Marital status: WTF?

I was collecting some data for my work and I ran into a very disturbing and puzzling statistic. Data in this table state that 2,009,502 children, between the ages 10 and 14, are "married."

I don't know if I should put married in quotes. Well, that's the point in question too. When the legal age for marriage is 18, how do these children get a "married" status under the government's census? We are not interested in the criteria set by government in concluding what accounts for a marriage, for the legal age limit makes them all void.

Let's keep aside the questions like, how come pedophilia is almost an organized "business" in cities like Bombay and Calcutta? The government can always pretend like they don't know what we are talking about. We all know child marriages are common in India. There's no surprise there. But this is government authorized data. What are they trying to tell us? That we should be happy that at least there is zero married persons under the age 9?
As if that's not enough, here's another case. It's somewhat old, but the issue is still alive.

Fatima says: "Muslim personal law says you can marry at 12, so I didn't see a problem with it. There are lots of bad things in society these days, so the sooner a girl gets married, the better."

adhu seri! Have a look at this and this.

Microsoft: the same thing?

A lot of us have no qualms in “hating” Microsoft. Even those who never paid a penny for any of their products, like myself, included. Common reasons range from its dubious ‘creative history’ to its product pricing (BSOD in the past). I haven’t had any serious problems with my version of XP for over 19 months – the longest I’ve ever had an OS installation without any anti-virus s/w. It may have to do with the fact that I’ve significantly cut down on the ‘technical tweaks’ that I try since the time I switched fields. Of course, one of my best friends, Badri, would never take this as a reason to accord them with new respect. He started using Linux in 99. So you can imagine his opinion about MS. Technical inadequacies of MS products in contrast with open-source stuff like Linux is worth writing pages and people do it all the time. I neither have the expertise nor the passion to do it here.

In a recent conversation, one of my friends said that her friend quit his job with MS because of some “anti-corporate enlightenment.” I’ve read several articles that have detailed unethical practices of MS, but I still thought his move wasn't well thought out. Yesterday another friend of mine, from political science, shared the image below with me.I usually avoid talking about economic models because I believe they are structures that are beyond individual repair. Any contribution by someone like me would take a significantly long time to have any measurable effect in anyone’s life. And obviously, my knowledge on economic models is fairly limited. When “experts” can’t agree on what’s feasible why should I expose my ignorance? But as always, I am interested on the measurable effects of corporatization. By measurable I mean things that are beyond subjectivities – war, inflation, unemployment etc. I’ve always wondered if MS can be painted along with the other corporations that several leftists have learnt to hate. I’m not sure. I’ll just paste the exchange we had after I saw the image.

Suresh: I don't know if I would have had windows in the same list. I mean, Microsoft
Friend: why not?
Suresh: after all, they have the largest charitable foundation
Suresh: I think he's one of the very few corporates who's actually "giving back"
Suresh: maybe not as much as he can, but he is
Suresh: he doesn't kill chicken or exploit slum dwellers of Bangladesh (well, if you call outsourcing s/w jobs to India as exploitation, then yeah)

Friend: i know all about their "charity"
Friend: see, i have a problem with that framework
Friend: and outsourcing is exploitation
Friend: i mean, it's more complicated than just good corporation, bad corporation
Suresh: well, basically all kinds of profit making is exploitation, isn't it?

Friend: because so much of this is about power structures
Friend: the idea of capitalist profit is based on exploitation, yes
Friend: cheap labour and so on
Friend: creating needs
Friend: i mean, that's what capitalism is all about
Suresh: but I think one needs to be nuanced in his/her approach. They cannot equate Coke and McD with MS purely on the basis of their capitalist business model
Friend: no you can't
Friend: but you can talk about complicity

Friend: the idea that these businesses are complicit in a certain kind of nationalist model
Friend: or promoting certain nationalist goals and doing nothing to STOP their militaristic goals
Friend: i mean, their obviously genocidal goals
Friend: where is responsibility
Friend: so it's an issue of complicity
Friend: well, when it comes to that it's every american
Friend: but their tax dollars are significantly smaller than the ones that these people give america/israel

Friend: anyway
Suresh: yeah, never mind

Her comments were centered around the Israel-Palestine conflict the image represents. So I didn't want to point to the obvious shortcomings of her arguments (which I presume she knows too). I just wanted to hear her out. But I'll say it here. What do you expect them to do? Refuse to sell OS to government organizations? Refuse to pay taxes? Provide food and shelter to those who are willing to protest everyday on the street?
I'm not going to give CNN and others the same treatment. Of course not. They are criminals who consciously construct a contrived reality, but MS?

PS. I didn't edit the actual exchange. Just spaced them in a way it's easier to read.

vetti post-4

I tried writing in big letters in plain white paper with a marker pen. When I finished it I realized something: the language teachers were right, I can't write anything intellgible by an average person.

adhu seri!

From an Orkut forum,

Just a few weeks ago, something really bad happened here in Green Bay, Wisconsin. A tamil couple, who had recently flown to US, on deputation, was arrested on charges on child-abuse. Looks like the kid was known to be mischievous and had got lot of warnings in school (hearsay). One night, the parents allegedly were trying to discipline him and in the act were threatening to burn him with spoon (soodu podradhu). By accident, he came in contact with the spoon and had a small burn. The next day, when his teacher asked about the wound, he has said something which caused the teacher to call police. The parents were arrested and now the case is in court.
...
The American children are given protection from their own parents, which leaves parents with no strict way to discipline them. Result: the American children grow up indisciplined, not understanding cultures and finally most of them go waste.

ROFL@ the actual incident. enda dei? @ 'waste' comment

Random quote

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Source

Popularity: conflict of interest

Recently I got a mail from one my podcast listeners and we were discussing this article. It's an exchange that happened over a few emails. Since he wasn't too comfortable with I publishing his side of the conversation, I publish parts of mine. I hope it still makes sense.

Whenever I talk to some of my politically active friends here, a question would pop out occassionally: why are almost all political critiques we get to see in mainstream media partisan? The immediate answer would be, “corporation!” “Corporation is the root all existing malice,” we would complain. And it is true to a great extent.

But ironically, it’s worse in India’s case. The mainstream has not been completely corporatized yet - we still have little factions doing their share of damage. But sadly, their damage isn’t constructive either. Of course, I’m referring to the likes of Nakkiran. It’s amazing how all the mainstream and pseudo-mainstream media in India get a chance to paint themselves as “revolutionaries.” “ADMK adakkumurai – aalum katchi araajagamm” said Sun TV; “DMK arasin adhikara dhusprayogam,” says Jaya TV. Needless to say, Nakkiran was built on this mode of publicity. Every six months you’ll see one of its offices ransacked by someone, and that someone will have “strong connections” to a ‘big shot’. (Is this a scenario lifted directly from ‘Oomai Viligal’ or am I just connecting stars in space?)

“Victims” who “survive victimization” without “fear” become “revolutionaries.” The untold rule (thaaraga mandhiram) that the “victims will always say the truth” has become the running platform for everyone. Everybody wants to be “victimized” just so that their “truths” are heard. But when there are too many “victims” and too many “truths” opposing each other – victimization loses sensitivity, truth its value. I think that’s what has happened in TN.

The popular notion that “if you want to know the truth watch both Jaya TV and Sun TV” is completely false. While they do a lot of mudslinging, there is a lot that neither of them would say. There’s a lot of collective connivance on their part (kootu kalavaanithanam).

About my podcasts: my friend once asked if I was not afraid to say things like “Muslims and Christians are idiots” in voice (I said the same thing about Hindus as well, but he didn’t think it was dangerous enough). I said “I am, kind of”.
I have always had mixed feelings about my podcasts. While I often welcome people to be vocally expressive (because I know there are people who are a thousand times more eloquent in Tamil), and urge them to do podcasts, I’ve also feared that I might be in an ugly mess if they get too popular. Seriously, I don’t want my podcasts to become popular beyond a point (whether it has the material-worth is a different issue).
Even though I live in Canada, my parents are in Madras. I have to land in Madras at some point. I’m not as popular or rich as Rushdie. I cannot escape a ‘fatwa.’ Heck, a prank-call will rattle my parents and ruin their sleep (and in turn mine). I can only hope that there aren’t any “Jihadis” listening to what I say.

I often stress the dangers involved in expressing our opinions “freely” in a state (as in the ‘State’) where even the ‘powerful’ are easily targeted – literally, with stones and petrol bombs. To make matters worse you have a judicial system that is astonishingly ‘conservative’ and condescending to those with ‘liberal’ views. I don’t know; sometimes all this seems far-fetched, but then again it’s India – “impossible is nothing.” So it’s no surprise that people don’t want to take chances for what is mostly a thankless effort.

Radical views are just too dangerous for an Indian in India. He/she is safe as long as his/her views are within the academic and ‘intellectual’ circles. One has to increase his/her ‘self-worth’ before his/her views are exposed to the common, belligerent, and often violent, Indian. Periyar is an example for this. His views on feminism and sex came about well after he had established himself on the “paarpaniya aadhikkam” rhetoric. Most of his followers were just tolerating his criticisms on “Tamil culture”, gender equality, marriage etc. So it’s not a surprise that people like Thiruma' don't turn to those views of his, today.
...

Disclaimer: The email(s) has been modified from its original form. Yes, I confess, I am just too lazy to type anything original for a post. I also apologize for saying a few things that seem very pretentious.

Random quote

இந்திய 'நாய்கள்' இன்னும் எப்படியெல்லாம் சிண்டைப் பிய்த்துக்கொள்வார்கள் என்று தெரிந்துகொள்ள ஆர்வமிருந்தால், f... tamil, tamil mentality, tamil idiots போன்ற கூகிள் தேடல்களைக் கொடுக்கவும்! Forumhub Tamilல் சட்டை பனியன் அண்டர்வேர் கிழியுமாறு நாயடி அடித்துக்கொண்டிருப்பார்கள். தமிழன் கன்னடனைத் திட்ட, கன்னடன் தமிழனைக் கறுப்புக் கம்மனாட்டி என்று திட்ட, 'இந்திக்காரன்' தமிழனை குரங்குக்குப் பிறந்தவனே என்று திட்ட, தமிழ்க்காரன் இந்திக்காரனை, பல்விளக்காத வெளிநாட்டு காலாட்படைகளுக்குப் பிறந்த இழிபிறவியே என்று திட்ட, இந்த அனைத்து 'காரர்'களும் சேர்ந்து, யாராவது இலங்கை ஆசாமிகளைத் திட்ட, அவர்கள் பதிலுக்குத் திட்ட....நாலு இந்தியர்கள் சேர்ந்தால், ஐந்தாவது ஆள் ஒருவனைக் கவிழ்ப்பதற்காகத்தான் இருக்கும் என்று சொல்வது இந்த விஷயங்களில் சரிதான்.
...

source

A new world record: WTF?

Are they going to give her a gold medal or something?

Indian-American astronaut Sunita 'Suni' Williams added another feather to her cap by spending more time spacewalking than any other woman to date.

Interestingly, though, her Wiki-page is full of 'seruppadi'

Her roots go back to Gujarat in India and she has been to India a couple of times to visit her family. She is also of Slovenian descent from her mother's side.

What? Slovenian? ada naaigala!

Boy meets train

An extension of this post

Download. Original Page

adada, sentiment'a koraingada!

What binds Dara's family together is their search for their lost son, his memories captured in a fading photo album, including the last image of Azhar in his school uniform proudly holding the tricolor.

vetti post-3

Gurumurthy's writings have informed me about a lot of things - especially on the 'local' level functioning of small scale industries in India. They are simple case studies embedded in powerful narratives. I've admired him for his ability to stand-up against authority and embarass the Indian-commie 'intellectuals.' He is one of the few India columnists who pay so much attention to factual accuracy of their pointers. Of course, I now have some major disagreements with a lot of what he says (his incessant praise of the "Indian culture" not being least of it) - mostly ideological. I was running through some of this stuff and found this interview. Good wit is always good.

Can't we call some of our big industries also multinational companies?

I prefer an Indian dacoit to a foreign dacoit so long as we cannot avoid having dacoits around. I go that far. He will not bomb India while Dubai-based smugglers do.

...
You said, all industrialists amass wealth. So, what is the difference between an insider and an outsider?

All Indian politicians are corrupt? Then why not elect a foreigner as our prime minister?

Huh, ironically, the hook in his answer isn't all that bent, now, is it?

PS. The webpage reads "Rediff On The Net." Did/does rediff have any business beyond 'net?

The Train and I

My relationship with the train had an unusual start, probably not so unusual for several thousands of students who went to schools like mine. It started right from my kindergarten days: I, along with others in my rickshaw had to cross a railway track to get to school. We would have to get down and push the vehicle over those ‘massive’ tracks. If there weren’t many of us, the rickshaw guy would just leave us before the track and we’ll have to walk the remaining distance (about 200 meters). I don’t know if it’s the annoying walk in the sun or the general feeling that trains can crush almost anything: we would place stones on the track for feet together, when we return, every evening. Just to see them get pulverized (with some hopes to derail the train, perhaps. Who knows?). We would curse the ‘oldies’ who come chasing us to remove the stones, moments before the train passes by. They were sometimes exciting sometimes nervous moments. When we found a crushed dead body beside the tracks one morning, ‘scary’ got added to the list.

I’ve lost so many 10 paise coins in the tracks, trying to ‘magnetize’ them. I wasn’t the worst, though. I know some 8th and 9th grade kids who would regularly flatten 1 rupee coins. I wonder what they learnt in their physics classes.

A train had all these strange meanings, and just that, for several years till I finally got on a train in my 5th grade. It was a long journey - Dindigul to Kakinada. Madras was exotic, Egmore sounded alien. Pallavan buses were, well, red.

A lot of things were new: short, non-stop ads in Sears-Elcot televisions in Central screaming "pon vandu pon vandu, potu paarunga"; shining blue Bisleri bottles that made me ask “thannikku kaasu tharanuma?”; my ‘never seen before’ gluttonous side; vomiting on a fellow passenger’s lap not being able to bear with his cigar smoke; testing my ‘learned from TV’ Hindi to attend nature’s call – “bhai saab mujhe urgent se aaraha hein;” bribing Godavari with a 25 paise coin to get the train across and a lot more.

My first train journey overwhelmed me with all kinds of emotions – joy, anxiety, unease, jealousy, confusion and even ruefulness. It took quite sometime for me to absorb these things and consciously experience what the stereotypical Indian train journey is known for – “meeting with interesting people from all walks of the society.”

By the time I moved to Bangalore I must have traveled in trains for over a hundred times. Marriages, college tours and what have you. There were very few 'stunts' that I hadn't pulled; there were few postures that I hadn't assumed - intentionally and unintentionally. But Madras – Bangalore was always special. It was the first time I started doing everything. I earned, I stood in the queue, I paid, I got to the station – all by myself. The experiences that I've had then, during the journeys, are some of the best, ever. I think I'd rather save them for a podcast.

Train journeys in 'Second Class Sleeper' reflect a very reasonable image about Indian life. Nothing is too bad, but you do to get to see the worst of it occasionally. People, facilities, everything would have a fair mix of what India has to offer. That's what makes 'The Great Indian Railways' such an excellent documentary.

I first saw it in 1998. It had been just a year after India's 50th independence anniversary. Some of the short films from the Bharat Bala's series the previous year, were still aired in DD. The pseudo-patriotism injected in our veins over a period of several months was still alive. So the documentary wasn't all that enchanting. I even felt outraged at times. I thought they were deliberately hiding the 'good stuff' to dampen our spirits (damn whites, I thought). I continued to hold the same impression for a long time.

Even though I would run into the documentary once in a month or so, later, I chose to sit through the whole thing again only in 2004 – six years after the first time I had seen it. This time I was in Bangalore. I was older, and as I had mentioned earlier, I had gained more experiences to compare and contrast (and of course, the jingoism had faded away quite considerably). The documentary, now, seemed extremely sincere, emotionally profound and unimaginably comprehensive. I thought then, and still do, that it was probably the best documentary to portray India as it is.

I was so excited to find it in 'desitorrents'. The short segment below is my favourite. The crowd rushing into the train is so typical of what I've been part of several times. It's the quintessential “kerchief culture” at work. Of course, the babu English, the “cribbing” women, the cold sense of humour, the retired "bank manager" arguing with taxi drivers – it's all very fascinating and real.

Of everything an Indian can miss, the train is what I miss the most.

For an age old clichéd question, this is a bloody smart answer, don't you think? (Again, it's from Orkut.)

He: Suresh answer my question..... who are you?

I: I am who you are asking it to.

hahaha. periya vevaramana vengayam; kekranunga paaru kelvi, velakkena!

enda dei?-2

I, like many of you, get a very bad headache when I can't run through lines - when I have to stop, pause and do some permutations to get the best possible meaning. I usually pretend like the message isn't posted in the thread at all. But when people address you directly you are forced to read it and that's when you complain. And how do they respond?

i dont care to take ur views... ur english seems pathetic and u in no position to kinda comment upon mine...and by da way if iam a teen i wud write dat kind of scraps only(this is with ref to ur other scrap) i aint an oldie like u

dont xpect me to write English as ur High school teachers thought u...spell check is a tool in MS word to chk da spellings as per dictionary here i aint writin no novel for my skool so i dont give a damn bout spellings..mayb u cant understand thats as i said ur prob...

ennada solreenga? enda indha maari ellam irukkeenga? ungalukkellam kai'la kusthama? illa oru varthaya mulusa adikradhu avalo kashtama? saniyan ungala pudichudha illa neenga saniyana pudicheengala? ungalukkellam porandha odane thaduppoosi potaangala illaya?

A 'critical' conversation - 2

'second part' of this podcast.

The white in black

bell hooks is one of the most influential black feminists of our lifetime. Her poetic yet critical narratives - eloquent and articulate - have always amazed me. The video below is one of the best critiques of rap/hip-hop music you'll ever find. Note what she says at around 6 minutes in the video - her observation exemplifies feminist deconstruction.

Edit: I could not resist adding another video from the series (this one's on Spike Lee)



* - I recommend you click on the video and watch the entire series in youtube (split into parts)

Indians are the most racist

Just when I felt these morons should stop doing such programs, especially with "polling the public", they surprise you - quite unintentionally. The question is framed as if they measure racism every year and "this year's studies indicate" that "racism is on the high." But thankfully the 'panel guests' were exceptionally rational; something the guys at IBN aren't quite used to. It was so refreshing to hear someone get on TV and say "Indians are the most racist". hahaha

Update: The story is getting really weird. I turn to BBC for some good old '78 are feared dead in a landslide in Philippines' kind of news. What do I see? Tony Blair talking about 'Big Brother' in the British parliament. Gordon voicing his opinion in Delhi. BBC's own 'panelists' expressing their opinions. Each and every news report on it makes you go 'WTF?'

People have already started burning effigies. Their 'self righteous' opinions are reflected by Anand Sharma. The irony is overwhelming. Let me quote a line from this page, a line that is quite funny and just as irritating.
"India has throughout firmly rejected all forms of discrimination and racism'' says Sharma - Which part of India is he from? Listen to his brief radio interview. This man hasn't seen many clips himself, just the ones shown in "Indian television". But he's confident enough to get into the "dai enakku ellam theriyum, engappa padhinettu'pattikku padi alandhavar" tone with the interviewer. What an ass?

And what's with Shilpa and her mother talking about "Indian culture"? The former touting that she's going to "display Indian culture" on the show and the latter declaring "she was brought up according to Indian values" - seriously, which part of India are you all from?

* - I tried to embed the video, but looks like it doesn't load on anything. Idiots.

enda dei?

Once in a while I run into the "awaken, arise.." post somewhere. It's usually in an Orkut 'community' (forum). I usually don't react to the posts thinking "well, that's what you do too. Sure, it's little less pretentious, but you do it." But today, I just put my 'self-critical' side to rest and replied. Part of the post reads,

There is a Gross misconception & myth in our country.Rooting for indian cricket team is a way to show to prove your love for nation.This has led to a pathetic situation in our country.You make them Demi Gods one day & the other day you abuse them.Will Sehwag's back to form give the indian population 3 meal a day? How many of you can name atleast 20 hockey players who have played for india? But if i ask you what was the highest score of Sachin in test,iam sure i would get atleast a million answers.

I said,

Cut the idealistic nonsense man. You're talking as if everything else is done for "3 meals a day". This world works in a way that it encompasses all bullshit. In fact there's not much difference between bullshit and "useful" stuff. They are all a part of the bloody economic ecology. They function within their levels of sustainability. Why are you judging others' trivial priorities?

People go on hunger strikes to ban a stupid cartoon. Where does your "3 meals per day" argument fit in that picture?

And stop romanticizing hockey. Sure, it's our "national game". But where did it come from? It sure didn't come from India! Hockey and cricket, they both came from the same damn colonianist white pigs.

How does it make a difference anyway? I know several kids who can name all Indian states and their capitals. Does that make them more patriotic or political?

Your points are non-sequitur man. It's the idealist "oh mother India.." sensationalist BS that we are tired of hearing. It's the modern version of "elu Tamila, vengaya Tamila" BS of the Dravidian movement. It only gets us all jingoistic and arrogant, nothing else. It's not your fault, though, we should twist Kalam's arms for encouraging this trend.

killer comments: 1

When this guy says something like this, the comment below is what serves him right.

Wow Deepak! I was seduced into reading your blog by the title. I happen to be working on an evolutionary theory of wisdom (sapience), which is largely based on neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. So naturally I was intrigued by the title - survival of the wisest. Sorry I didn't see parts I or II, but seeing part III makes me realize why so many people hold you in disdain. My friend you should stick to feel-good topics. Your ignorance of biology and evolution are stunning.

"Darwinians bluster that the answers to these mysteries already exist. This is far from true. I have debated Nobel laureates and other scientific notables on these issues."

I heard about such a debate. Now I know why you lost so horendously. Don't quit your day job my friend. You have no future in the sciences.

I'm not prone to mere ad hominem attacks as a rule. But occassionally I see some statement to which there can be no reasonable retort simply because the whole premise is unreasonable. The fact that someone like you, who distort reality or plain doesn't understand it can have such a following is a sad comment on the state of our society.

Sexed up discourse

The transition of the prudish Indian youth to the post-prudish pseudo-sexual western wannabe has become flagrant. It’s obvious, but I’ll state it anyway: people no longer seem to feel “proud” about being virgins. I don’t know about women, but men don’t seem to. What appeared to be ironic when we watched English movies – virgins being despised and ridiculed – is gratuitously embraced as the norm among many urban English-speaking youth. It’s gratuitous because it’s a little too soon even for such a vile practice¹. Losing your virginity before marriage isn’t all that feasible for most Indians, not yet. There could be several reasons for it: failed attempts, lack of opportunities, confused morality, anxiety, disinterest and/or plain physical inability are some.

What’s shocking, though, is the way all of this is oversimplified and quantified as symptoms of depression, anger, frustration and even idiocy. It’s done by the “urbanized” youth without much introspection and sexist middle aged men seem to have caught up with this reductionist fad too². It’s something that permeates intellectual and political leanings. It’s evident from the ‘blogosphere’. From the condescending “dude you need to get laid” to the patronizing “all this is irrelevant.”

This happened on New Year’s night. I was at a friend’s place and the “God” topic got into our conversation. I was putting down all claims about the necessity of an external purpose to live and so forth. I was practically vomiting what I’ve been saying here and elsewhere lately. In that ‘group’ was an Indian from Delhi – rich, second year electrical engineering. He was by then slightly drunk (at least that’s what I learnt from what he said).
He said “do you have a girl friend?” – “No” – “what are you doing man? you’re so smart, you should be having, like, five girlfriends, banging them every week night.” I felt so outraged that I didn’t know what to start with³.
It was extremely judgmental and riddled with sexist notions – commodification of women; permissibility for men to have multiple partners; subversion of “smartness” as a sexual panacea and devaluation of one’s life on sexual basis to list a few.

I’ve been hearing this for so long from so many people that I’m not able to “let it slide” anymore. My retorts are even antithetical at times because I’m driven to be offensive⁴. Maybe that’s what they are asking for. Most recent being this comment I got for my previous post. I’ll quote the most relevant parts and my reply.

He said,
You are like that Sri Priya in Aval Appidithaan…Sri Priya will spend the rest of her life doing podcasts about the evil male species, while Saritha will happily sleep with Kamal & have great sex. You tell me what matters more - Sex or Podcast ?

I replied⁵,
“Sex or podcast”? He is asexual; he was born without sexual organs or sexual feelings. He doesn’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. For him sex does not mean anything: for a blind man does not care if his walls are painted red or blue. So there, he just gave a big “fuck you” to you.

Being an ass as you are, you are now welcome to make fun of the blind man for not having eyes - I mean, Suresh, for not having testicles.

-----------------------------------
¹I think it’s inappropriate to associate moral or social value to consensual sex (pre-marital or whatever). Besides, there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved in this ‘norm’. Most of who try to ridicule virgins probably are virgins themselves.

²Once again, I’m not sure about how women perceive and reflect on these things. But I would assume it’s more or less the same, at least in the industrialized world.

³His being an Indian is not particularly relevant to the point - it's just to reason why he felt comfortable enough to say something like that. I admit, there have been times when I would be flattered by such a comment. But in retrospect, I’m ashamed at my silence filled smirk in those times.

⁴This is no excuse for my rude and offensive reply. I therefore apologize to Babu for being, in a strange way, what I was attacking. Having said that, I also want to say “fuck you” to those who’re going to say “dude you need to get laid” in ‘comments’.

⁵ The question was addressed to my imaginary self hence the reply from him.

A 'critical' conversation

Just a few days after I had posted this I had a long conversation with one of my friends. It was just another phone call but this one was a lot less personal than others, so I thought I'll publish parts of it. Our conversation is quite pertinent to the post I had made earlier, about socially constructed notions of beauty.

Original location


A lot of what is said in the podcast may overlap with the posts that I have made here. I'll cite some of them for a quick reference: ref 1; ref 2

Veyil - Vaandhi Mayakkam

I saw this movie over a week ago. I didn't want to say anything about it then. It was as if I did something extremely embarrassing and didn't want to reveal it to others. But after realizing (from a few blogs) that many have come out of the closet, I got it out of system as well. Here it goes - brrr uvaaaak.

A lifted loop

I listened to a song from Vallavan (y'ammadi aathadi) yesterday for the first time and felt some familiarity with one of the loops. Listen to it yourself (it's ~4 minutes).

'Grotesque' obsession

BBC has made some of the best documentaries on art - music, dance, painting etc. 'How art made the world' is probably the most prominent among them. It's a multi-disciplinary composition that was broadcast as a five part series. The amount of research that has gone into making the kind of correlations that they make is stunning. It's available for download in torrent, and I strongly recommend that you do.

However, there is one segment - consisting a concrete analogical fact - that I have found extremely useful in discussing matters concerning racism, 'unreal body images' etc (to differentiate between socially constructed "instincts" and natural instincts) for quite sometime. I should have uploaded it much earlier.
That 'fact' might also explain the Tamil audience's obsession with 'plump' heroines like Kushbu and Jyothika. I think we, well, many of us, are still in close contact with our primaeval instincts, after all.

Best comedy movie ever: wtf?

I know Indians have lately been rating and leaving comments in popular websites. But I never imagined, notwithstanding this list, it would take them this far!

Update: As I was skimming through some comments in the IMDB page, I found this

[T]he whole idea of the teachings of Mohindra Karamchod Ghandi being incorporated was a twist unlike any other

Well, at least he didn't call him 'Behn-chod'.

I'm walking away

That's what I wish to say to last year



Yes, I put the video together.
Song: Craid David - Walking away
Stills: several flickr users
s/w used: Sony Vegas

Just say it!

I read a blog-post just now and started typing a comment - "idhu vetti scene velamma pethi'oda post, vera'edhum illa. oorukkulla ekka-chakka per indha mari dhan thiriyuranunga..". After a while, I thought I'd rather save it for a post here. Because, it's quite a common phenomenon, not just in blogs.

It's the good old 'I'm going to praise myself under the cloak of confessing my idiocy/phsychosis/neurotic-obsession/misfortune/wantonness' tactic.

"I'm such a geek that I started using Linux in 98"
"I'm such a loser that I paid $4100 for my latest laptop"
"I'm such a TV freak that I bought a 59" LG plasma"
"I'm so unlucky that I have lost my wallet over 50 times during my flight-trips to London"
"My life sucks so much that I studied during my holidays and topped my class"
"I'm so clumsy I ruined my jacket by spilling caviar on it"
"I'm such a man-whore that I have sex with 19 different women every month"
..
and a long list of "confessions" we hear everyday (probably use it ourselves). All these "confessions" just say one thing - "I'm such a modest wuss that I resort to cheap hackneyed techniques to feed my own ego."

Do/say whatever you want to. Just know that almost everyone knows what you're doing, they are just in a mode themselves - "I'm so nice that I'll pretend like I didn't see through you." So just say it; just say "I'm the shit!"

* - I haven't linked the post to avoid another episode of 'local paaltix' driven squabble (yes, I'm scared). I'll say this much, though: it was about the author's obsession with Harry Potter novels.

Toon Teaser 3: Charlie Brown goes 'metal'

God: life's purpose and unpredictability?

I recently published a podcast that evoked several exchanges between me and a few listeners (mostly in email). My conversation with a listener named Subash is probably worth publishing here.

He Said,

Suresh,
First, I dont believe in any religious god and never have I had any spiritual experience. But I am sure there is something in the universe which we can call GOD. It is, I believe, 'Unpredictability', which has not been properly explained or predicted with numerous probability theories. That is why inspite of the obvious and simple connection to cause and effect of different entities of nature, we are still unable to predict anything of reasonable significance scientifically and may never be able to. The process that causes an 'effect' from a 'cause' is yet to defined for infinite cases in science. As a physicist, I believe that until sufficient ideas come forth to understand the nature of different entities around us the question of GOD will always remain only of any cultural or sociological relevance and honestly it shouldn't be allowed to even enter the realm of philosophy.

In fact, just think if suddenly one day man finds an answer to all the questions that were ever asked and will be asked. Will he be peaceful? What can he do for a living? So just like man's thought is evolving with generations, so will the world around him too atleast as much so that he may never be able to catch up with it to fully understand it. Like I think "Success is an orgasm, its the foreplay that lasts longer", its better to keep searching rather than to find answers because the happiness lasts only a while.

I replied,

About predictability: Some one else had brought the same point and it's interesting that you should relate science’s inability to predict the future with God too. I'll quote what I had said there (along with what he had said).
--quote--
{{If scientist, atheists are trying to find out, through their equations,comparisons to define the laws driving man,universe- all they are doing is to define some geometric sense,an order in everything. With this order , they want to predict the future.}}

This is just not true. Natural scientists are neither interested in predicting human behaviour nor the future in general. Behavioral scientists, probably. But as you know, psychology, sociology etc., are not 'natural sciences'. They sure use the ‘scientific method’ to arrive at theories, but unlike the natural sciences none of those theories evolve in to ‘scientific facts’. Even a claim as simple as "If you pinch a child, it will cry" is only a theory. It is not a fact. It can be replicated to the extent of 100% success rate for millions of attempts but it is still not a fact (because there are several children who are born insensitive to 'touch' in several areas of their body).
--unquote--

I'll extend the discussion here. Predicting the future may never be possible simply because of the lack of information. Add to that the fickle-minded-human-involvement in the functioning of the world. As you probably know already, all demographic predictions (and sociological theories in general) rely strongly on data that is based on a sample. The accuracy of those predictions is directly proportional to the sample size. That is, the more you know about the present (and to an extent, the past) more you tend to "know" about the future. Even for that they need to make a lot of generalizations -- based on historical patterns and existing theory. Now, think about something that is seemingly plain and simple as predicting the Earth's overall temperature at 2050. It is made complex by carbon emissions, deforestation -- human effects-- and volcanic emissions (especially, lava into the sea bed), global dimming, tectonic movements -- "natural effects" that we do not know about entirely. While we may know the latter thoroughly over the next few decades, the former will remain relatively less predictable. Nevertheless, in spite of all these shortcomings, geologists and climatologists have decent theories (that make decent predictions) about what the Earth will be like, in terms of climate change, in the year 2050.

But I see you are aware of all these things and you're pointing to the 'naturally existing out of human involvement' entities. Once again, I think it's lack of information. Science has over the past few hundred years unraveled some of the "deepest mysteries" giving way to successful predictions (Think about the accuracy of weather predictions 60 years ago and now). New 'instruments' give new information. I think this process will keep expanding, probably not in the quest to predict the future per se, but to explain the present. That's also another reason - we don't know what the 'effect' really is before we could analyze the cause.

I think one needs to be rational enough to realize, as you point out, that science will always have something to "understand." But that cannot be taken as an excuse to allow an 'all seeing' God in public discourse; especially when God has a rather ridiculous definition for over 5 billion people.

You ask a very good question here: "just think if suddenly one day man finds an answer to all the questions that were ever asked and will be asked. Will he be peaceful?" I say the same thing to some of the 'moderates' when they say, "science can only explain the 'how' and not the 'why'". Well, God can't explain the 'why' either. It's funny that most of God believers attribute their life's “purpose” to the one that supposedly created them. That's why I said,
"To put it briefly: So what? What if this universe was created by someone/something? How does that bestow any purpose to our lives? I know who my father is. I know one of his billion sperms made me (through a rather circular process). But none of that will give any "purpose" to my life, would it?"

Your last quote reminded me of a discourse by Osho where he explains that the "joy is in finding."

He replied,

When I say "Unpredictability", I dont mean the lack of information as the handicap. In fact lack of information is not the biggest hurdle to postulating laws. Simply because computers can handle much more information now than before and there is no theoretical limit to it in the future.

So "Unpredictability" is the "fickle-minded-human" attitude which is shared by most of the other entities in nature especially at the nano and femto scopic level. Just like what Heisenberg states in his uncertainty principle, which I am sure you must have come across. It is impossible with current knowledge to predict the final state of an electron when its initial states are given even in a controlled environment. It probably is not an inherent quality of the electron to be mysterious as claimed by Heisenberg, but because we use an electron to study an electron which is why it is so ineffective and there is no other method or any other smaller known particle which can be used.

Imagine having a small ball trying to understand the shape of another ball of the same size. you can hit the target ball (with the ball you have) several times and make a pattern out of the impinged area on a screen to predict the shape of the target ball, which in this case would be a function of probability distribution. If you have a smaller ball than the target ball, you have a higher probability of identifying the shape of the target ball.

You can claim that it still is because of this lack of information whether smaller particles exist in nature that the unpredictability exists. But the claim has to end somewhere since any particle cannot be infinitely divided into smaller entities. The same condition of unpredictability will exist for that smaller particle, which will permeate into the normal world too. So its not really lack of information that necessitates this unpredictability tag, but unpredictability itself. I do believe that existence of GOD cannot be rationally explained apart from this unpredictability, which means that GOD is as confused as we humans are. So the existence of a higher power is only laughable.

I replied,

{{So "Unpredictability" is the "fickle-minded-human" attitude which is shared by most of the other entities in nature especially at the nano and femto scopic level.}} - I completely agree with what you say. We don't even have to go to complex subatomic particles; everyday things have it in them. The example that I often cite, as you might too, is that of a 'coin toss'. The unpredictability of an outcome lies on the inherent nature of the object involved and not on the information we have about it (assuming that it's a "fair" coin toss). What's amazing though, is that even randomness has a pattern (normal distribution). That is, over a million coin tosses we are likely to have close to 50-50 outcomes of the coin's faces.
...

Disclaimer: I have made few changes to the actual emails. The exchange, quite visibly, has material that is often used by several people (inlcuding movies). It's mostly because of nature of thetopic. So yes, I didn't post it beause it is intellectually stimulating or novel. It's just for the 'record'.

Vegetarian Evangelists

It's always good to see a new podcaster or a new podcast in Tamil. But this one's the age old veg vs. non-veg debate. The same old points repeated. Nevertheless, as I lately jump on any topic that cites religious morality as a reason to do (or not to do) something, I couldn't resist this one.
Anyway, it's just another reason to state my position on something. An ethical perspective is as far as I'm willing take on this issue. Even that, with lesser vigour.

Download mp3

Oh man!

After the infamous "Bad server, no donut for you" error message in Orkut and several other new "teen-like" messages, I got this one today ('ennagada dei?') .

Odeo Error

We have errored.

The page you are trying to request has been eaten faster than Oreos and milk.

Perhaps it was here and working, or perhaps you are requesting a page which never existed.

Vetti Post-2

(This post loads well in IE)

Since I don't have the kind of time to write anything new I'll just post my response to a mail that I got from my friend. He forwarded this post, and asked me what I thought. It's the usual run-of-the-mill 'anti-Brahmin' nonsense. There used to be days when I engaged with 'those types' in attempts to expose the vacuousness of their "rationality." After a point, as with many who try it, I realized that their heads are too far up their butts for any reasonable conversation. It's one of the reasons I stay away from the 'Tamil blogosphere'. They just can't keep off the 'Dravidians were the first to use toilet paper - that's how far advanced our civilization was' rhetoric. But I think I'll use this post to state my stance, though vaguely, on this topic.

It's a big pile of bullshit, that's what it is. And this guy isn't the first one. Ever since forumhub days of mid 90s this group has been spitting utter lies about "Tamil History." The whole theory of an "Aryan invasion" is highly dubious on account of DNA evidence. The whole of the Indian subcontinent, at least racially, were the same people till all 'real invasions' took place (Dravidians or Aryans or edho elavu). There are strong cultural influences from what is now West-Central Asia and Eastern Europe (in terms of bronze age records). But then again, this could be the other way (that is we influenced them, hence the similarties in language patterns etc.). Whatever the case is, the existing 'Aryan-Dravidian split' in many public discourses is false. Check this page.

It's funny that the word Dravidian actually originated from Sanskrit. How ironic is that? It's true. None of the past works of Tamil literature mentions the word 'Dravidan'. Not in Thirukkural, not in Puranaanooru or Agananooru, not in Pathitrupathu or any pre-modern literary work you can think of. Nada. But still these idiots keep talking about Tamils being 'Dravidan'.

Most of these are hypotheses with ostensible assertions. One cannot come to a concrete conclusion based on existing historical findings. But for a critical thinker, the so called Tamil culture will still sound ridiculous. It's just as bad, if not worse, as the "Aryan" culture. Their points can be attacked on an entirely different--conceptual--basis.

How did the people who were mere shepherds gain the capability to defeat a whole race of indigenous people? Did they get 'inside support' from the indigenous people? If they did, I'm sure it was a good number -- more than a few selective "dhrogigal". If huge number of this race were traitors who is he feeling proud about? A race that had a good number of traitors? (more here: "அதன் பிறகு தெற்கே வாழ்ந்த சில தமிழ் மன்னர்களை தம் பக்கம் சேர்த்துக் கொண்ட இராமன் தமிழர்களின் தலைநகரமாக இருந்த இலங்கைக்கு படையெடுத்துச் சென்றான்.")

Hasn't he heard of the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"? How many times and how many people fooled the Tamils? So we were just bellicose fools who couldn't fight the "cunning"? And this guy is feeling proud about that "race"? Is that even a good excuse? That "we got cheated"?

And note the part where he proudly argues that, "இராவணன் ஒரு போரில் இராமனை வெற்றி கொண்டு அன்றைய வழக்கப்படி வெற்றியின் அடையாளமாக இராமனுடைய மனைவியை கவர்ந்து சென்றான்.எனினும் இராமனின் மனைவியை ஏதும் செய்யாது கண்ணியம் காத்தான்." What the hell is he talking about? If Raavanan was such a deejuntu fellow why even abduct Sita? And what kind of "culture" makes 'wife stealing' a symbol of victory? It's as bad as patriarchy can get. And this man is feeling proud about that "race"?

I'm not sure if I've got all my 'facts' right. But I think the second part of the mail doesn't need any factual basis. It's out there to be torn apart. It's a shame that these self proclaimed rational thinkers (pagutharivu pannadaigal) find such pride in saying "we were the first patriarchal assholes", i.e. 'Tamil civilization', in India.

* - I've made small changes to the actual email -- cleared a few typos and added some links. Tamil words quoted directly appear better in IE.

Aval Appadithan

I wrote this movie's "review" 3 years ago in mouthshut.com, then posted it here last year. Now I have the movie uploaded in dailymotion. It's my all time favourite Tamil movie. Sure, the movie has been "stolen" from a few mediums before it got here (the audio lag is not because of that, that's how it is even in the actual version) but it's worthwhile.

Update: I did a podcast on the movie too; you can download it.

Screw moderation

I have very often stressed that there are no grey areas in a lot of issues. I don't mean to sound like Bush, but sometimes you have quit trying to be 'nice and neutral' and take a bloody stance. This blog-post does both. It takes a firm stance asserting that all beliefs should be tolerated - a stance that takes no stance. I don't know if I should call it naivety or ingenuous optimism or plain lack of critical analysis. But it's a good thing she expressed it, at least now she'll know who agrees with her and who doesn't (and why). Given that I spent some time to post a reply, I might as well quote a part of my comment there.*

{{Today being an atheist is a fad. People don't realise that it is an extreme point of view and they are no different from religious fanatics.}} - This is a platitude that bears little logical reasoning. You have two factions, one that is totally dogmatic, inherently prejudiced and intolerant based on a certainty that cannot be proven unless you stoop down to a delusional world. And on the other hand you have the most universally accepted epistemological realm in this world (science). Given that evolutionary science has grown so much that the religious ‘fundies’ can no longer play the "it's just a theory" record, one can no longer believe the Gods of Christianity or Islam or Zionism or even Hinduism if they understood science. Atheists of the past, mostly, rejected the idea of God based on moral, ethical and philosophical grounds. Lately it's scientific. If development of modern science is a fad, then sure, atheism is too.

Delusion (aka faith), unlike science, does not follow an inductive method or logical reasoning that is both universal and objective (as universal as human universality and as objective as objectivity can possibly get). Whether there is anything real or not, science is the only way to understand and communicate (with least ambiguites) the idea of reality. So, as someone who's passionate about the truth, Dawkins' supposed militant approach can only be equated to anti-slavery movements of 19th century, the feminist movements of the 1960s (and the civil rights movement of the same period).
Slavery was, at least then, a lifestyle and for many, a belief system that was supposed to help the 'black man'. And I'm happy that not many people were "tolerant" to those beliefs for a long time. There are several belief systems that the need be shown zero tolerance. Religions (especially monotheistic ones) need not be treated different just because of the sheer number of followers. The likes of Ted Haggard are breeding close minded homophobes all over the world. It's an indoctrination that breeds intolerance. Why should it be tolerated?

In the presentation cited below, Sam Harris makes a similar argument. He goes on to accuse the 'moderates' for "providing a cover for the fundamentalists." The same can be said about a few theologians that I've met or listened to. They use their intellect and sophistry to manipulate the semantics of science, albeit embarrassing themselves in the process. Nevertheless, they do provide fodder to the 'god believing lot'. For them the "smart theologians" are a defense mechanism. The theologians (especially the ones who believe in a religious God), are either incorrigible liars or neurologically diseased.

* - Minor changes have been made from the original comment. Please read the comment in its original context to see the footnotes that I had provided.

Addendum: I strongly recommend you to watch the videos from this site. Or search for 'beyond belief' in youtube and watch the edited clips available there.

Butler English

A few days ago I was on the phone with my friend discussing some TV stuff. We were talking about an episode of 'Fresh Prince of Bell Air' in which Geoffrey reveals his "marathon history." Geoffrey, like most butlers in American television (no, not the Mexican ones), is quite sarcastic and pompous yet quite polished in his language. I asked him then, how come 'Butler English' in India has a 'not so good' repuation - one that connotes imperfection? A quick Google search took me to this article.

A Babu tries to impress his British master with his command of the English language and to him, how he conveys his message is more important than what he says. The emphasis is on verbosity rather than the content, the characteristic feature of Babu English being its stylistic ornamentation. Here is an example: "The extreme stimulus of professional and friendly solicitations has led me to the journey of accomplished advantages to proceed elucidatory and critical comments: wherein no brisking has been thrown apart to introduce prima facie and useful matters to facilitate literary pursuits . If the aimed point be embraced favourably by the public, all in all grateful acknowledgement will ride on the jumping border from the very bottom of my heart"

The example also reminded me of this article. I think a lot of Indian bloggers, escpecially the "senior" ones are no less than a Babu. They simply can't get out of the 'I memorized all the word lists in Barron's' mode. There's also a lot of double standards because some are actually good at hiding their pomposity (being consistently bombastic is a virtue). They are so good that they'll even mock other Babus for being a Babu. There's also a tacit agreement (ok, unspoken) among the 'good Babus' to not pull one other. It's amazing how the 'colonial culture' reinvents itself in various forms for various reasons by various people (Sonia Gandhi and her minions not being the least of them). Anyway, the article got me bursting out with laugther again,

The British masters were amused by Butler English as it had its own charm. They were sometimes annoyed when a Butler's English was faultless. For example, Ellis in George Orwell's "Burmese Days" is in conversation with his butler.

Ellis: "How much ice you got left?"

Butler: "Bout twenty pounds, master. Will only last today, I think. I find it very difficult to keep ice cool now."

Ellis: "Don't talk like that, damin you — I find it very difficult! Have you swallowed a dictionary?' Please, master can't keep ice cool! That's how you ought to talk, we shall have to sack this fellow if he gets to talk English too well.

PS. Crib means 'to whine/complain' only in India (ref 1, ref 2). This is probably the only entry that saves the face of millions of Indians who "crib" about things everyday (and mind you, it's bloody archaic).

Dance..: WTF?

They 'do' to 'undo'

I don’t know if it’s a coincidence, but just after I had published a podcast, I found this story. I posted the following comment in IBN’s website,

Isn't this ironic? It's so funny that you should do a story on your own wicked ways. The article is so conspicuously contrived. You're showing clips of people who are making general claims about press freedom and trying to equate that with press's assumption of moral high-ground (rightly pointed by Jeth Malani). IBN, since its inception, is known for going by CNN's motto – ‘sensationalize everything’. Look at the bloody music you use. What's up with that? If news channels are about informing people, why the hell do you have to use such dramatic loops and beats? Cheap!

I don’t think it’s going to appear in the site. I expected it; that’s why I had it saved. Anyway, I said it’s a coincidence because, in the podcast, I had mostly talked about the news items that had appeared on IBN’s homepage last night. Of course, as usual, I digressed to other unwholesome issues as well. This podcast is just a ‘filler,’ for it’s been close to month since I published my last one.
I forgot to mention the little boy’s kidnapping episode. The media, especially the likes of IBN, must be glad that their week long draggy story had a 'happy ending'. Now they get to dramatize it further. It might also bring the good old “is a CEO’s son’s life better than the thousands of Biharis who are kidnapped everyday?” debate. What’s worse? The debate will be staged in IBN (it hasn’t happened yet, but it will). It’s irritating, really. Then of course, there’s the weekly dose of judgmental nonsense, ‘The Verdict.’ This week: Do today's urban youth have contempt for the law?

A loaded and a clichéd question/topic. What do you mean by "today's youth?" Have the youth of any time period valued law more than the youth today? Is there even data to support your claim? What percent of those who are accused or to be accurate, convicted, belong to the 'youth'? The kind of spurious correlations you make are stupefying. How about having a value free debate for a change?

This is another comment I had left; it might not appear either.

Download mp3

"surplus of women": WTF?

Whenever you read/watch stuff in books/internet/tv etc., you often run in to things that make you go 'wtf?' This is one such video.

Toon teaser-2: Let me get philosophical!

Given that a lot of us (in my dept) are very familiar with 'Family Guy' I use this quote (with the "haah") very often to twit people who try to get all philosophical (of course, they use it back on me several times). It's like our own "sooper appu" when someone tries to act like "hey listen to the idea-mani's idea."

A strange feeling

Child abuse, the act or the occasional news about it, never sank in me so disturbingly unless it had to do with girls. The idea of boys being physically abused was not as depressing. ‘Catholic bishop molesting young boys’ was just a funny standup routine. Before I go on with this topic, I want to link a documentary that shook my views on the whole issue a great deal.

It’s shocking and disconcerting in many levels. The magnitude of the number of people and organizations involved is disquieting. The lengths these people have gone to suppress the issue worsens the disquiet. Then there’s the emotional side to it. The thoughts -- “What if it had to happened to me? What if I had been molested? How would I feel?” -- are quite scary, awfully embarrassing, terribly disturbing, but most of all, strange.

Yes, it’s a strange thought. Because, I as a person belonging to a gender that is almost devoid of the notion of rape (at least, until recently) am not quite able to relate to the people in the documentary. I can distantly imagine their pain and to a lesser extent the emotions that they went through then and going through now.

My conception of rape has a lot to do with self-respect, dignity and lot of constructs that are highly relative. But my understanding mostly centers women. How it affects the aforementioned constructs with respect to that gender. There’s an unquestioned and invisibly patronizing sympathy because they are the “weaker” sex. There’s also the belief that women are more resistant to rape (or sex in general) than men.¹ I don’t want to venture too much in to this area as it’s a little too polemical and I’m fairly inadequate to discuss it theoretically.²

If it weren’t for some movies, my view of ‘male rape’ would have continued to be entirely apathetic. ‘American History X’ was, for me, the first movie to show the agony of rape experienced by a man. Edward Norton’s poignant and rather realistic portrayal of his character’s helplessness and shame sent chills down my spine. I was then exposed to a series of movies, quite coincidentally, that dealt with male rape.³ Over a period of time, I think, the shock started to dissipate and it became an alien phenomenon that didn’t worry me so much.
Then came ‘Split Wide Open;’ it was another ‘Mahanadhi,’ a little less ‘mainstream’ but just as strident. It is probably the first Indian movie to deal with bisexuality, incest, pedophilia and all ‘tabooed topics’ that an average movie viewer can very well do without. The fact that the story was set in Bombay made it all the more harrowing. SWO threw more truths than I could handle in two hours. None of it seemed improbable or far fetched, though. I had read some real life equivalents in newspapers. But, I was/am still not able to understand the stigma, if there is any.

Male rapes, at least its portrayal in media, are quite uncommon in India. Even ‘uncommon’ doesn’t quite explain the situation - it’s virtually absent.⁴ A phenomenon that is non-existent in the media or the public discourse cannot possibly develop a stigma. Social stigma, needless to say, shapes the depth of victimization. In a typical urban middle-class setup in India, most boys grow up without ever having to fear rape. Notwithstanding the fact that ‘men having sex with men’ is not an entirely alien concept, even among 12 year olds.
Of course, there’s a lot of homophobia. But I don’t think that can be equated to how a male rape victim is perceived. The point is, my upbringing did not in anyway help me alleviate the ‘strangeness’ that I had alluded to earlier.

I saw AHX when I was 19. Five years have passed since then. More movies, more horrific “truths” and more ‘what the …?’ reactions – but it’s still strange. And then I saw the movie ‘Twenty Nine Palms’. Instead of trying to praise the movie (which I may do later), I’ll get to the scene that is most relevant here. Close to the end of the movie a couple is driving down an isolated road are intercepted by 3 men in an SUV (in day light, in an open desert). Before the couple could say anything, they are both slapped around and the woman is stripped naked. Since the movie does not exactly hint such a thing, I was frozen with cold fingers as I muffled “don’t…don’t rape her.”
As the scene continued to unfold, the man tries to wrench out of the goons’ hold only to get pummeled. What followed gave me an emotional overload. As the woman kicks and screams at the sight of all this, she is pinned down the dirt as she watches her boyfriend get raped. Yes, one of the goons sodomizes the badly-injured man lying on the ground, growling in pain.⁵
It was a mind-numbing scene, but I felt an uncomfortable relief. I couldn’t quite conceptualize him as a victim, at least not immediately. I was just glad that it wasn’t her. The movie’s ending was no consolation either. A week later, I saw another movie ‘Mysterious Skin.’ This movie was just as racking. Though the movie was kind enough to not have me frozen at any point, it was ruthless in revealing the cold vulnerabilities of “manliness.”
The movies helped me get out of the ‘strange’ feeling. Now, it’s not that strange as much as scary or depressing. They guided me to do some abstract deconstruction in this area and this post is a part of that process.
________________________________
¹This page has a whole list of ‘myths’ about male rape. Makes an enlightening read (at least, in legal terms). I thought this point is worth quoting: The vast majority of men who sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual. This fact helps to highlight another reality, that is, that sexual assault is usually more about violence, anger, domination and control over another person, than it is about lust or sexual attraction.
² Try the following wiki articles for a brief read: Art 1; Art 2.
³ Pulp Fiction’ was one of the movies which made ‘male rape’ look funny.
⁴ Male rapes, in various contexts, are reported quite frequently in the English media lately. And there’s also the invasion of ‘western pop-culture’ that carries a good amount of slurs referring to sodomy. So the construction of a stigma for male rape victims is not far away (in India).
⁵ If you're open to graphic (and sexual) images, try this trailer

Did you know?

Panorama - Child abuse in churches - 1
Uploaded by englishtamil

Panorama - Child abuse in churches - 2
Uploaded by englishtamil

Deconstruction: exhaustive and boring

Disclaimer: Another post that is actually a comment(s). I know, I'm shameless.

One of the questions that I often end-up asking myself and my profs is “how far do you deconstruct?” I don’t think there is a perfect answer. You do it as long as you can support it logically. When logic stops you stretch it further with metaphors and anecdotes. But even they stop at some point. That’s when you know you need to stop, but some people continue anyway.
I came across this post earlier today. I don’t know much about the people mentioned in the post or even about the actual topic. But as usual, my problem is only with a few arguments the author has drawn. I’ll give you the exchange below.

My comment:

{{What does that even mean? What dignity? Dignity is a quality that lives and dies with a living being. Once you die, along with your clothes, wealth and silicon implants, you also leave your dignity behind. Whose dignity are we then protecting?}} - Good, now let's legalize necrophilia, stealing organs and feeding dead bodies to starving stray dogs (or humans, if you like). They are dead, I'm sure they'll be happy with their "dignity stripped" dead bodies feeding, literally, the needy.

{{Wouldn't you feel that way, if it were you who were the victim?}} - This is a hypothetical question that has no straight answer; even if it's about you. It's like asking "would you kill yourself if you got raped in the butt and had a gun in the drawer?" You cannot assure the way you are going to react if it happens to you, for it has not happened to you. Even if you have a history--of such an ‘event’ and a reaction as you've claimed you'd exhibit--there is no reason to believe that you're going to replicate it (or otherwise).

About pictures being powerful and all: Here, the question "powerful for who, powerful for what?" needs to be asked. You're suggesting a universality that is both factual and benign. Given that you have a problem with unsupported "facts," I don't see where that suggestion of yours is coming from.

His reply (not surprisingly):

I don't see any problems with necrophilia or feeding a body to the dogs or anything else as long as the person (before dying) or the next of kin has given consent. Just like the consent that was apparently given in this case to photograph the body. How about we stop speaking for the victim eh?

I am an organ donor. What that means is after I am dead they will be slicing me up, harvesting my organs and distributing them to other people. All that will be left of me will be a pile of skin and my liver which will be unusable. So basically, I won't be very dignified after I die and hence yes, fuck post mortem dignity. What next, being buried with a jar of caviar Pharaoh style?

Powerful as a prop for the blog post. To imprint the horror of the massacre into the minds of the blogreaders. I already provided facts. Michael J Fox, banning of the coffin pictures. I could go on google and look for more examples

(Did he say “I don’t have a problem with necrophilia?” Elavu da sami!)

My Comment(2):

{{How about we stop speaking for the victim eh?}} – That’s exactly what you are doing. When you say "I would do this if it happened to me," what you are actually saying is "I would do this if I become a victim." In essence you as a non-victim are talking for you as a victim. To make it even shorter, you are the one who's talking for the victim.

About you being an organ donor: As gory as you make it sound, it's quite commonplace, we all know that. In fact, the Parsis let their dead bodies be consumed by vultures (even today they have those 'places' in Bombay and other major cities). That's not the point. None of these rhetorics apply to victims, because no victim is victimized by consent. Or someone who's "victimized" by consent is not a victim at all (victim of brainwashing or psychosis, may be).

Your "facts" are non-sequitur. First, there's no concrete study that suggests that the said "power" has always invoked expected response. Second, the response that it invokes need not necessarily be "positive" or "negative", or, as I mentioned before, one that was desired by those who initiated the "power". If you "go on google and look for more examples," I'll be happy to return the favour. Only that I'll be pulling out examples that say the exact opposite (ex: propaganda videos).

Images arrest the reality that your mind corresponds to with reality that matches a wider consensus (sometimes both are close). Words on the other hand let your mind make its own image - that could very well be more "powerful" (and disturbing) than the actual image itself. It's the age old book vs. movie debate. The arguments go both ways.

Besides, are bloggers so numb that they cannot "react" for 'rape and murder' but to the image the "captures" it? What kind of "reaction" is that? And all these reactions, supposedly, are directed towards justice (at least in legal parlance within this case's context) and awareness. But, does justice need to immerse itself into this "power" as well? Even if it does, can't it do the same without an image? That is, a judge's ruling based on the police report¹that says "girl was brutally raped, and murdered by slashing her throat" different from one based on an "image depicting" it?
_____________________
¹ I know, the police reports contain everything; photos, forensic evidences and what not.

Update: The exchange continued. You can read it all here.

Vetti Post

Yeah this is one of those 'yes, I do want to post something but it's just that I'm a little busy with other stuff' posts. It's not so much that I'm really busy, a decent post won't take more than an hour to put together. But then, with that you invite comments, rebuttals and what not. There were a few issues that I wanted to talk about last week. One was about the news report about the cleric in Australia blaming the women for sex crimes ("pig meat kept out in the open" as he put it). It wasn't so much what he said. Even idiots in Indian media say things like that; only in the name of culture and tradition. It was his attempt to escape the criticism he didn't foresee. When he was cornered tight he resorted to the good old "I was quoted out of context" strategy. I don't think people bought it though.
And then there was this program in BBC - the one about press freedom (and its responsibilities). It's actually a conference in which some world renown journalists and other people working for NGOs (and organisations like the UN) had come. The discussion is definitely worth a post. As I mentioned earlier, I don't have the time (or the guilt free mind, if you will) to open up those topics here. Anyway, I have them all recorded, I can pick it up anytime. This post however, is just to fill the gap. I thought I'll link a video that I found very touching and...you know "sema peelings ba."

I spend at least an hour everyday in youtube. Given the length and nature of most of the videos, that's about 20 to 30 videos a day, easily. Three months ago if you punched 'Chennai', 'Madras' or anything like that, you got no more than 3 pages. Now the pages are overflowing with all kinds of videos for the same search strings. So I had to narrow down my search string to something like 'IIT Madras.' No I'm not from IIT. The only connection I had with IIT was that I would go there 4, 5 times a year during 'Saarang' and whatever 'cultural event' that let you bunk college. So I thought of connecting to my recent past by watching some videos - videos with wannabe singers, dancers, drummers and the whole 'koothu kaara' bunch.
I found this video below. It's amazingly well conceptualized (well, a few clichéd sequences with the girl in the coffee parlour and in the library). The background music is a little DDish, but has an R.E.M like depth that touches you. The guys in the video have done a very good job of acting like the camera isn't there. The main guy (the soda buddi) isn't too bad either. He reminds me of my friend Badri, with his whiny face and confused looks. It's well edited. The video is mostly steady. It's like watching a mini documentary done by Kukunoor. Ok fine, just watch the video.