Thinking in English- Its been 60 years post Independence!

I think English in India is like Persian or Sanskrit... a language of those in power. Recently, some member had posted a very long reply to my comment on the thread motta-paati-virginity-what-nonsense-ask-some-brahmins (which talked about virginity and the control men had over the women whose virginity they 'took'. It also justified shaving off a widow's head because hair 'conducted' sexuality). I had thought that this post, which gave some very offensive textual evidence from the scriptures about the "importance" of virginity was a ere joke, I mean can any person living in this era having grown up in a country working hard to emancipate women and people thought to be lower castes really believe that women ought to be controlled, that widows heads should be shaved of because the controller was dead? If virginity and "sexual activation" made a man the Supreme Controller, then why must the husband exercise such control? That sounds like the justification given for monarchy.

Now, maybe I'm being "modern". But thats exactly how religion survives, by being dynamic and accommodating. I did reply in jest, saying that if virginity makes a woman the taker's slave then the last person who should be enslaving her is the husband and so, virginity must be lost to a total stranger. But, apparently, this is a case of "thinking in English". That's exactly what our azhwars were doing when they tried to create an equal society. I draw a comparison between caste and gender because these are two kinds of oppressions that have been sanctioned by "religious books". So many dalits converted to escape violence. So many people are turning atheist. Have we Hindus finally had enough?

I am Vaishnavite. I never call myself Brahmin (yet, I registered here to read about this community). If the Shastras must be believed, then I am no individual, I'm just a man's daughter. I am casteless, I must be called Brahmin because my father is one. Well, Ambedkar had pointed this out many many years ago. My question is, should the Shastras be believed when they say things which have no relevance today at all?

I am no Arundhati Roy. I'm not urging people to dismiss religion but to engage with it. After Bhakti Movements and contemporary Dalit and Feminist Movements, its time our rituals and religious books get modified to redefine what a Hindu woman is. Maybe people are forgetting their old traditions, maybe. Or maybe its just the language that is changing. English, Tamil, Sanskrit, isn't the message important? The cruel edge that religious "secondary citizenship" has won't be borne for long.

This person(who called me "dry clouds") talked about Jawaharlal Nehru. I can't think of a bigger threat to our religion, and to society in general than his idea of secularism(yet, we needed an agnostic to pass rights guaranteeing women's rights). As pointed out by many critics, Nehru chose to simply ignore communalism. We cannot afford to do so. Atheist think that religion is mere mumbo jumbo and they are quite right, at times. By giving Hinduism a new face, all this could change.

In the words of Charlotte Bronte "Convention is not morality, self-righteousness is not religion"

LOOSE ENDS- ATYACHAAR RETURNS!

Emotional Atyachaar (A.E) is a show often watched by my dad. It’s a ‘reality show’, full of drama, censored abuses and passion. Unfortunately, I can’t watch it with my dad because I usually fall of the sofa laughing at the poor, heart broken people (or maybe at my dad’s interest in their personal affairs, its all very relevant and concerning you know). I have often reminded my dad that all he is really doing is giving the show some TRP. I am sure he would have enjoyed MTV Roadies very much, with all the attacks and politics. I suppose it’s a common trait among our morally upright public to watch the immoral being denounced publically. Interestingly, my mother always supports the ‘poor girl or boy’ who didn’t want to be committed ad choose to explore while he/she had the time. The partner is at fault for expecting loyalty from a “serial flirt”/”playboy”. And me? I just sadistically enjoy watching being proven right. Love after all is over hyped and expectations kill!

A few hours ago, taking advantage of my father’s absence, I sat down to enjoy the first season of Age’s season 3. As promised, the episode was incredibly juicy and full of ghastly surprises. The suspect had been cheating on her “poor” boyfriend with his best friend (6 months) and her best friend (3 years). The two long-term partners did not know that she was simultaneously dating the other. The suspect was also caught enjoying intimate moments with a hot Persian model (my sympathies!). I think they mentioned that she was older than him and working.

The plot unfolded as the Boyfriend’s best friend “unwittingly” revealed having met the suspect twice without the boyfriend’s knowledge and was caught giving her a lift on his bike. According to him, he was conducting an alternate loyalty test and continued to accuse the suspect of being characterless throughout the show. This possibility however was not explored.

I was impressed with the trap- a fictitious contest which offered couples a chance to meet a celebrity. The suspect chooses to first enroll with her BF’S best friend, then with her best friend. When both of them were unable to make it, the team plants their bait, the hot Persian model. The boyfriend is shown witnessing his girlfriend, who had not met him in 3 months with 3 other men. Bummer! However, the question remains, why didn’t she enroll for the contest with the boyfriend? Why was he missing?

The show ended with the BF and the suspect’s brother trying to beat the other to pulp, separated by huge bouncers. Ajay Devgan, the star host continued to make rather self-righteous remarks about relationships and “fun”.

There were no Opera moments, EA does not engage with the issue of cheating at all. Perhaps if it did, people would stop blindly condemning cheats on the basis of a few videos. I think we all know what it means when people avoid meeting their partners for 3 months. This was probably just a revenge plan, publically demeaning a woman, ensuring that her reputation is finished and beating up her brother. But hey, that’s just me. The suspect does admit to being in a relationship with the BF and later says that they had broken up (ah, avoiding the confrontation?)

I also felt that the show was ”spicier” because the suspect was female. Harsher words are exchanged and the woman is labeled as a “slut”. No, I’m not being all feminist. I’m just pointing out that the dice is loaded.

The most intriguing part was the ambiguous end. It wasn’t a case of “no time”. E.A simply wanted to arouse pubic condemnation of such behavior without any sympathy for the suspect. Is it really that bad to hide things from one’s partner, who claims to hang on to the relationship for the fear of being beaten up? Who wants to date a guy who uses such fierce language and has a best friend who was willing to cheat on him too? In this case, the show just showed a poor sucker that his relationship was dead, a fact he knew already. But then how often does one come across people enjoying the company of 4 attractive partners(real or planted)?? Not everyone has the courage to confront and walk out of a relationship. I s this the way to punish them? Harsh...

Oh, I forgot. The whole thing is scripted right? Silly me!!