Shhh…you’re being watched!
| Moral policing comes in many forms, says GEETA PADMANABHANtalking to a cross-section of people |
FUN AND FREEDOM Youngsters don’t like to live life by rules
It is a tragic-comic narrative. “I don’t know what my engineering degree is worth, but I’m certainly qualified to talk about moral policing,” said Chandrika Venkatraman, an MBA student. “For four years I was in a college whose printed rule book read: Rule 1: Gurl-boy no talk. Rule 2: Senior-junior no talk (senior boy get name of gurl in the class and finding address and visitng her). Rule 6: No change the bus route (he can be able to follow gurl and then do the galatta). Couldn’t they at least do this in proper English?”
She couldn’t even laff, oops, laugh with spies all over the campus. A flying squad would swoop “into the class to check if the girls were dressed ‘properly’. I had to walk out of the class for not pinning my starched dupatta. They were obsessed about guys and girls talking.” Hauled up for talking to a boy, Chandrika asked authorities why they didn’t have separate colleges. Her parents were told she needed serious counselling.
Freedom of expression
Moral Policing (MP) comes in many forms. Youngsters cuddling in an Anna Nagar park are “accused” of intimacy and all two-seater benches are broken up. Keepers of morality protest Valentine’s Day, and vandalise shops. Cops harass BPO workers stepping out of claustrophobic offices for an early morning cup of tea. Hotels with dancing floors (when did dancing become an offence?) are raided. The latest in the series is the case of Chandramohan, an award-winning art student at the MS University in Vadodra. He was arrested for “obscenity” and the faculty dean was suspended for refusing to shut down the exhibition displaying student submissions. Funnily, the magistrate who granted bail to Chandramohan saw nothing offensive in his work. The question raised was: How come the artist was asked to defend his work while the vandals who stormed the premises went scot-free?
“It’s symptomatic of the growing intolerance in our society,” said Janaki Viswanathan, filmmaker. “Religious sentiments are fine, but that should not descend to fundamentalism. My ‘Kanavu Maypada Vendum’ emphasises the right to make a choice.” She is quick to admit that rights have limitations, but holds that artistic expression should be based on self-censorship. “An artist expresses a viewpoint and this academic exercise should not be taken out of context.”
Targeting women
Earlier in the year, speaking at the Prakriti Foundation workshop on “Women and Sexuality”, lawyer Geeta Ramaseshan wondered about the disconnect between law and the legal system. “Obscenity in the form of expression is an offence, but we know it’s a contentious issue. Abuse of law is rampant in the policing of parks and hotels. Policemen take positions and slap cases under ‘law and order’. They use community standards rather than the law itself. Young people who defy family strictures become criminals.” Lawyers argue on “expected” behaviour rather than uphold fundamental rights. And there is this astonishing dichotomy of what is allowed in movies and what is allowed in real life.
Several speakers insisted MP targets women. Subtle regulation started by the family – “you can’t do this, you are a girl” is picked up by the village, caste, community and then the state, depriving her of individual space, they said. Economic independence does not bring social freedom for women. Silence over men’s off-marriage dalliances, domestic violence and reasons for female foeticide are all examples of this. Sadly, most women’s organisations stay mum rather than go to court or stage massive protests.
“Whatever quarter it comes from – mob, judiciary, police or parents – moral policing is unacceptable,” said Mangai, teacher and playwright. “We allow girls to work in virtual time and we question their “westernised” attitudes. Instead of indulging in double standards, shouldn’t we be extending sexual awareness?” She would like to see readiness to educate young people on a sense of selfhood and sexual freedom. “Let’s promote peer debates on dressing rules and talk about sexual matters in a sensible way. Are parents and the medical profession ready for it?”
She denounces MP as a colonial legacy. Intolerance, she says, masquerades as policing. “The society permitted space for varieties of social behaviour. It is amazing that those who claim to be followers of ‘tradition’ should repress women in the name of culture.” We’ve switched into a patriarchal, judgmental society that cannot stand two people having fun.
Fair enough. But parents support MP. Aren’t their fears justified? “Rightfully so,” said Mangai. “Only they take the easy option, instead of extending generational understanding.” Career-pursuing opportunistic parents cannot honestly impose restrictions on kids. “Our kids don’t need agencies for enforcement. Let’s be less dramatic and initiate public discussions on sexuality.”
No comments:
Post a Comment