Cowlitics: Mooa Culpa India, this doth not behoof thee

© Irina Lipchanskaya

As a reluctant non-vegetarian, and an incorrigible cooer at buffalo calves, the traction bovine-protection is receiving on my social media news feeds should be heartening. I must report, it is not.

From cracking done-to-death ‘where’s the beef in it’ jokes and seeing cowlicks as take-that political stances a few short months ago, I’m now at the jaw-hits-floor position when consuming my daily news staple.

That cows (and bovines at large) have captured a nation’s (with problems a plenty) imagination in the way they have is ‘beef’uddling. It seems that the cattle-lines are drawn, and we, the (hapless) people are being divided into rough, opposed categories of either consumer or protector. Where do these narrow boundaries leave people like me? People who don’t profess a deep, dark desire to eat beef and yet, tired of the vegetarians-eat-grass wisecracks are loathe to being judgmental of others’ meal preferences. And as residents of said limbo, are we automatically aligning ourselves with consumers and therefore courting a gau rakshak’s wrath?

Tapas: No ‘Pal’ of Mine

I promised my mother I’d write something joyful for my next blog post. Tapas Pal has other plans though. He’s elicited my snark, my wrath and my desire to introduce his cojones to the tips of the steel toed boots I intend on purchasing at the earliest (also his doing).

Picture courtesy the Tapas Pal Community Facebook page.

So, what’s new about Pal’s misogyny? How has he chosen to distinguish his brand of derogatory crap from others competing in a hotly contested race packed with chauvinists holding political office? I mean, the man needs serious game, it’s a bloody battlefield out there. With the likes of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Abu Azmi, Sudin Dhavalikar, Abhijeet Mukherjee, the Sri Ram Sena morons who don’t even deserve to be named, all piping in with winsome statements on women and how they ‘deserve’ to be treated, Pal may just prove to be a minor contender in a never-lacking-contestents competition.

However, what Pal is bringing to the table is a spanking new dimension to the talk surrounding rape in India. Finding the fondue too full already of the big cheeses – ‘asking for it’ women, ‘mistake-making’ boys, ‘against Indian culture’ behavior – Pal popped his own rancid dairy into the mix and named it: revenge. Yes, Pal has staked his claim on revenge rape. Well played, Pal.

The revenge rape statement is crucial for Pal taking top honors in a race guaranteed a photo finish. This is because, through his declaration, Pal marks himself out as a faithful misogynist. Not only does he consider rape an appropriate form of punishment for the women running counter to his political inclinations, but he also looks at rape as the worst threat possible to them. By this I mean that Pal, like every other true-blue misogynist out there, considers a woman’s worth confined to her sexual organs. In contrast he threatens the male members of the opposition with death, allowing me to draw the conclusion that Pal equates the ravaging of a woman’s genitalia to her life’s metaphoric end. The unsoiled condition of her so called ‘virtue’ is what guarantees her a life-like quality, and once that’s been pillaged, little else matters.

An apology has been tendered though, the statement filed in the Indian political establishment’s overflowing ‘error-of-judgement’ cabinet. Pal’s spiel has been relegated to the ‘babbling brought on by the “heat and dust of [an] election campaign” category’, and the follow-up apology accepted by his party and its leading lady. Deeply disappointing stuff from the tournament favorite whose unadulterated spirit came across not in the diluted expression of regret unleashed to protect his career but in the firebrand speech aimed at fostering it. A speech in which he threatened to “loose” his boys on the women of an opposing political mindset, reiterating their commitment to committing rape and, in doing so, proving his genuine worth as a real public servant.

Ladies and gents, I think we have a winner.

© Ayesha Sindhu 2014

 

 

एक मुलायम चांटा

I apologize to my non-Hindi speaking readers for the title to this piece, in true nuance-sucking style the literal translation of which would amount to a ridiculous equivalent such as ‘a soft slap.’ Unfortunately, the English carries neither the restrained rage nor the purposeful levity of my intentions.

Levity, yes. For how else does one contend with the nature of the vile comments that have spewed so viscously from the mouth of our dear Softie? Are the misogynistic musings of a vote-hungry power-monger worthy of anything but laughter? Well, derisive laughter at the very least. And yes, mine is a restrained rage. For, as the equally loathsome comments of that abominable twit Azmi join in as a sycophantic chorus, the measure of my anger must necessarily retain its decorum, its sanity.

For what are Softie and Azmi in the daily course of women’s lives? They are megaphones amplifying a dominant ideology, a malaise spread far and wide through misogynists of both genders: men and women who perpetuate the denigration of women and those who question systems that uphold heteronormativity. To battle a beast of this size and stealth, one’s rage must be contained and pointed, it must work, necessarily, through the recognition of its own strength before the other’s weakness. To combat the vitriol of repugnant political ‘leaders’ such as the aforementioned, effigy-burning and similar purges for instant gratification cannot suffice. To smother the swelling of the sentiment spurring such voices on, another voice demands augmentation. The sort of voice that neither squashes nor suppresses but effectively disengages, renders incapacitated, as it were.

In the interim, or for this time at least, I choose to laugh irreverently, derisively, all the time imagining the sonorous peals of my laughter strumming a delicate but decisive two-beat on the fleshy jowls of these odious… (add suitable descriptor as per your choice – language no bar).

© Ayesha Sindhu 2014

AAP: An (Hopefully) Enduring Enigma

The past fortnight in India has been a tumultuous one; one in which the Aam Aadmi Party has hogged the airwaves with its populist, ‘Robin Hood’ style approach to politics and its self-styled anarchic protest. The party has managed to divide opinion, but, in doing so, it has arrested the attention of a city, and perhaps an entire country’s, people. So much so that the President, unfortunately and wrongly to my mind, has been drawn into the melee, using his address to the nation on the eve of Republic Day to remind it that “populist anarchy cannot be a substitute for good governance.” Perhaps nothing less, or more for that matter, should have been expected from President Mukherjee’s speech; after all, it is the Government in power that scripts it, and the President, as mandated by the constitution, is not allowed to air his personal views. But, specifics aside, in drawing the concepts of populism and anarchy together in his speech, the President has revealed the deep sense of fear that has been engendered in the ruling elite by the AAP’s unconventional ways; a fear strong enough to make the error of dismissing the collective anger of its vote-casting citizens as anarchy, and associating, by contrast, the dismal rule of the UPA to order and good governance.

Image courtesy AAP’s Facebook page

In viewing Arvind Kejriwal’s decision to protest outside the Rail Bhavan as anarchism are we not confining ourselves to the narrow margins of dictionary definitions? In a country rife with pluralism, perhaps no movement or concept can claim or be bracketed under confining textbook neologisms. The movement outside the Rail Bhavan was started by the Chief Minister, but gained its momentum from the people who supported it. It was both populist in its sentiment, and anarchic in its decision to eschew the niceties of privileged politics. The violence that followed was on account of a people’s repressed anger, and, the policing of it reflected the genuine fear of those opposing it. Perhaps one term that has failed to make it into the discussions surrounding AAP in the last couple of weeks is ‘radical.’ A term that has moved above and beyond its 18^th Century associations to Kejriwal’s contemporary movement against governmental high handedness.