To Bindi or not to Bindi

Off late there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of Bindi. Although I have not commented on any social media post expressing any side of the views, be it pro-bindi or against-bindi, I have my own views about the same which I finally feel like spilling out. 

Image source: Google Search

When I got married at the age of 22 years, I was just stepping into the real world. Until then, my home and my family had been my sanctuary and my opinions about anything, if at all, were only driven by what I had seen growing up. The ladies in my family had usually worn bindis, may or may not have worn Mangalsutra (it was usually treated like a jewellery item), applied sindoor usually only on Karvachauth, never worn payal-bichhue (anklets or toe-rings) or ghunghat (not even 'sir dhakna' types) and did not touch in-laws' feet every morning or husband's feet even on festivals like Karvachauth. Most of these so called 'riwaaz' or traditions that were followed were not taken too seriously, and definitely not linked to being religious or even linked to respect in any way. They were just traditions and nothing more.

When I got married, I was expected to follow some of these traditions as a rule. I was expected to always wear a bindi, sindoor, bichhue, payal and mangalsutra too (most of the time). I was told that I should never leave my wrists or my neck empty. I should never wear western clothes in front of my in-laws and had to touch their feet every morning. I was expected to treat my husband with utmost reverence (the standard line coming from my mother-in-law being "Pati toh bhagwaan barabar hota hai") and touch his feet on Karvachauth. At 22, I didn't know better and I abided by all these so much so that all these became instruments to humiliate me. "Jab tum office jaati ho toh western kapde pehenti ho, naa bindi lagati ho, naa payal-bichhue pehenti ho." I was a damn Chartered Accountant working in a Big4 corporation auditing high-networth MNCs and I was damn-well expected to dress professionally. But these so called traditions were supposed to be linked to the religion and to how much I respected my husband and by not following them I was told that I was disrespecting my husband and his family.

Soon, I started hating all these "accessories" even though as a newly married I loved wearing them as they made me feel dressed up a bit. Sub-consciously, my mind started equating them with signs of Patriarchy. When I separated from my husband, these were the first things I gave up if I had not given them up already. As much as it might be hard to believe me now, I had given up sarees too for the same reason.

Years later, I re-embraced sarees but not all these accessories (maybe some like anklets but only on a single foot and not on both feet). I still associate them somewhat with Patriarchy but I do not judge people who wear them, whether out of their love for them to dress up or even as a sign of tradition. Everyone has a different thought process and just like my mom was comfortable with some of these like bindi, I understand that many other ladies would be too. And that is okay.

What is not okay is forcing these on others in the name of religion or tradition. What is not okay is shaming and humiliating others who do not abide by your diktats. What is not okay is bullying others and telling them that they do not get to challenge your beliefs even when you are challenging theirs. What is not okay is being intolerant towards your fellow humans. I wholeheartedly condemn anyone who does that.

What happens behind closed doors is not always known: Criminal Justice Season 2 Review

I will start the review with my verdict first. This is one of the best Hindi series I have seen off late. 

The plot is simple – a housewife, Kriti Kulhari, stabs her publicly well-known, widely admired, and socially acknowledged as perfect husband, Jishu Sengupta, with her 12-year-old daughter as the only witness. She confesses to the crime immediately and sticks to it. But other than that, she maintains a stoic silence as to why she did it. What seems like an open and shut case otherwise, owing to the confession by the wife, lacks the basic element in a murder case: motive. It is only when state lawyers, Pankaj Tripathi and Anupriya Goenka reprising their roles from Season 1, start chipping away at the motive of murder that hidden facets start emerging. Despite their uncooperative client, the two keep on trying to understand why she did it.

The motive is basically the premise of the story, though there are a few twists and turns such as the primary protagonist’s pregnancy. The motive is not exactly suspenseful unlike many thrillers where the audience already knows the facts of the crime. But, it is a moot discussion point, that is slowly highlighted to impress upon the social relevance of the issue in today’s date and time.

The series talks about abuse. Domestic abuse which is not always visible outside the bedroom; one that thrives on manipulation and narcissism; one that is made to appear like care and love but is actually a disguise for control over the other person; and one which plays with your mind filling you with guilt, self-doubt and depression. The climax highlights that abuse is often invisible to the eye and abusers are usually normal people who may be good friends, good sons and good fathers but may not be good spouses. Moreover, the show highlights how marital rape is made insignificant by the society so much so that the victim feels ashamed talking about it. It’s a glaring reality of the society where even professional and powerful women fall prey to misogyny within the confines of their homes.

Image: Google Search

I have not yet seen the Season 1 of the series and since this is an altogether new case, it doesn’t matter. I do plan to see it now. The characters of Pankaj Tripathi and Anupriya Goenka are flowing over from the Season 1. Pankaj Tripathi is as expected a delight to watch. His timing, dialogue delivery and simplicity brings alive every scene he features in. His character, who is a newly-wed person in this season with an outspoken wife, turns out to be a perfect example of how even the most socially enlightened men stand up for feminism but forget to apply the same concepts in their own lives. He eventually learns to respect the feelings of his partner. Anupriya Goenka fits her role well. I had first noticed her in War and despite a few appearances after that, I feel she gets to showcase her nuanced performance in this series. All other actors are also well cast and adequate, Deepti Naval, Mita Vashishta, Ashish Vidyarthi, et al. But this season definitely belongs to Kriti Kulhari. She plays the murder accused with utmost restraint; a woman who is more concerned about hiding her personal ‘shame’ rather than the repercussions of her crime. Bare minimum dialogues, she speaks with her eyes and bravely holds the series on her seemingly frail, drooping shoulders.

The Morning Show - The human side of #metoo

I wrapped up the incredibly sleek and high-end series The Morning Show. It's certainly high quality sophisticated (read had considerably high budget) and has a stellar cast. The show is about the #metoo movement in the backdrop of an extremely popular long running morning news show.

The series starts with allegations of sexual misconduct against one of the show's veteran anchors which basically brings the news show down to its knees. Knee-jerk reactions ensure that Mitch Kessler (played by the brave Steve Carell) is kicked out overnight, statements are made by the network dissociating from his actions, and his co-workers are left to pick up the pieces. The series continues from there exploring the reactions and upheavals in the life of the people associated with The Morning Show, primarily, Kessler's co-star of 15 years, Alex Levy, played by Jennifer Aniston and Kessler's suddenly pulled out from the dumps replacement, Bradley Jackson, played by Reese Witherspoon.

Now, usually the case with any movie or soaps based on exploitation of women is centered around the women who have been exploited, highlighting the turmoil and emotional struggle the victims go through, whereas the perpetrator is generally shown as the evil, heartless villain. This series is different in that sense. The victims are missing well into the 7th episode out of 10 and even then is at best a supporting character. The primary characters are the people around the perpetrator who are now trying to disassociate themselves with him, and then the perpetrator whose life comes down to the ground. So much so that at one point you even feel sympathy for him. The show also highlights how media houses go light on any wrong doing done by their "stars" because they get them big bucks. It also offers a behind-the-smiles look at how a news show is produced, and how the scandal opens the floor up for cutthroat office politics.

I think a lot of credit goes to the makers to attempt to humanise the perpetrator and the people around him. So basically The Morning Show isn’t a straightforward examination of the #MeToo movement, but in fact a more complicated depiction of the movement that has refused to die down over years now. For instance, in her statement to the American public announcing Mitch’s departure, Alex chooses her words carefully in denouncing his actions, but expresses warmth for the man she thought she knew. There's Mia, who everyone assumes that would be the one who went to The Times and reported Mitch because she had a "known to all" affair with Mitch which she had called off and had since been feeling as being shunned. Then there's show’s executive producer, Chip, who goes on a rant about how unfortunate he feels it was that the movement was tried in the court of public opinion.

But nothing will leave you more torn than Mitch’s explanation for his actions. 'So what if he had a few affairs', he asks in one scene. 'He never raped anyone, and some of the women in fact came onto him.' He is, he believes, just like any middle-aged man in America. Humanising a person accused of sexual misconduct, especially in the current climate, is a near impossible task which this series has managed to achieve. He is much like an alcoholic who refuses to accept his addiction. He can easily recognize the predatory behavior in the others who have been accused, and yet when it comes to himself, he feels like a victim, unable to see himself being projected with the likes of Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys of the world.

The lead stars of the series are, of course, Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Anniston, both of whom were famously paid USD 2 million per episode by Apple. I have seen a few movies of Reese Witherspoon earlier and have always loved her work (my favorite still being Legally Blonde) and she is absolutely in her elements here as the crackling outspoken Bradley Jackson. I have not actually seen much of Jennifer Aniston's work (actually I have only seen her in the star studded He's Just Not That Into You and no, I have not seen Friends). I know that she has garnered much praise for this performance of hers but I personally found it average. Her constant expression through the 10 episodes was of someone frustrated and under tremendous stress (her lips perpetually in an inverted U), which beyond a point started irritating me. Steve Carell is fantastic in the role, bringing the perfect balance of entitlement and dignity to Mitch. The supporting cast is fantastic; Billy Crudup as the smarmy head of the news division, Mark Duplass as the insomniac Chip who has to perform the balancing act, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Hannah Schoenfeld, and basically just about everybody is cut out for their role.

End note, amazing show!

Submission in women is indoctrinated, does not come naturally!

Two days ago, I was watching a video of a talk by a psuedo scholar who was talking about so-called "importance of gender roles in the social construct". Although he was trying to sound very liberal and was trying to sound pro-gender equality, but deep hidden in the lines I could read hints of a well-ingrained patriarchy. One of the things he mentioned was that the female gender has "evolved" over time on the basis of changes in the society and that they are now venturing over and above their "natural roles" in the traditional construct of the society. He also said that women were "naturally submissive" and thereby were never able to carve their place in the society. And although he went on to comment on how over time women are breaking their shackles etc., my own mind was totally put-off with this comment and I didn't even listen through till the end. 

If women were naturally submissive i.e. submission came naturally to women, there wouldn't be thousands of sermons reminding women to submit (name a religion / culture / section of society and you will find such sermons). There wouldn't be sermons and literature glorifying women who are submissive and sacrificing. It would not have been required if it would come naturally to women. These are reminders which exist because indoctrination depends on constant reinforcement to keep harmful ideologies alive. Nothing which is natural needs reminders and reinforcement to run its course.

Thoughts in the times of Corona

I see the messages saying "A year ago this was our last normal week". It's so true and we had no idea whatsoever back then what we were heading into. 14th March last year was our last outing before the lockdown. I and my family had gone out for dinner and once we were there, seated, and seeing masks worn by the staff, we suddenly regretted our decision. We decided to avoid eating out for "a while" not knowing then that "a while" would stretch into one full year.

I and my family abided by the lockdown to the 'T' and even continued to do so after the lockdown was lifted. Only recently when we came to know that my daughter's school is about to open physically and my office (though already open) is expected to become more regular expecting physical presence, did we decided to step out a bit so as to ensure that my daughter gets acclimatised to wearing masks and following social distancing norms. So, when a friend, who happens to be my daughter's closest friend's mother suggested that we take a small weekend outing to a fancy location just to enjoy some calm and relax, I gradually warmed up to the idea. 

Thus, I basically stepped out properly after one full year; this time with the new normal - masks and sanitizers. We still avoided the crowds i.e. despite being in Jaipur we didn't visit any forts or did any touristy things. We just went around the city in a car and saw everything from inside our safe haven.

Now that I think about it, it is kind of strange that the most important life event for our generations, spanning one full year, and I did not write a single blog about it. And now that I think about it, it seems unfair too. My blogs document my views on many topics; and while I shared countless memes and jokes on COVID-19 on Facebook (humour is the best way to counter gloom!?), and I expressed wonder on the Tablighi-Jamaat incidents and Pravasi Mazdoor situations also on Facebook, none of that actually made it to my personal blog. 

I guess if I were to write on COVID-19 for this blog, I would end up writing how so many people acted insensitive and openly flouted social distancing requirements even at the peak of the pandemic. The frustration and anger that I poured out on Facebook would have found way on my blog. And yet nothing that I post anywhere would have had any impact on any person.

Sometime in July (in the peak of Covid), I had to go to some government office for some work, where I met an acquaintance who was also there. He stood there without a mask and when he saw me, he came near me to talk. I instinctively stepped back to maintain some distance and he came yet closer. With no further space to back-off, I politely requested the person to maintain some distance. It was clear from his facial expression that he didn’t appreciate being told to stand at a distance. “Nishtha ji, yeh corona-vorona sab bakwaas hai. Main toh ise bilkul maanta hi nahi.” I again politely replied, “Sir, who toh aapki marzi hai but main maanti hoon isliye thoda dur khadi hoon. Vaise bhi kisi ke maanane ya naa maanane se Corona chala toh jayega nahi.” “Arre, aap bekaar mein itna darr rahi hain. Yeh sab sarkar ki saazish hai hamein dara ke control karne ki.” “Achchha? Aapko nahi pata ki economy all time low par chal rahi hai? Sarkar ko kya fayeda hoga economy ko dubo ke? Vaise bhi jo itne log duniya bhar mein marr rahe hain, unka kya?” “Un sabko koi naa koi bimaari hai. Bas sabko darane ke liye death certificate par Corona likh rahe hain. Yeh sirf duniya bhar ki sarkaron ki mili bhagat hai.” “Sir, maine pehli conspiracy theory suni hai jismein duniya bhar ki sarkarein saath mein kaam kar rahi hain. India – Pakistan ki bhi, India – China ki bhi, US – China ki bhi, US – Russia ki bhi… Aur maze ki baat yeh hai ki duniya bhar ki sarkarein, desh toh desh, apne aap tak ko dubone ka kaam kar rahi hain… Unhe agla election nahi jeetna kya?” With mindsets like this, isn’t it natural for people who are taking to feel irate and annoyed? 

And yet by now, we have accepted that general public is not concerned about their own, leave alone others’, welfare and each person is on their own. So, we stepped out finally while taking all precautions and trying to teach our kids to hold their own and survive this madness where people call it the new normal and yet are trying to behave like pre-covid days. Whether anyone else takes the precautions or not – in schools, offices, public places – we will fend for ourselves and our dear ones.

Farm Laws and the Farmers

I am not a blind follower of any political ideology. I have vocally supported Narendra Modi as Prime Minister in 2014 as his agenda was development. And on exactly those lines, I had supported implementation of GST and digitalisation of money. But I have also criticised Modi and his government for his silence on Hindu hard-line statements and their stand on CAA.

Image source: Firstpost

When the farmers started protesting, I started reading the new farm laws to understand what was wrong with them… Three new laws, passed hastily and in open defiance of parliamentary norms, were bound to spark off agitation. I realized that there were many aspects of the bills which would increase difficulty of the farmers. I believed that land lease provisions might result in loss of autonomy for farmers and their right to grow different crops (which might be corporate controlled); Minimum Support Price (MSP) should be expressly mentioned as it is a very important aspect in getting farmer’s their rightful price; putting the onus of grain storage solely on the farmer or the corporate (private hands) might lead to excess hoarding and malpractices; and corporate and MNCs being purely business models, with no care for ecological balance, soil fertility concerns, water paucity and fauna in agricultural ecosystems, might encourage agricultural malpractices such as monoculture agriculture resulting in poor gene pool and loss of vigorous, loss of pest resistance which lead us to famine like conditions. These were my concerns with the new bill and therefore I stood by the farmers.

I truly admired the peaceful and calm protests by the farmers and their grit and resilience as they stood out there in the biting cold and chill in the midst of rains, hailstorms et al; and I would every morning say a little prayer for them as the agitating farmers showed no signs of fading away. Angry cultivators have been camped on the doorstep of Delhi for weeks now through north India's bitingly cold winter, in tents and camps far away from their homes in a battle for their rights. 

Having said that, I have to admit that the government was more forthcoming than I expected them to be (especially considering the recent examples of CAA and student protests). They were open to negotiations - which I initially thought was just a perfunctory gesture of trying to resolve a situation out of their hands and a movement gaining widespread support. The government looked rattled and did concede to some of the concerns of the farmers. That was something I had not expected, not from Modi government with their image of no-nonsense dictatorship style of implementation of laws. And yet the farmers unrelentingly continued to protest, now stuck on the demand of repealing the entire laws. 

Personally, I do believe that the old laws are archaic and farm reforms are required. They may not entirely be the same as the new farm laws but barring few provisions, some progressive outlook on this highly ignored aspect of the economy is required. The farmers, however, want a total and immediate repeal of the laws passed last year. The farmers camped out near Delhi, however, are campaigning against a whole slew of reform measures, both real and imagined. For example, they want the government to guarantee that the current system of state-run procurement of rice and wheat will continue indefinitely - even though it hasn't even been threatened yet. The farmers recognize they have got the government playing defence. There are cracks even within the ruling establishment. After all, the ruling party's parent organization, the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has never been sold on the whole "market economy" idea. The farmers are now using the voice of dissent both inside and outside the government to further their agenda. 

Still, it's remarkably disappointing that the government seems willing to roll back some of its most substantial reforms to date because of the vocal opposition of the country's most heavily subsidized and richest agricultural producers. I do feel they should have held a firm ground on a few things they capitulated on. I am starting to feel that the government has gone a bit overboard to bring the farmers to their side. It has, for example, agreed to protect farmers' access to free electricity. This is not just unaffordable; it also holds back the modernization of India's power sector and thus the growth of renewable energy. The government has also promised to not go after the farmers who burn agricultural waste - a major contributor to air pollution across India's northern plains, home to almost all of the world's most unhealthy cities. 

Coming now to what happened yesterday, the Modi detractors might say that media is selectively showing footage but the truth is that whatever has been shown on the TV is shameful and scary and even if it is merely 10% of what happened, then too it is condemnable. A religious flag was hoisted yesterday at the Red Fort and even if the mast was empty at that time, it goes against the principles of Secularism. It is ironically disheartening that this was done on the Republic Day, a day that celebrates the sacred Constitution of India which promotes Secularity. A Heritage Property was ravaged; public property was damaged; service and armed forces were attacked; and moreover, the children and civilians who participated in the Republic Day celebrations were stranded in the cold without food and amenities for 7 long hours - all of this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic. The 'foodgods' of India had put their country to shame on a day when the entire world was watching us.

I am still with the farmers as long as they listen to the sound of reason. Modi government had in 2015 too attempted to strengthen the government's powers to acquire farmland but eventually had to roll back the same, following noisy objections led by the political opposition. Objectively, those land-acquisition laws were as regressive as the new agricultural reforms are progressive. Hence, in my opinion, these farm laws should not be dismissed without giving them a due consideration. Just like the farmers weed out the weeds and invasive species from their land and retain what is productive, the same needs to be done with these laws. 

Disclaimer: These are my personal views which I was compelled to write down after the condemnable Red Fort episode and the ensuing violence yesterday. I am aware that the popular view might differ. I choose not to debate and will not respond to any comments. Anyone who tends to have a problem with my views may please feel free to unfollow me.