India’s religious right has been taking a public relations beating this past week. The newly formed Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women (which, by the way, is the greatest name for a group since the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice) has organized the Pink Chaddis Campaign to oppose the Sri Ram Sena’s despicable actions last month and their impending Valentine’s Day protests:
The group says it will give the pink underwear to Sri Ram Sena (Army of Lord Ram) on Valentine’s Day on Saturday.
[SRS] was blamed for the bar attack in the southern city of Mangalore last month.
Pramod Mutalik, who heads the little known Ram Sena and is now on bail after he was held following the attack, has said it is “not acceptable” for women to go to bars in India.
He has also said his men will protest against Valentine’s Day on Saturday. [Link]
<
p>Let’s just hope that the SRS leaders don’t have a fetish for women’s underwear or this campaign will not have its intended effect.
In other news (perhaps not entirely unrelated) the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), India’s Hindu nationalist group, has decided to start marketing a soft drink that contains cow urine. They see it as a refreshing alternative to Coke or Pepsi. I am sure they would rather young women kick back with a six pack of these instead of be loose at a bar with a beer:
Om Prakash, the head of the department, said the drink – called “gau jal”, or “cow water” – in Sanskrit was undergoing laboratory tests and would be launched “very soon, maybe by the end of this year”.
“Don’t worry, it won’t smell like urine and will be tasty too,” he told The Times from his headquarters in Hardwar, one of four holy cities on the River Ganges. “Its USP will be that it’s going to be very healthy. It won’t be like carbonated drinks and would be devoid of any toxins.”The drink is the latest attempt by the RSS – which was founded in 1925 and now claims eight million members – to cleanse India of foreign influence and promote its ideology of Hindutva, or Hindu-ness. [Link]
<
p>
I am curious, does anyone know how the cow urine aftershave splash has been doing in sales?
Jef,
It will be great if we can let Indian women decide how they want to express their outrage. I think anything that gets attention to the problem is worth a shot and protesting for one cause doesn’t mean the other is less important.
57 · umber desi said
and also, it is not as if those other causes were getting airtime all the time until the army of the pink chaddis started marching and sucking the media coverage. (still think it is counterproductive, but that is an opinion on strategy, not morality).
I agree! Good thing this isn’t being discussed all over the place! Because that would mean getting attention!
Oh… so if somebody else did something worse, your own actions are totally exempt from moral scrutiny?
60 · GingerAle said
I like how any attempt to keep things in perspective means “NO MORAL SCRUTINY AT ALL!”
(With profuse apologies to Abhi and the overworked intern)
LHM, yes, please exhaust all predictably stupid comment responses on this post. That way, when I write about Pink Chaddis, I’ll be spared them.
It’s simple, to cite other, more tragic reasons to protest. It’s facile to engage in willful denial about certain uncomfortable facts. Both of those examples of armchair quarter-bitching are far easier to accomplish than being moved to react creatively to an event which upsets and worries you, and putting yourself out there to do just that. We would know; after five years of volunteering our time to this blog and its community, we are still regularly gifted with tons of reprimands and complaints from ingrates who have all the time in the world to criticize us, but no will or desire to sacrifice their own time to do the hard work themselves, in order to provide the world with an alternative which meets their many, many lofty demands. Many of you think TPCC is stupid/pointless/ineffective…I’m sincere when I ask, why don’t you show us what you would do/how it’s done?
62 · A N N A said
Having the police start arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating the bastards who do these things (in a way that is not motivated by having political connections) might be a good start. The reason this stuff happens is because the guys who do it get attention and the government is too feckless to impose enough costs to deter them. Bring a lathi down on their heads and let them know that there are appropriate ways and inappropriate ways to air your grievance and the inappropriate ways will stop.
Of course, you have to enforce the laws consistently rather than easing up when it’s done by whichever narrow interest group you happen to be trying to get votes from.
Hit submit too soon.
My problem isn’t so much what they’re doing. It’s that the anger is being directed at the wrong people. Guys like Mutalik are just a symptom of a bigger disease. The Indian Government has just become so lackadaisical about maintaining law and order that even if you whack him down 10 more will take his place.
I would like to spend this V day in the company of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women.Strictly for moral support onlee. Anyone knows which pub they are bharo-ing?
What these misogynist hindutva women beaters really want is for all them bars to be serving frothy mugs of holy cow urine to an all male clientele, methinks 🙂
I disagree with those who think this strategy will be too off-putting to the moderate middle class Indian women who don’t want to see their own daughters in pubs. While some of them may not catch the ironic use of “loose” and “forward,” others will get a good giggle and a feeling of solidarity with their more urban, upper-class sisters who are taking a absurd poke at powerful, violent men. In my experience, it is exactly the modest-but-not-a-doormat type of women who cope with the patriarchy by using a sense of humor and slyly nudging at the men who purport to control them.
It’s a pity that all this is happening on V-Day, though, otherwise I would suggest desi gatherings in the U.S. to raise a glass to these women and perhaps raise some money for supporting the fight against the Hindu Taliban.
I don’t see why sending pink chaddis needs to be mutually exclusive with any other direct actions taken to protest/punish the RSS’s charming activities. I feel capable of supporting the campaign and also demanding actual justice for the actual women who were beaten up. As for whether the chaddis are off-putting or merely funny, I think they are both. Why be polite about it? These men assaulted women who dared to be out in public drinking because apparently it is a signal of their thermonucleic out-of-control sexuality. So chaddis it must be!
62 · A N N A said
I think it is smart, two-faced,vulgar, highly effective at garnishing publicity and highly insulting to hinduism. How would you like it if a the outline of a religious icon, say Maddona and child is changed so that instead of the child, Mary looks lovingly at a Dildo. I’d bet there will some outrage. Now take a look at the logo of the campaign, with its saffron religious motif. Why do I not see the same level of disgust at it?
How would you deal with a member of the fringe who has been shunned by the right for years as an embarassment? And is unable to get any traction for his movement? And who’s actions get no establishment support and is met with police action far in excess of any similar incident (remember the new year’s eve molestation incident sepiamutiny covered a while back? The mob was actually larger there. Now compare the police response to these two events).
Simple. Arrest him when he breaks the law. When he does not — ignore him.
What I will NOT DO. — Give him tons of publicity. — Treat him as a major threat, instead of a 2 bit twerp. — Use him as a proxy to tar and attack the same political movement that has shunned him for years — Villify people who have condemned his actions because they hold some of his views. — Use his actions as an excuse to stifle debate and impose a self serving worlview on the rest of the country (Is it really wrong to want to get rid of a pub culture which serves booze illegaly to minors?)
BTW. I think it is ridiculous that many supporters of the Pink Chaddi campaign think that they are celebrating the principles of the Indian Constitution. They are not. In fact the Ram Sena’s position is actually closer to the principles of the Constitution. (I don’t support the Ram Sena, just pointing out that 1. the Pink Chaddi supporters are often ignorant and 2. The Indian constitution is a piece of Garbage)
Is the Ram Sena closer to the principles of the Constitution because it’s a garbage group?
Okay wow. I was about to make a joke paralleling the Ram Sena to the Indian Constitution’s directive principles and when I googled for a list of the directive principles I found this:
Great googly moogly did they really amend the Constitution to annul the idea of natural rights?
I guess you’re right. The Ram Sena is perfectly in line with the Constitution. I’m just in shock.
“What I will NOT DO. ” – it seems to suggest that people shouldn’t express their view, the right to disagree is not allowed?
Simple. Arrest him when he breaks the law. When he does not — ignore him. Yep, but the only problem here is that with elections coming up taking a stricter stance might be a political suicide for the part in power.
And someone talks some sense.
Perfect priorities. Goons beating up defenseless women without any provocation in the name of Ram – a law and order problem. Making fun of khaki chaddis of RSS Sainkis – highly insulting to Hinduism. Consistent with the Hindutvavaadis constant equation of Hindutva to Hinduism though.
Or maybe the Shri Rama Sene is only following the footsteps of the “fire walk for me” which drove Sita to suicide, which is why it isn’t highly insulting to Hinduism.
73 · NV said
What is this “pub culture” that this writer opposes in the oh-so-sensible manner you applaud? Where did you get from the pink chaddi campaign that they say that those who do not drink are backward?
Was it from this post?
Maybe, just maybe, these “sensible” positions are taken by people see the beaten up women as inherently unsympathetic for their decision to go to pubs, and hence construct a strawman so they can deride opposition to it.
In any case, I am sure pink chaddis will not stop muthalik‘s suicide squad when they make their next move.
“the best lack conviction the worst are full of passionate intensity”
73 · NV said
This is sense? The freedom of people to exercise free choice which does not impinge upon others’ liberty is antithetical to “our culture, our tradition”? Who is the “our culture, our tradition” czar, and can he/she please share the enumerated list of dos and donts?
69 · DizzyDesi said
yes, the licentious anti-hindu elites of india are up in arms and panties because they are against the enlightened opposition of culture-preservers to underage drinking, and drinking and driving (oops, i meant riding hero cycles, not sure if driving is considered indian culture, or an import from deracinated westerners).
thanks for the laugh.
Their secret ingredient is Formula 7Xcretions.
i know both sides of the divide like to trade the same old tired accusations, but i was just wondering:
why is there always a need to draw moral equivalency between the fundamentalists from pak and the so-called saffron parties? over 60,000 people have been indiscriminantly murdered by pak fundamentalists. they plan on the “reconquest” of India through demographic warfare, advocate the abduction and forcible conversion of women, and the general terrorising of the populace. What the SRS has done is despicable, although there are tangible links to the congress dirty tricks department as others have pointed out; however, this does not equate to the “real” taliban’s actually misogny where women’s education is banned, girl’s schools are bombed, and innocent women summarily ill- treated and executed by a Ministry of Vice and Virtue. http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090209&fname=Cover+Story&sid=6‘
with respect to so-called culture preservers, all they are pointing out is that moral values do matter, and that crass materialism and libertinism does not lead to fulfillment (which, whether it is called nirvana, kaivalya or moksa is very much “our culture, our values”) . Now, I don’t necessarily agree with what they are saying, but their point is valid. After all, the happiest country in the world is Bhutan… Does that mean pubs and clubs should be banned? No, I don’t think so. But if people from the elder generation hold that opinion in the interest of a strong family unit (which has been decaying in urban india and has decayed in the urban west), then they have a right to at least advocate a view without ridicule. Which leads me to freedom of speech…
whatever their numerous ills, the so-called saffron parties at least want to maintain a baseline of freedom of speech. most of these guys advocated the answering of speech (the pink chaddis) with speech (sending sarees). Contrast that with the cartoon riots, fitna, blasphemy laws, cries for sharia or this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4609838/India-too-is-struggling-to-cling-to-freedom-of-speech.html
where is the hue and cry against the plight of hindu women in pak and bangladesh? however ridiculous and condemnable the SRS’ actions were in mangalore they don’t equate to this: http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/14782
the issue here is not the religion and its respectable moderate and liberal adherents, whom i very much respect. the issue is the automatic and knee jerk attempt to equate the extremist ideologies of the mullahs of kandahar, swat, and lahore and organizations like LeT and SIMI with the hindu right and organizations like the rss (the SRS is clearly knee deep in congress connections) out of so-called “secular compulsions”. that is a patently false assertion and a tragic one at best.
please note, i say this all in the politest tone as i am hoping for a discussion and not just the blaring argument of trolls. thank you.
77 · since you mentioned it said
Really? Who took away their right or freedom? All he’s asking for is the freedom to disapprove without smug know-it-alls trying to assert that getting suckered into corporate consumerism is some high expression of enlightened freedom. But the knee jerk reaction of your fellow travellers is that any expression of disapproval automatically means OPPRESSION!
81 · NV said
Those who beat them up. I love this discussion –
Action: Group A beats Group B up.
Response: “Sure, what group A did was bad, but can we actually move on and discuss whether group B should’ve been doing what they were doing? I’ve always been kinda upset about pubs/valentine’s day/deracinated unethical immoral western imitators/non-traditioners/uncultureds before group A did the beating, and right now, I think this is what we should be discussing because they clearly causes Group A’s actions.”
Awww, were the poor put-upon disapprovers with their perfect priorities getting beaten up and prevented from disapproving? Poor babies…
and we’re back to square one. so much for the discussion…sigh
FYI, to anyone who actually cares, here’s the link i meant to send: http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090209&fname=Cover+Story&sid=6
and a backup in case this misfires again: http://newshopper.sulekha.com/newsitem/2009/02/pale-fires-don-t-scorch-francois-gautier.htm
damned apostrophe appeared out of nowhere. in any event, this one is an interesting counterpoint to the original i ended up posting by mistake.
82 · since you mentioned it said
Except those guys aren’t agents of the government. So they broke the law and the people still have a right to go about their business in the bars. The right is still there smarty, recognized by law as evidenced by the fact that the ones who did the beating are in jail.
86 · NV said
Oh, the government prevented the disapprovers from voicing their opinions? Not when I last checked. So, what are we arguing again? The vanishing of the non-vanished right of the disapprovers? I didn’t realize they had been rendered voiceless. They are free to mock the deracinated fetishizers of the consumerist culture that is not part of “our culture, our tradition”, and the licentious hindu-haters have every right to go to a pub and look down their noses at the backwards village mentality. And life would go on.
It is certainly interesting that this is the time the disapprovers choose to brush right past the violence in the name of preservation of culture and Hinduism and tradition, and move right on to the disapproving of the act, which clearly instigated the violence in their book.
I don’t remember saying they didn’t have a right. All I said was that people who try to claim they don’t have a point, or who retreat to tired old non sequiturs about “modernity” and “freedom” are idiots who stifle debate in defense of licensiousness.
Who brushed past anything? Is being able to look at the big picture and keep things in perspective such a heinous crime? Too busy paying attention to one tree to pay attention to the forest are you?
88 · NV said
And the same applies to those who resort to the hoary old chestnuts of “our culture” and “our tradition”.
Your ability to focus on the big picture at convenient points is admirable. I applaud it. Some, (not me, of course!), might express contempt at this context that emerges so conveniently as to dread exceedingly close to the line of “blame the victim” (sure, Al Qaeda gins up support by claiming America hates Muslims, but really let’s look at the big picture and focus the discussion on this – is America doing the right thing? Should the gays parade around in Castro, and Hollywood movies show topless women?)
Okay and your point is what exactly? That standing opposed to crass consumerism is a bad thing?
When all else fails, erect a strawman. True to form.
90 · NV said
The same point as your claim that those resorting to “modernity” and “freedom” are idiots. I don’t see why the “our culture, our tradition” nonsense has any more meaning than those words.
I don’t think much of those who choose this point in time to suddenly discuss the issue of crass consumerism. As if that’s the critical issue here. Formulating this as a battle for consumerism rather than the ability to exercise basic freedoms reflects an intentional and self-serving narrowing of context.
Okay and where is the room for a thinking person in your little formulation? The person who doesn’t resort to buzzwords but actually thinks about issues?
Self-serving in what sense? Are you really convinced that anyone who doesn’t get 100% behind you in everything must be some sort of zealot? And what basic “freedoms” are you talking about? Everyone has the freedom to do what they want, but trying to shout down people who call you on it is just being PC for the sake of it without actually caring about the well being of society. Why do people with monetary interests in encouraging consumerism automatically get a free pass in dictating what the culture should be like and what freedoms are appropriate but people not motivated by money and concerned instead with ideas like happiness or spiritual fullfilment just get dismissed as wingnuts?
All I said was that people who try to claim they don’t have a point, or who retreat to tired old non sequiturs about “modernity” and “freedom” are idiots who stifle debate in defense of licensiousness.
Kanchan Gupta wrote a pompous, hysterical screed attributing, without evidence, all manner of moral turpitude to the Consortium, and got back a few mildly worded, reasonable rebuttals on his comments page. Who exactly is trying to stifle debate here? (By the way NV, judging by your comment #21, you’re not entirely unacquainted with pubs yourself, and since Gupta Uncle evidently thinks that anyone who isn’t a vegetarian teetotaler is a decadent immoral scumbag, maybe you should reconsider your support of him. Or are the rules about drinking different for men?)
Gupta’s bullying fulminations are distasteful because, as any Indian woman could tell you, as an everyday, practical matter, women’s rights to liberty and free association are far from guaranteed. Gupta might want to draw a Lakshman Rekha around the sort of freedoms he thinks women should be allowed, but it doesn’t work that way. The assholes that beat up those women in the pub would be just as capable of attacking the hard-working women he so lovingly eulogizes in his article.
92 · NV said
Are only people who use the buzzword of “our culture, our tradition” capable of thought, and those who use “modernity” and “freedom” idiots? Is there no space in your formulation for thinking persons of the latter ilk?
People who attempt to dictate other people’s life choices should naturally expect a higher level of scrutiny or opinion about their arguments – after all, they specifically ask that others subscribe to their points of view. I have good friends who choose not to drink and observe their religion, and I don’t see any kind of problem with that, and we get along a-ok, because they make their personal choices and I have the freedom to make mine. This is hardly what this discussion is about. On the other hand, if they want the freedom to judge me, fairly or unfairly, for my decisions as being a slave of western corporate marketing, why should they be immune to whatever stereotyping I choose to foist on them?
The freedom to buy each other candied hearts or drink beer, if free-thinking individuals choose to do so. Just as those who don’t want teddy bears should be under no obligation to – I did not realize that Indians were subject to the oppression of the stuffed toys. And an argument based on that old chestnut of “our culture, our tradition” does ring alarm bells in people when these arguments have been used to justify various expressions of bigotry and exclusion, and “our culture, our tradition” has been mangled to fit anything that is convenient to the viewpoint of the speaker. As a friend recently pointed out, Kautilya’s arthasastra had wonderful sections on wines and courtesans in his arthasastra, so maybe we should restore some more of that latter part of our hoary culture too. Or what about drinking arrack and toddy, is that more traditional and less deracinated than drinking Heineken? Maybe discussions of Victorian morality and prudery affecting the landscape of decision making in today’s public sphere is injecting far too much complexity into a simple binary issue of “pub culture”?
93 · Amba said
Oh, no! Not Kanchan Gupta, the self appointed commish for the preservation of vice and virtue, who says:
So, maybe when the hard-working women are beaten up for staying out too late, we can have a discussion about why people can’t learn to live within their means enough to not stay out at all hours of the night contrary to the ideal of the aadarniya bharatiya naari? Just to look at the big picture. Or maybe we can talk about how working women don’t respect their husbands enough because of the arrogance of the paycheck they draw.
Hey throw the misogyny card around. That’s constructive. Right, I’m no stranger to pubs and I have even been known to attend the same in the company of ghasp women. What I don’t generally approve of, however, are crass public displays of affection, girls hopping around in indecently skimpy outfits, people who try to argue that indiscriminate casual sex is empowering, and the knucleheaded guys who go around encouraging this sort of lunacy because it makes them feel like big “men” to tally up their “conquests.”
If you think it’s strictly misogynistic to come out in support of being classy go on and think that. Frankly much of India’s bar scene consists of a bunch of scantily clad chicks and their boyfriends getting drunk off their asses (and probably high on coke) and then prancing around the dance floor while skeezy old men and shy wallflowers ogle them. If these guys want to be that lame and, frankly, exploitative that’s fine. And if these girls want to have all the dignity of a stripper with none of the money more power to them.
But I fail to see where any of this is admirable night-time activity or behavior that should be encouraged among the youth. What’s wrong with insisting on responsible drinking and being respectful towards each other instead of objectifying women and bullshitting them into thinking that allowing themselves to be objectified makes them “free” and “empowered.” And if you don’t believe me about that “high on coke” thing, it’s a real and growing concern that’s worth worrying about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5125884.stm It is also why the answer to vigilantism is not to embrace an ethic of “anything goes.”
Defensive much? He didn’t say non-vegetarian teetotalers are scumbags. He said the people who insist of acceptance of their libertine lifestyles are often the same people that snobbishly turn their noses up at the vegetarian teetotalers. If you think Kanchan Gupta is too much a misogynist, how about this woman who feels the same way? http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sagarikaghose/223/53147/panties-and-perverts.html
96 · NV said
Is it ok if I say vegetarian teetotallers are often the same people that cast judgment willy nilly on other people’s lifestyles if it doesn’t conform to their idea of what’s proper?
96 · NV said
I agree. Separate sections for men and women in all institutions. Only square dances allowed with skin to skin contact only allowed between elbow and wrist. Instructions must be followed meticulously, and skirts should cover the ankles and blouses go all the way up the neck and should tuck in well into the skirt.
I realize I am a bit of a libertine for suggesting such anti-Indian deracinated sellout things such as square dancing and, shudder, music, but pardon me, it’s the 5 pints of beer I’ve downed talking.
Go right ahead. But then again, they’re not the ones advocating an ethic of “Do whatever you want” while being snobs towards anyone who doesn’t do what they want.
The alternative to driving into a brick wall is obviously to cruise off a cliff. This isn’t a false dichotomy at all!
102 · NV said
You are right. “You” are not advocating an ethic of “do whatever we want” while being snobs towards anyone who doesn’t do what you want.
What? I can’t opine that this is the appropriate decision for “our culture, our tradition”? Why is my voice being stifled with this scorn and contempt? Why, I ask you?
99 · Jef Costello said
Well, when even the all-knowing Costello has given up, what hope do weak out of touch women have? Why not work on the measly unimportant priorities they can salvage instead of tackling Bihar which we know only residents of Bihar can salvage?
100 · Jef Costello said
What does the name of the pub have to do with anything? Alright then. Next time, I’ll create a Vanar Sena to beat up denizens of “Memory”, or let’s make it more Indian, “Yaadein”. Was the plight of Biharis in the news till the day before Muthalik and his goons did their thing? Or till the pink chaddies sucked up all the media airtime and prevented the vibrant national discussion, concern and activity about the plight of the oppressed Bihari?
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005627.html#comment230817 Aaaand the trolling continues.
96 · NV said
Good thing we aren’t indulging in left-field crazy self-validating stereotypes here and using convenient excesses to drown out reasonable discussion here.
I presented an outline of what I thought was decent and unskimpy. Was that still too frisky for Indians? Are there some colors that excite the red blooded Indian male more than others? Isn’t this the starting point of the productive discussion we want to have as adults?
105 · NV said
I am sorry. I shouldn’t have quoted your remark about “But then again, they’re not the ones advocating an ethic of “Do whatever you want” while being snobs towards anyone who doesn’t do what they want.” That was a supremely trollish strawman, I agree.
Reasonable, productive, adult conversations are never on the table with you.
108 · NV said
Reciprocated feelings are the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
(But seriously, what skirt length is unskimpy and decent – if skirts are permissible at all? Inquiring minds want to know.)