The Predicate

A few days ago, one of the Indian daily newspapers got its cultural pride all sweaty and bothered over some party pictures that were leaked to its staff by some conflicted partygoer. Let us stop right here. There are already several things wrong with this incident. The party in question was private, or at least a publicized invite-only gathering. Anyone who went to this party should have known what to expect from it. If the person knew what to expect and still attended the event and later released the sneaky pictures of the party to the newspaper. There can only be so many reasons: He or she must've suffered either from a severe case of sour grapes of being overlooked in a smooch fest or battled the conflicting emotions within to indulge the self versus the demons of his/her upbringing where any interaction with the other gender was evil personified. However, the worse offender here is the newspaper that cashed in on ringing the morality bell and stoking the public's festering paranoia about eroding culture. A mature and decent alternative for the newspaper would have been to step aside of the issue and understand the party for what it was, a private gathering unimpeachable by public scrutiny. (Okay, the hotel should have come under fire for serving alcohol without a license, but do you honestly believe that the newspaper cared about that issue? Absolutely not, since serving liquour without a license is not as salacious a story line.)

By casting their judgments and morality on the partygoers, the media has breached the privacy of these citizens. The partygoers did not ask for anyone's coverage, much less approval, to incur such harsh judgments. They were doing fine getting together and enjoying their good company (except for the one loser who betrayed their privacy to validate his/her own tormented sense of justice).

Now, let us look at the aftermath of these pictures being published.

Does this not seem extreme? Can this be happening in a society that reprimands neighboring countries for repressive rule? Here is the letter of the law that reeks of hypocrisy.

"Cases were filed against them for offences under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act (violation of license condition) 294 of Indian Penal Code (obscene acts and songs to the annoyance of others in any public place) and under Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition License Act."

Okay, selling liquor without a license is punishable by law, I get that ruling under Section 37, let them enforce it. However, the ruling under Act 294 of the Indian Penal Code is a joke right? The part that says, "obscene acts and songs to the annoyance of others in any public place"! Are they serious? If they are serious about this law, then the first people to be arrested under this Penal Code should be the authorities at Southern Railways for all the pelvic gyrations and twisted language that pass for songs and dances in their telecasts (i.e. train stations in the south show song and dance sequences from regional movies that are predominantly obscene and suggestive--if kissing and hugging are obscene of course!).

I guess kissing and hugging a member of the opposite sex, even in your alleged privacy, is obscene in a culture where all this and worse are aired daily by the TV stations and movie houses with the licentious alacrity only found in sex offenders. The same media that laments the state of morality in our so-called culture sponsors these movies and TV shows in reviews and advertisements, and has its customers lap it up with glee. The same judicial institutions that rule against private parties uphold the rights of said media to perpetrate their tasteful, socially accepted rape of culture. Yet when some citizens want to bond with their co-workers, family, or friends and get together at a hotel to enjoy themselves as consenting adults (consenting to kisses and hugs, my God the sin, the sin!), let us pillory them with a Scarlet A, let us call the Taliban to firm up the leaking levees of morality!

What is that? What is that I hear you say? We do not live in Puritan Salem? We do not live under the Taliban's rule? Are you sure?

Let us get to the underlying fear. What is really the fear here in our society? Is it that our sons and brothers are indulging themselves? Of course, not! That has gone on for centuries and our society offers it as entitlement to the males. The true fear behind all this rhetoric about culture, honor, and tradition is that our daughters and sisters have discovered this freedom to indulge their leisure with the company they choose. Somehow, every oppressive society believes its honor relies in safeguarding a woman's freedom from herself. Besides the obvious condescension and chauvinism in this sentiment, they fear that if they do not succeed in this oppression, these women will begin to choose and weigh their possibilities. And when that happens, where will all these pesky little inadequate excuses for men find their mates? How sad and sorry is this societal fear?

- Udhaya.