Nirbhaya and Shreya - Story of India

The last few days, a few of my friends from India and overseas have been openly expressing their views, both for and against the BBC documentary on Nirbhaya. I was also a participant in one thread posted by a friend on the subject. The other topic that popped up recently was about Shreya Singhal.

The nation was horror struck when Nirbhaya incident happened, and the nation again reacted when a documentary on her was made by a person and then aired by BBC.

To start with, let me say that I watched the documentary. It is a moving film, absolutely sticking to the facts, and I could not find a single statement denigrating Indians and Indian society as a whole in the documentary.

A constant theme from those who objected to it was that BBC had a “mischievous” motive. I also felt that way for some time initially before I saw the documentary. However, after I saw it, I knew that to allude to such was ridiculous. Another constant theme from those who objected to the documentary was that even Britain has such horrific crimes, and why did the lady not make a documentary about rapists there and interview them etc.

Now, when an independent film producer from Britain came along years ago and made a fine picture on Mahatma Gandhi, we all applauded and watched the movie – it showed historical facts, there was no bias against India. The movie went on to win Oscars. The movie was all about the positives of a man, an Indian, and his greatness. I think many of our parliamentarians and state legislators actually became aware of a man called Mahatma only after that movie. We never asked why the British chap who made the movie, did not first make one about great historical figures in his own country before getting on to Mahatma.

Now, another independent person comes from the UK, makes a documentary sticking to facts on a horrific crime in India that shook the nation for some time. This time around, our Home Minister rejects it. Why? When we, as a nation lapped up with unbridled glee, good stuff that was shown about Mahatma, why are we displaying complete immaturity when a negative incident is also shown truthfully? As for folks who argue that the lady should have made a documentary on rapists in Britain first, I pose a simple question - " would you say that Sir Richard Attenborough should have made a couple of films about legends in his home country, UK, before turning his eyes on Mahatma ?"

Many folks who have seen the documentary, also truly believe that it will bring about a sense of shame in the nation, when it comes to appalling lack of gender equality in India. I am a bit hesitant to accept such simple conclusions quickly.

My view point is that India, as an aspiring modern nation, does not have any sense of shame at all. It suffers from a complete absence of it. This view of mine may appear controversial, and some may not accept it. To such folks, I would say : “kindly pause and consider these” :

- India never showed any sense of shame when 4000 were slaughtered on the streets of Delhi in 1984, when 1000 people were killed in Gujarat in 2002, when 5000 were killed in Nellie in 1983, and when such thousands of numbers included women and children, and in some cases, reportedly even unborn babies.

- A zillion documentaries have been made on such incidents. India shows no sense of shame that barely a handful have been arrested in such crimes, fewer still have been convicted and actually none has been hanged for collectively over 10,000 innocent lives snuffed out in these 3 riots in the recent past. The killers, probably hundreds of them, still roam free. Leaders who “led” the killers have been able to dodge the system for over 30 years now.

How can I ever get convinced that a nation which has shown no sense of shame in such horrific crimes, will suddenly undergo a dramatic turnaround and develop a sense of shame, just because a solitary woman code named “Nirbhaya” was brutally raped and murdered ?

In any case, I believe that a country need not demonstrate a sense of shame – a country should demonstrate a sense of purpose, and that is better than a sense of shame, to progress. 

There is a perception, to a large degree rooted in individual experiences that India is a country that is completely unsafe for women. The country is so vast and complex at many levels, that it is very difficult to discuss with a Western mind, that usually sees a country in a black or white shade. India needs to manage both reality and perception. Reality is within our control - changing laws, imposing strict law and order, exemplary punishment for folks indulging in crimes against women etc. Perception management should start right away.

Now, let me move on to another Delhi girl - Shreya Singhal. She is hardly 21 years old. Coincidentally, she is also a Delhi girl, and a law school student, and a bright one at that, if I may add. This girl, all of 24, took it upon herself, when she was barely 21, to file a "public interest litigation" in the highest court of India, when 2 innocent girls in Mumbai were harassed there by local partymen for some innocuous comments in facebook. The girls were prosecuted under section 66-A of Information technology act, which in many people's view was a draconian act that curbed people's freedom of expression in social media.

This 24 year old law student possessed the courage of conviction, and had the support of her family members to take the case in Supreme Court. To cut a story short, 2 days ago, India's highest court, threw section 66A out, clearly stating that it was against freedom of speech and expression.

This is great news. Rape happens all over the world, and extremely violent rapes happen everywhere. It is a crime, banned by law. There are unfortunate victims of rape everywhere. India treats rape as a crime, and its legal procedure needs to be tightened. It justice system is lethargic and needs to move its wheels much faster. That is for sure.

At the same time, India poses no restriction even to 21 year old girls to fight in the highest court of the land against a law, when it comes into conflict with fundamental rights to both men and women. To my knowledge, there would be very few cases in the world of an apex court of a country treating a public interest litigation filed by a 21 year old girl seriously and rendering a verdict scrapping a law. Probably the first such in the world.

I believe that India need not hang its head in shame over Nirbhaya, but, instead tell the world through words and deeds that it is bringing in radical change in its law and order & judicial mechanism to deal with such cases. Hanging its head in shame will have few takers.

On the other hand, I would say that India can rightfully hold its head high with pride on the way its justice system dealt with a plea by Shreya Singhal. Indian government should hire the same lady who made BBC documentary on Nirbhaya and ask her to produce a documentary on the case won by Shreya and show to the world. I am sure BBC will oblige.

Dim literature

This is written in an entirely lighter vein. Those who continue to take Nobel prize for peace, literature seriously, especially after peace was awarded to Obama, should skip reading this. By the way, a sincere salute and hats off to Kailash Satyarthi, about whom, honestly, I had not heard anything at all before the Nobel announcement .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Forget the peace prize. I just went through a list of 5 Nobel prize winners in literature over the past 5 years - Mario Vargas, Spain (2010), Tomas Transtomer, Sweden ( 2011 ), Mo Yan, China ( 2012), Alice Munro, Canada ( 2013 ), Patrick Modiano, France ( 2014 ). I have not heard even a single name from this list before they got it, and more importantly never heard of them after. These people could well be very famous in their respective countries and much loved too, but, is that a criteria for Nobel ?

If anyone in India has heard of these folks, or read their stuff ( even translated in english ) BEFORE Nobel was awarded to them, please step forward and reveal thy identity. I will genuflect before thee.

Now that I have got the names, I intend buying 1 book each of these laureates ( translated in english, where applicable ), and leave them prominently on my coffee table. Any visitor who comes home is bound to ask, and I shall, with a smug look educate them that they are books by Nobel laureates. Those among my friends who drop in, may look upon me with awe & trepidation in future, for reading such. A wicked thought that needs to be put into action pronto.

Among 110 Nobel Literature awards till date, 13 have gone collectively to folks from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland. i.e. about 12 % of all Nobel literature so far awarded has gone to Scandinavian nations. All these countries put together have a total population of about 23 million. Current world population is projected at about 7 billion.

Does it strike you as a bit odd that a combined Scandinavian population of about 0.3 % of the world has been awarded 12 % of all Nobels in literature so far? It sure strikes me as odd. 

Works of literature, have a purpose – they need to be read and understood by great many. When that very purpose is not met, I wonder on what basis they decide. If the committee's lofty purpose is to ensure that all languages are viewed equally, then I suppose the committee should announce each year they will choose a specific language, and look for great works within that and award - for instance 2015 – French, 2016 – Tamizh, 2017 – Telugu, 2018 – Burmese and so on and so forth. This will ensure that in about 400 years, practically all countries, and languages will be considered.

Nothing can explain 1 Nobel in literature given to a work of literature in Yiddish (1978). Current estimates of folks who understand Yiddish language in its spoken & written form is about a low number of 50,000 to a high number of 1 million. Let me go by the high estimate – 1 million. This represents 0.01% of world population, and 1% of a Nobel prize awarded. Viewed purely in mathematical terms, it is a 100 fold amplification in importance of that language. For contrast, I want to take Tamizh as an example, and not out of any parochial view. Nearly 1 % of the global population speaks the language and it exists in all its vibrant forms – written, spoken, poetry, drama etc. Very surprising that not a single Tamizh author has ever come to the notice of the committee. Ditto for Telugu, Hindi, Kannada etc.

A Nobel has also been given to someone who has written in Hebrew. This only makes the mathematical odds even more skewed, to make it appear almost laughable.

Now, I think if one were to know the strange tongue of tribals of Car Nicobar, and one were to write 3 poems in that, each poem consisting of 8 words, and somehow attract the committee's attention by shooting arrows at their homes with the poems attached to the arrow tips, probability of getting Nobel for literature is very high.

Docu drama

The last few days, a few of my friends from India and overseas have been openly expressing their views, both for and against the BBC documentary on Nirbhaya. I was also a participant in one thread posted by a friend on the subject.

To start with, let me say that I watched the documentary. It is a moving documentary, absolutely sticking to the facts, and I could not find a single statement denigrating Indians and Indian society as a whole in the documentary.

A constant theme from those who objected to it was that BBC had a “mischievous” motive. I also felt that way for some time initially before I saw the documentary. However, after I saw it, I knew that to allude to such was ridiculous. Another constant theme from those who objected to the documentary was that even Britain has such horrific crimes, and why did the lady not make a documentary about rapists there and interview them etc.

Now, when an independent film producer from Britain came along years ago and made a fine picture on Mahatma Gandhi, we all applauded and watched the movie – it showed historical facts, there was no bias against India. The movie went on to win Oscars. The movie was all about the positives of a man, an Indian, and his greatness. I think many of our parliamentarians and state legislators actually became aware of a man called Mahatma only after that movie. We never asked why the British chap who made the movie, did not first make one about great historical figures in his own country before getting on to Mahatma.

Now, another independent person comes from the UK, makes a documentary sticking to facts on a horrific crime in India that shook the nation for some time. This time around, our Home Minister rejects it. Why? When we, as a nation lapped up with unbridled glee, good stuff that was shown about Mahatma, why are we displaying complete immaturity when a negative incident is also shown truthfully? As for folks who argue that the lady should have made a documentary on rapists in Britain first, I pose a simple question - " would you say that Sir Richard Attenborough should have made a couple of films about greats in the UK, before turning his eyes on Mahatma ?"

Many folks who have seen the documentary, also truly believe that it will bring about a sense of shame in the nation, when it comes to appalling lack of gender equality in India. I am a bit hesitant to accept such simple conclusions quickly.

My view point is that India, as an aspiring modern nation, does not have any sense of shame at all. It suffers from a complete lack of it. Whatever little it had, India abandoned it the day it allowed a borderline illiterate lady from Italy to control a Harvard educated economist. This view of mine may appear controversial, and some may not accept it. To such folks, I would say : “kindly pause and consider these” :

- India never showed any sense of shame when 4000 were slaughtered on the streets of Delhi in 1984, when 1000 people were killed in Gujarat in 2002, when 5000 were killed in Nellie in 1983, and when such thousands of numbers included women and children, and in some cases, reportedly even unborn babies.

- A zillion documentaries have been made on such incidents. India shows no sense of shame that barely a handful have been arrested in such crimes, fewer still have been convicted and actually none has been hanged for collectively over 10,000 innocent lives snuffed out in these 3 riots in the recent past. The killers, probably hundreds and thousands of them, still roam free. Leaders who “led” the killers have been able to dodge the system for over 30 years now.

How can I ever get convinced that a nation which has shown no sense of shame in such horrific crimes, will suddenly undergo a dramatic turnaround, and develop a sense of shame, just because a solitary woman code named “Nirbhaya” was brutally raped and murdered ?

In any case, I believe that a country need not demonstrate a sense of shame – a country should demonstrate a sense of purpose, and that is better than a sense of shame, to progress.

Any man objecting to anything to bring in gender equality should be sent on to a tennis court, to face lightning fast aces, aimed at his unprotected vitals served by Serena Williams from the other side. 10 serves per at minimum 100 mph speed. I think India can hire Serena for the next 5 years for this exclusive job. She will simultaneously serve the purpose of removing gender as well as colour bias.

Lifebuoy moments

Last evening, while watching a 1 hour programme on History channel, I counted 9 ad breaks, each lasting about 3 minutes. Almost all the ads can be classified into 3 groups - mobile phones, women's cosmetics, men's cosmetics. Possibly 1 or 2 ads were outside this, but then exceptions do not make the rule.

My thoughts went back to my school / college days. Back then, at home for men, there was precisely 1 product which can be broadly considered as a cosmetic by a stretch definition - lifebuoy soap. I am referring to the original, un-corrupted version of Lifebuoy which sported a bright red colour, was packaged in a simple white wrapper, and was the size of a brick. Men at home using anything other than Lifebuoy were considered to be profligate in their ways. My grandparents considered Lifebuoy to be a multi purpose soap - for body, clothes as well as shampoo for hair. My grandfather sincerely believed that a bucket of water saturated with lifebuoy soap was a good substitute for fertilizer for coconut trees. That soap mysteriously never used to reduce in size even with vigorous usage, and each cake would last 1 year per person at the minimum, and was considered the best value for money.

Though I studied in a co-ed school, I think the only reason I never had any girl friends in school was because my parents / grandparents ensured that I had a permanent Lifebuoy shied of protection around me - it was a 2 way shield - neither could I step out of it, nor any of the girls could break the defense shield. I think all boys in my class had this defense shield.

Later on, in college, while bravely attempting to expand my intellectual bandwidth to accommodate engineering topics, I considered doing a project on Lifebuoy soap, to figure out its enigmatic chemical bonds - Its aromatic properties can be broadly classified as the exact thin space between deodorant and disinfectant, its longevity that can only be defined by "half life" period, usually reserved for radio active material. Its "multi utility" could have possibly inspired similar concepts in automobile industry. I think Lifebuoy could also have medicinal properties and small pieces of Lifebuoy administered at regular intervals to human beings can function as a broad range anti-biotic - of course, FDA needs to give approval for testing.

Back then, women at home had a choice of soap between Mysore Sandal and Chandrika, and their entire range of cosmetics post bathing was Cuticura or Ponds powder. Period. Mercifully, those were the days when concepts like "gay" were not heard of, and the word "gay" itself retained its original english meaning without any further connotation. Else, I would have been branded "gay", as I used to occasionally escape the tyranny of Lifebuoy, by seeking refuge in a Mysore sandal or Chandrika.

Post bathing, us boys would not even merit a drop of coconut oil on our head, and girls / women used to either use pure coconut oil, or a strange concoction from Kerala called "neelibringadhi" oil. ah...those good old days.

Damn the marketing men, especially from the cosmetics / ad industry who conceive such ads and rudely interrupt a rare good TV programme, by showing a male model with an almost impossible adonis like physique, admiring himself and spraying himself generously with strangely named deodorant called Axe. I curse such ads and models aloud at such moments saying " you pissants...if you call yourself men...show me some guts and try a Lifebuoy ".

My association with lifebuoy continues, with the marketeers of that product having managed to liquify it ( ? ) and selling it as handwash these days. I want to tell them -" you idiots...no need to liquify it. You have a much larger market for the original Lifebuoy - it can substitute poor quality bricks in construction, especially in Chennai."