont think my companions got the message. There was a "Sar-chasm" :-) I could'nt help myself from thinking that these people were really rude, with no knowledge or respect for cultures different from their own. They crossed that line beyond which behaviour in a public space becomes public nuisance: an invasion of that tiny bubble which Americans like to call their "personal space", an intrusion that the luckless people in that theater could do nothing to avoid. I am sure, most of you would agree with my gut feeling about this gang.
Meanwhile, there has been a lot of brouhaha, a lot of collective breast beating and a lot of ugly name-calling among Indian bloggers this past week. It all started with the Indian-Express laying bare yet again the villainous nature of Shiv Sena. With self rightous outrage, a whole gang of liberals jumped onto the bandwagon and branded the Shiv Sena and its louts as the Bombay Taleban. One would think that normally sceptical people would be a little hesitant when it comes to passing judgements on Shiv Sena based on opinion pieces published in the Express, its common knowledge that there is no love lost between the Sena and English language newspapers in India. But a whole group of people appears to have outsourced its opinions to the Indian Express editorial desk. Ofcourse most of these people do not understand marathi, so they would not have bothered to *read* what Saamna published. But lets not bother with such itsy bitsy details. For you, my gentle reader, here's a link to a translation of the article as published in the Express http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=69221.
Now I can't say I agree with all that is said in the article. Particularly, the following:
If a man is provoked by such clothes, who can one blame?
And
it is the evil eye of men provoked by the culture of skimpy clothes that is harmful. Why encourage these perverse tendencies?
These two sentences appear to place the blame of an act of sexual violence such as rape on the victim. Having said that, I think comparing Shiv Sena with the Taleban is taking ones disagreement a little too far. Taleban would have stoned the unfortunate girl to death for adultry. On the other hand, Saamna uses the phrase “innocent girl” to describe the victim. Moreover, nowhere does the article say that in this specific instance, the girl was to blame for the rape.
The article does complain about the explosion of porn/almost porn (remixes, movies, low cut clothes) in public spaces these days, but that appears to be a more general complaint about the direction Mumbai society is moving in, something that is to be expected from a conservative editorial desk. Here are the relevant quotes:
"youth have fallen in the page-three trap. In the attempt to provide a ‘free’ atmosphere at home, parents proudly allow girls to wear skimpy clothes and give boys uncontrolled freedom."
"They spoke while facing Page 3 and Zeher posters. The danger of page-three culture is knocking at our doors."
It is a complaint that I find myself at least partially in agreement with. There is a difference in enjoying a sexual union, and being enjoyed in a sexual union. The usual porn/skin flicks in the media do not depict sexually liberated women, but women in various stages of undress, who are subjected to the most base of human instincts. These skin flicks do not advocate true sexual liberation, instead carry a subliminal suggestion that girls wearing skimpy clothes are more "available/loose". So the Sena does have a point when they claim that "page three culture", skin flicks, hot remixes, item dances (choli ke peeche, haraami/nigodi jawani, jumma chumma.. !!) etc. contribute to a greater number of rapes by reducing women to mere objects with which men can satisfy their lust.
Another interesting sentence in that article reads like this:
Those who argue that there is no connection between women and girls wearing skimpy clothes and rape should keep the social structure in mind.
The question posited appearst to be "Since unsually large displays of skin cause sexual arousal, is it *prudent* to display a lot of skin in areas where people are not used to seeing skin ?" Imagine a young lad from Kolhapur who lands up in Mumbai. From remixes/movies/magazines/TV what he has learnt is that girls who display more skin are more “available”, and since he doesnt see skin in Kolhapur, he automatically assumes whatever these media choose to show is true! What are his reactions going to be, say, if he suddenly encounters people who inhabit page 3 (using sena terminology) ?
I also dont see how the statement in particular and the article in general amounts to blaming the victim. The statement, that wearing skimpy clothes will result in an increase in the incidence of crimes like rape, is not the same as saying that the victim is responsible for the crime. To give an analogy, a statement that leaving money around carelessly in open view shall result in people being tempted to steal it (hence one should be prudent put money in a safe place), is not the same as saying that money tempts honest people to go bad, (both money and the moneyed are responsible for corrupting otherwise honest people, hence they are evil and should be locked up). I hope you get the distinction.
Like I said at the start of the post, one should appreciate cultural differences, especially in public places. In my opinion, in a sexually repressed and conservative country like India, it is improper to wear clothes that are “excessively” revealing. Consider this naughty picture of some Sofia Haque at the Cannes.
While I respect the right of Sofia Haque to wear whatever she chooses, would such an outfit be "proper/prudent" in India with the prevalent social attitudes ? Would the defenders of falling hemlines and upthrust clevages welcome Sofia attired like that in their homes ? in their housing societies ? Would their wives ? Just as my companions invaded the private space of others in the theater by their loud chatter, would this kind of an attire in a public space (IN INDIA, NOT CANNES) not be an act of cultural insensitivity and rudeness ? And exactly where does one draw the (hem)line ? Is an inch of cleavage ok ? two ? cleavage of the kind displayed by Ms Haque ? The answer ofcourse is subjective, it really depends on where you are and what you are up to.
While I respect the right of women to own their own bodies, the public spaces in the city belong both to those who want to wear skimpy clothes and the more conservative folks. A compromise has to be found, and it shall not materialize by "They are the Taliban, we are from Switzerland" attitudes. It needs sustained work, dialogue and introspection - including by the English Language Newspapers, all of which have pretty strong page 3s.
India today walks a trecherous path. On the one hand there are the obscurantists for whom the world ends and begins with temples/mosques/.. and on the other there are Macaulays progeny. I just wish there was someone who stood for India and Indians, someone who talked to normal people on the streets instead of assuming a position of moral superiority and talking down to us, the ignorant, the taleban and so brown !
<< Home