Taliban in India…

We are citizens of free world.
It is really difficult to change others. That is true. But this can be changed by punishing the culprits with rigorous imprisonment so that girls can have freedom.
But one question always ramps my mind is does freedom means vulgarity? Because whenever I see any girl with outfits showing their cleavages or buttocks I feel shy and very uncomfortable.
So if such cloths are making me uncomfortable, isn’t the person wearing such cloths is accountable for that?

So this problem can be solved simply by restricting such body popping cloths and avoiding discomfort to others.

And in order to stop eve teasing we should have good governance in place, individual can not fight this war.

Jai Hind.

“Taliban in India” may not be appropriate to the present context.

Certain clothing items and accessories have been marketed as fashionable by interested parties. Campaigns are carried out influencing youth openly through advertisements and through paid articles in magazines and lifestyle programmes on TV.

Youth influenced by these obvious as well as subtle campaigns are made to consider certain clothing items as modern, fashionable, hip and ‘in’. And traditional dresses are portrayed as retrograde and not in keeping with the times.

Thus people are made to overlook the fact that the heavy material of jeans are not suitable in hot tropical weather, that high heels are harmful to ankles, that tight tops, skirts and sleeveless blouses sometimes do not meet the primary requirement of wearing clothes, which is to cover the body.

The dresses that have been prohibited by the colleges in the subject case, along with various accessories marketed through fashion magazines and TV channels are often used to present people as a well packaged object. This tendency to view people as an object is, to a large extent, what prompts eve-teasing.

The bogey of ‘Taliban’ have been used earlier too to propagate pub culture.

This tendency to use the word ‘Taliban’ indiscriminately is actually dangerous because it will lead people to associate Taliban with rather harmless acts and sometimes, form a mistaken impression that there may be some good in Taliban’s doings.

“..traditional dresses are portrayed as retrograde and not in keepng with the times.”
You brought up a very interesting point, Incongnito. This reminds me of a comment made by one of my batchmates who is settled in the US for many years.
She expressed, ”
I am hurt when I enter a mall shop in India and find salwar kameez under ethnic wear. When did pant suits and skirts become mainstream?

Shantanu, excuse me for bringing in slightly off-the-track topic. Perhaps people who live in India don’t realize this change as much. May be the topic of another discussion?

Thanks,

@Tarun,
I appreciate your point and I do believe in equality to the women in all walks of life. But I still don’t understand how can you forget that there has to be some rules to make everyone comfortable in this society.
And how to you connect this issue of wearing skimpy cloths with equality. Do you feel that equality is restricted to the type of cloths women wear? No my dear you need to understand what sort cloths we wear can be called as copying someone else.
In order to make someone strong we need educational and cultural rehabilitation and not the so called modern cloths wearing.
About TV Daily SOPs and Movies people here do not understand this is just a way to earn money by selling vulgarity.

Also why don’t you girl’s only, why do they wear skinny and provoking cloths? I think their answers will make you realize the fact.

I’ll ask you a question.
There are people to drink and smoke a lot in this society. So while someone is drinking because he/she likes others suffer mostly his/her family. Also smokers in public cause irritation to the people around them.
Do you think now these people should not be stopped because they have equal rights?

It is not about talibanization it is about losing what you must not. Like tradition. And it is not denying something which is good. we learn computer, we use it, we like to have every good thing of others.
How does it make sense to copy something without understanding whether we need it or not.
If you do not calculate such things then someday we will a disgrace to society and nation. I believe We all love our nation more that ourself at least I do.

So request you think a little bit practically and responsibly.
And you have to think about others views and opinions when you say you are a liberal person.

Thanks.
Jai Hind.

With lesser cloths the value of women body will grow but not the human values.
I feel lesser cloths doesn’t guarantee freedom but yes it does problems for both moral and cultural values.

And as you Tarun said: yeah even though a girl wears full cloths that will not guarantee safety but yes it will ensure respect. And instead of changing some good things we should be demanding change in other aspects (there is no dearth of such issues)

This is what I feel.

Thanks,
Rekha Borade.

My concern is that these decisions are being taken “by the gut instinct” and all of us are, in this debate, debating our gut instincts.

The thing is – one cannot change what one feels. it is instinctual and it happens in the blink of an eye. The point to be debated is – what is the motive of this policy? what is the effectiveness of such a policy? what is the efficiency / cost benefit ratio of this policy? How fair is the general policy wrt. sex, caste, creed, economic status, etc.?

Did these colleges, not particularly lacking in social science departments, (I Hope) care to investigate if attractive girls wearing traditional clothes were harassed or not? Did they present the results of such a study? Did they show the superiority of this policy to having policemen around? Heck, forget that.. did they even track the number of eve-teasing incidents, the contexts in which they happened, the similarities and the differences between these incidents?

We can, on the basis of our traditions, make a few assumptions and proceed on them, but the usage of real numbers and real science here should be encouraged.

The first Hippie?

Not quite. Hippies are famous for (commitment)free sex with multiple partners, and as we all know, Lord Shiva was very much devoted to his (one) wife and wasn’t known for his philandering ways. That’s why unmarried women in India wish for a (devoted) husband like Lord Shiva.

Other than that nit-pick, I broadly agree with your comment. 🙂

@Patriot,
your hatred for hindus is back again with your un’liberal’ intentions. Control your hatred and concentrate on the topic. The topic in discussion is not to discuss your anti-hindu garbages.

Shantanu,
You might want to take a look at such derogatory remarks and moderate them quickly. May be put a monitor on such commentors.

“(Note: I’m not that good in English)”

Dear Tarun,
We are a part of society and society starts from us. So the rule “what we get is what we deserve” is applicable to us as well.
I believe that women not just from India but from every part of the world are free from their first breath and are entitled to every right and ritual that men can or can’t do.
As there is a cost of everything so is for freedom (wearing any cloth or not is not freedom that is just an expression of emotions, I think so) we have to fight to preserve and extend it to every human being.
I don’t know why do girls want to wear skinny or tight cloths. But, I’m not against girls wearing any sort of cloth but the intent of wearing any cloth has to be clear and good. It shouldn’t be for showing off your body because somebody else is doing so to earn money or to please someone.
I agree that there is problem in discussing sex in open, but does that mean it should be a topic of discussion always or is it the only thing that humans are born for? I understand sex is important for new life, but that shouldn’t occupy our whole life.
We all know the problem in India that the people can’t digest such body show or they don’t want to. But in western countries also, women get raped, where women feel free to wear any cloths they wish.
So rape is not at all connected to wearing of cloths, its my opinion. Because we see news where girls from 3 onwards are raped by some elements of society which are curse to human being. So please stop connecting these two.

We are concerned about the safety of girls from harassment, eve-teasing and one side lovers. As I said earlier freedom has its cost so if a girls feel they are able to handle whatever comes their way then they are free to do anything that they feel is good for them and their society.
Personally I’ve taken initiative to train girls for self and peer defense with the help of Karate and Yoga in Pune. So I think we all supporters of small cloths or no cloths and Freedom should start making every citizen of this world a self reliant personality.
Instead of just discussing some points because we have access to Internet and sharing thoughts we should start implementing it at ground.

@Patriot
You talked about Lord Shiva and Lord Indra.
Please present some reference, because when we talk we should be responsible and accountable for it. But before you quote any anti-religious (any religion Hindu, Islam, Christ, Jain, Sikh …) comment please make sure you have studied that religion and are confident enough to prove your point.

To all,
All of us debating here I urge you following:
Our duty shouldn’t be just discussion but to change the things which needs to be. It’s not mandatory to follow every thing that is being followed for decades and centuries.
We have to fight against some things (e.g dowry) in our life, but we shall be the first to implement it in our lives and then spreading it across the world.
We have to believe that the day won’t be far away when people will realize the essence of human life and start acting accordingly.
We should stop following blindly.
We should try to understand moral and cultural values of the nation where we live.
We should appreciate good and punish the bad.

Jai Hind.

Comment 17- >>>Of course not, we were here just to protect the hindu version of the taliban

Since it is Jamal (Principal, DG Girls’ College) who is quoted in the blog article, is the commenter calling Jamal hindu version of Taliban ?

It would appear that charging Jamal of being ‘hindu’ is probably inappropriate.

Further, the tendency to see ‘Taliban’ in anyone who holds a differing view from that of the commenter may indicate a condition psychologists commonly refer to as paranoia.

But the question remains, does the commenter feel satisfaction at his efforts to question his traditions which apparently he has been following till now ?
What are his feelings towards his parents, who must have handed down those traditions to him ? Does he feel pity towards his parents, or maybe some worse emotion ?

And how does he view his grandparents and his ancestors ?
Does he look upon them with pride and happiness or with contempt for having followed undistinguishing traditions through the generations ?

@TARUN
We both are talking the same thing, but you want others to change first and I’m supporting making people change through oneself. But, intentions are same.
As you said we can suggest but can not force. The same goes to people to who feel awkward due to cloths wore by girls, because they might think it is not required and such body presentation is meaningless.
So here some common way has to be taken. Instead of forcing girls to or not to wear such cloths we can ask them to do what they fill is good for them and their society. One should not copy every thing from westerners.

Keeping in mind all goods for society can we come to the ground to discuss and work toward the betterment of economically lower class?
Shantanu,
Do you agree to this point? If yes then can we have a different post where everyone will display the will to the fight against inequality by contributing in any means (Like volunteering for rural work, education revamp, spreading bureaucratic awareness, contesting elections, monetory support and many more).

Jai Hind.

@ Sandeep/Avinash:

This is my readily available source on Indra although I have read about him, in Bengali translations of the Rig Veda, from the Ramakrishna Mission, as well:

“Indra duped Ahalya, the wife of Gautama Maharishi, in the guise of a saint into letting him have sex with her. He was punished by Gautama with a curse that one thousand vaginas would cover his body in a grotesque and vulgar display, and that his reign as king of the gods would meet with disaster and catastrophe.[2] Gautama later commuted the curse, upon the pleading of Brahma, to one thousand eyes instead. But according to Valmiki Ramayana the thousand eyed Indra was cursed by Gautama to loose his Testicles(1-48-28). Indra later gets a new pair of testicles from a Ram with the help of Agni.[10]

The Rig-Veda states,

He under whose supreme control are horses, all chariots, the villages, and cattle;
He who gave being to the Sun and Morning, who leads the waters, He, O men, is Indra. (2.12.7, trans. Griffith)

It further states,

“Indra, you lifted up the outcast who was oppressed, you glorified the blind and the lame.” (Rg-Veda 2:13:12)[2]

Indra is, with Varuna and Mitra, one of the Ä€dityas, the chief gods of the Rigveda (besides Agni and the Ashvins). He delights in drinking Soma, and the central Vedic myth is his heroic defeat of Vá¹›trá, liberating the rivers, or alternatively, his smashing of the Vala, a stone enclosure where the Panis had imprisoned the cows, and Ushas (dawn). He is the god of war, smashing the stone fortresses of the Dasyu, and invoked by combatants on both sides in the Battle of the Ten Kings.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra

RE: Shiva – my sources have been Bengali transalations of stories of Shiva from the Shiva Purana as published by the Ramakrishna Mission – I do not readily have these books at hand to scan excerpts and publish here – but, they are readily available at the various maths.

And, re: Doniger – I have no idea as to whom who are talking about.

@ Kaffir –
I think we readily jump to sex when someone is called a hippie – but, that movement was much beyond just “free love” – I was referring to their giving up all material possessions and generally being satisfied with the bare minimum, and opting out of our rat race. Also, they were some of the first Occidental followers of the Hare Krishna movement.

@ People who take offence –
I am interpreting our gods through our modern prism – I am sure that they do not have any problems with it, as I am sure I would have been turned into a pile of ashes by Indra, that very touchy god, with his vajra if i had indeed offended him. And, Shiva, on the other hand, is reputed to be a most tolerant god.

So, what pray is your problem?

=>
I think we readily jump to sex when someone is called a hippie – but, that movement was much beyond just “free love” – I was referring to their giving up all material possessions and generally being satisfied with the bare minimum, and opting out of our rat race.
=>

Patriot, “free love” was one of the main characteristics of hippies, so it’s not unreasonable to jump to it. I’m not quite sure about “giving up all material possessions” wrt hippies (in the 60s), and a not insignificant number of CEOs and trust fund managers during the past decade are/were former hippies, so not sure about “opting out of rat race” either; but instead of side-tracking, that’s a discussion for another time.

@ kaffir –

“a not insignificant number of CEOs and trust fund managers during the past decade are/were former hippies, so not sure about “opting out of rat race” either”

Really?? I must get to meet these guys/gals – got the best of both worlds, it seems! 🙂

Cheers

comment 27- >>> ” Must learn novel method to debate. Do not bother to logically counter points, but just stick to ridicule.”

Attempt at sarcasm, or is the master trying to hide behind the fig leaf of pretended modesty ?

It may be worthwhile to understand how logic functions in this fellow’s head.

The fellow makes a remark- “In our texts, is not Lord Shiva our greatest druggie? The first Hippie?” (comment 13)

The logic ends there.

The ‘our’ texts are conveniently not named. He does not name them in the subsequent four comments as well.

His logic is that “I do not readily have these books at hand”.
How the books which he does not have at hand by his own admission, can be termed ‘our texts’ let alone ‘his texts’, is another question.

The next question is, how logical is it to make inappropriate statements about ‘our gods’ and not give valid reasons.

Then he says- ‘Do we not celebrate Mahashivaratri with Bhang?”

It may seem that the fellow’s tendency to put an amorphous ‘we’ while he refers to himself and maybe his immediate family and thereby attempt to give legitimacy to his practice and universalise it is apparently very logical to him.
But let us give the devil his due. This fellow probably never celebrated Mahashivaratri. If at all he ‘celebrated’ Mahashivaratri as an adult, he may have just taken Bhang or may be the drink ‘alcohol’ that he alleges his Lord Indra to have a liking for. But such is the logic of this fellow that he is sure he ‘celebrated’ the occasion in a befitting manner.

His next target of logical analysis is his Lord Indra, whom he has difficulty in distingushing from a Don Juan, probably another of his Lords.
He asks- “Is Lord Indra not a Don Juan and one who likes alcohol a lot ?”

As a logical support to the charges he has made he gives wikipedia, that definite encyclopedia available on the web written by a group of vedic rishis.
He considers it logical to refer to the wikipedia for all matters concerning Vedic philosophy. Since this logician is of the habit of quoting from ‘our texts’ that are conveniently not at hand, this should come as no surprise to anyone.

Next the fellow accuses a ‘Victorian England’ for having made him into a prude. Note, no logic is given for that accusation either.
How this ‘Victorian England’ managed to achieve that feat is left in the realm of speculation. One possibility is parentage, i.e, philosophical and intellectual.
Which would account for the tendency to see his Lords as druggies, hippies, alcoholics and Don Juan. The possibility of biological effect from this Victorian England however still retains legitimacy in the realm of speculation.

Then he charges – “…and we continue to uphold *their* tradition. ”

Note the recurring use of amorphous ‘we’.
By ‘ *their* tradition ‘ he is probably referring to Victorian England’s tradition, the one who made this fellow into a prude.

Somehow he is convinced of a ‘logic’ in assuming that others on this forum are upholding the tradition of Victorian England as he does.

Next he says- “…while having forgotten our true roots?”

If Victorian made this fellow into a prude, what roots are he talking about ?

Again note the amorphous ‘our’.

The he assures us all – “…the English have long given up their Victorian mores!”

No logic necessary here either.

Apparently the fellow thinks that his word is final, no reasoning required.

Next sample his logic- “… we were here just of protect the hindu version of the taliban”.

This when the person quoted in the blog post is one Jamal (Principal, DG Girl’s College).
Logical.

Next sampe of logic – “ I am sure that they do not have any problems with it, as I am sure I would have been turned into a pile of ashes by Indra, that very touchy god, with his vajra if i had indeed offended him. And, Shiva, on the other hand, is reputed to be a most tolerant god.”

This fellow is able to think for his ‘our gods’ and predict their actions.

The man who glimpses ‘our god’s mind, nay, the man who thinks he can read ‘our god’s mind like his palm, logically.

Now this learned man is going to learn some novel method of debate, by not logically countering points and sticking to ridicule.

It appears, this doyen of duplicity is pretending self-effacement.

>>>I did think I mentioned the Rig Veda and the Shiva Purana.

mentioned is correct.
Perhaps lack of understanding of both prevented the commenter from mentioning anything further.

>>>> But, no, in our pathetic attempts to ridicule, we must ignore all facts. …But, no, since we only want to criticise and ridicule, what matter any facts to us.

As demonstrated by this character.

>>>> …I am sure he would be surprised by the amount of cross-referencing present in Wikipedia.

This character seems to be sure of many things which are disconnected from reality.

>>>> … cast aspersions on parenthood as a substitute for thinking.

No casting aspersions at all.
It was mentioned by this character himself that he was made into a prude by Victorian England.
As to how that was accomplished was left to the imagination of the reader.

That was why it was speculated in passing that apart from the likelyhood of intellectually and philosophically making the subject commenter into a prude, the possibility of biological effect from Victorian England cannot be ruled out.

Surely, someone who makes statements about how he was made, into prude, by some Victorian England and who is ‘broad-minded’ and ‘liberal’ enough to freely oppose the traditions of his parents should not take offence if some , let us say, lay reader, while speculating on how this Victorian England achieved that feat, did not rule out the possibility of biological effect.

@ Nanda –

The question is not what I want – the question is what do the women want? And, are we ready to accord them with the freedom that they want – whether it is to wear a salwar kameez or a mini?

And, the secondary question following that is if the women want to wear minis, are we ready to ensure that the environment is safe enough for them to do that?

I am sure that women (whether in my family or yours) have sufficient sense (common or otherwise) to ensure that they are properly dressed, both for the occasion as well as for safety.

But, are we ready to improve the environment in our society through education and through policing to ensure that the women can wear what they feel like wearing, without being targets of attacks? Or, are we always going to ask the women to sacrifice their wants because we can not create such an environment?

To me, that is the crux of the question that we face here.

BTW, Shiney Ahuja has been arrested for the rape of his maid-servant, who was quite properly dressed in a saree, while working in his house. Are we now going to blame the maid for being alone, in the course of her duties, with Shiney Ahuja as a complete lack of common sense?

Cheers

Patriot , what is your opinion about King Solomon who runs thru all the Abrahamic texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon

Read this carefully Patriot. Since you claim to know so many things , the web sites are self explanatory for a person like you. There is an interesting paragraph in the web site below.

http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Costa-Rica-to-Georgia/Ethiopians.html

Read the wikipost in 36. You will understand how all things work from those days to these days.

There are many questions which will come to you when you read the above web sites. Keep on asking , you will generate questions like infinite iterations.

I believe that the liberalism and freedom come with the responsibility of common values of societyand accountability of his/her actions.
Also the western society culture and Indian culture are two distinct things and one must try to improve own version (say for us India), if any flaws, instead of discarding it for someone else’s. I strongly believe we had a great past but some the anti social elements made us so measerable and if we want a greater future then we must not copy others because grass always looks greaner on other side.
I do agree that there are concerns of women in this country but that doesn’t mean that the tradition and culture is responsible for that. Women face problem because of human nature and for that no need to curse the culture with half baked knowledge.
When someone makes any allegation on our culture instead of just supporting that alien we should take time out and study our teachings and then accordingly we should reply.
criticism is base of any developement in my opinion.
But one should make suggestions and help bring change before his/her criticism takes the view of allegation.

We all should understand outsiders always wanted to tear us apart in pieces and time and again we succumbed to such devil instincts, now its high time we start believing ourself and unite against such devil forces.
We can grow together achieve any heights.

Jai Hind.
Jai Bhavani!! Jai Shivaji!!

@ Sandeep –

According to the link provided by Avinash, we are all linked back to a single woman in Central Africa. Through our genes.

So, who is an outsider?

Dear Patriot,
It seems you just want to hate and don’t want to change improve flaws, if any. We all are human beings and are prone to mistakes.
But you don’t want to believe that your parent’s religion has any value.
I’m reiterating that we need to improve our society on own idioms and not by following other countries (no doubt we have to adopt good practices)and if you still don’t want understand then its upto you.

Jai Hind.

In this regard I like Sonia G. and Priyanka V.

Modesty in clothing help us to build our character and strength.

In cold country women wears jeans and pants to keep themselves warm. And in summer minis and shorts to get enough Vitamin D. But that also now restricted due to UV rays and millions of skin cancer cases.
They too have dress code. In executive meetings and many professional field minis’ and low cut tops are not allowed. what does that suggests? Less freedom to women?

I can’t understand how come in 45 temperature a person in India wears thick suits and jeans? Indian clothings has a purpose and that is they are very airy.

Once I asked few relatives, are they comfortable in western clothings? They replied, to keep up with the changing society they select such clothes. Sometime under peer pressure they do so.

And I doubt every free thinking women likes western clothing. Freedom comes from the mind not by clothings.

“Just be yourself”. One must know to carry oneself and to be comfortable in their skin no matter what they wear. If one go in Rann of Kutch or Rajasthan’ they will find women in backless tops? So I disagree with any kind of restriction on clothings. Only things to keep in mind Know your environment you are dealing with.

If you are so impressed by Swami Vivekananda’s interpretation of Advaita Vedanta, what would have happened if you knew Sanskrit throughly and read Yoga Vasistha. This great text which comes in the Ramayana is outstanding and incomparable to any religious text. Yoga Vasistha is foundation and all in all Advaita Vedanta.

After attending many sessions in Ramana ashram. I have a clear concept of Shiva.

Shiva does not have an avatar like Vishnu since Shiva denotes the Self. He has an hamsa. This is one of the reasons according to many eternal mystics there is very little decoration in Shiva temple. I once asked this to a sanyasi in Ramana Ashram. I recd a brilliant reply ” Can the Self be decorated. The Self requires discipline meaning total control of Indriyas”

A human being if considered as the Self, represents an hamsa of Shiva or Shakti. Once you take birth as a human , you will have the ego. Now for this ego to go, there is an excellent line in Sanskrit ” Aham, Tu Hu Tu hu Sivoham, Tu hu Tu Hu Shivoham” which means if you can separate your Aham (ego) from your body , then you have realised the Self , which means you are Shiva or Shakti. The way you express it in Sanskrit is important. You can translate it like this ” If you think your ego is Shivoham , then it is no use. think your Self to be Sivoham, Sivoham all will be well, meaning throw out the ego from the body. ( extremely difficult task, only few Indian sages have done this and achieved extraordinary Gnana)

This is what Panini, Patanjali achieved , they separated the ego from the body, which enabled them to write perfect Sanskrit grammar (Panini) and Yoga sutras(Patanjali).

The Self is righteous , but the superimposition of the ego on the Self causes this indiscipline.

The indiscipline described by #45 in many posts is all due to the perturbations of ego on the Self. These perturbations deviate the Self and you indulge in all sorts of adventures.

All this I learnt in India and greatly indebted for this.

Thanks, Vidhya – lovely post.

No it is not from Vaishnava texts. It is straight from Yoga Vasistha. You may say Yoga Vasistha is from Ramayan and Rama is an avatar of Vishnu. There is no Avatara for Lord Shiva. Siva hamsa is a fact, but there is no Vishnu hamsa. Vishnu is an external manifestation, hence an Avatara ( an incarnation) ten mainly are said to be. This is the reason Vishnu temples are decorated very well. My Sanskrit is not that good. I relied on earlier translations into English, which are very superficial. Only when you discuss with people who know Sanskrit very well, you will know the right meaning. I would advise all to give a skip to the earlier translations done by many in the west. They are not upto the mark.

This is a huge topic for discussion, but surely there is no Avatara for Lord Shiva. I will come back later. You Live , Dance ( which is the perturbations of the human mind) or merge with Siva

There is an excellent web site of Saiva Siddhanta from Hawaii, where dedicated monks have explained this about living, dancing and merging with Siva. I will post the website later.

# 49, I entirely agree with you. From time immemorial women have been treated with distaste by men. The Sanskrit language defines the feminine as Shakti, which roughly translates to energy. Not the right one. Shakti is Shakti, there is no other word in English. It is very sad that even when science has advanced so much women are treated badly. Even in the west, they are not treated well. It is horrible.

About cooking by men, just visit Hare Krishna. Men cook and distribute food for life all over the world. It is lovely sight to see men do all the food preparation and distribute food.

Bye for now.

Sivoham, Sivoham.

A non-indian articulates the spiritual philosophy of ancient indians to a probable descendant of those ancients who unfortunately speaks the language of a missionary intent on maligning the culture of those very ancients.

Explainable as the colonial effect.

However, there may be more to it than that.

Why do some indians feel compelled to tarnish the culture of their own ancestors, which is actually held in high esteem and even adopted by many westerners who think independently ?

Some of the many westerners who have openly expressed their respect for the ancient indian philosophy are respected thinkers such as Schopenhauer, Emerson, Voltaire, Thoreau, Mark Twain, Oppenheimer, even Einstein.
Why do some indians feel compelled to overlook the worthwhile thoughts of these people and instead embrace the words of missionaries of christianity/ capitalism/ communism/ globalization/ islam who have their own ulterior motives?

There may be more than just colonial conditioning that causes people to actively vilify their ancient culture even when there is no reason to do so.

The comment 13 is an example of one such uncalled for attempt at denigrating the culture of one’s ancestors which the protagonist tries to pass off as ‘criticism’ through comment 45.

That the colonialists did everything possible to destroy the philosophy and culture of the colonised land is a well documented fact. It is also well known that even though british left india, their policies, their law, their administrative set-up and more importantly the curriculum they made to subvert the natives were adopted by the independent india with a few changes. Even more important is that the natives who were part of the british raj continued to be in their positions with little change. Foremost among these is the Congress party that shared in the governance under the british through ‘due electoral process’ until the voice of people like Subash Bose who wanted purna swaraj threatened to be representative of the aspirations of the people, upon which Congress party also joined in the bandwagon and got power transferred to them from british who were also weakened by the WW II. Thus continuity was maintained in terms of the government, its administration, judiciary, defence forces and most importantly, the academia. It was the last mentioned ‘intellectuals’ who were trained by the british to reject their ancient culture that came to educate the youth of the ‘new born’ nation. It is no wonder that these ‘intellectuals’ bereft of any in-depth knowledge about the ancient philosophy of this land, nurtured to eschew independent thinking and tutored to consider the western civilisation as superior, moulded the subsequent generations in their own form.

The people who took to heart the propaganda of british schooled ‘intellectuals’ grew up to be considered well read and educated, but they always carry a feeling of inadequacy, the inadequacy that was created by the british among the natives to make him feel inferior and thus docile by indoctrination that the ancient indian culture was primitive, irrational and very discriminatory. This inadequacy causes these people to distance themself as much as possible from the ancient indian culture and philosophy. To escape the feelings of inadequacy they seek to publicly and privately reinforce their disdain for their culture.
Cut off from the spirituality of ancient indians, some of these people attempt to fill the philosophical vacuum within them by seeking solace in neo-western constructs as liberality, secularism, humanism, rationalism, feminism, objectivism, etc.

It is natural that such attempts do not produce any sense of self respect or self worth.

When these people come across someone who apparently has respect for ancient indian culture, these people attempt to put down the other person and thus seek to gain some feeling of superiority to compensate for their lack of self-worth.

When they have gained some such feeling of false superiority, some of them get encouraged to seek more of it.

That is what causes them to attempt to make fun of and even abuse indian culture even when uncalled for.

They are also prompted in this direction by what they falsely perceive to be a threat to their sense of self and beliefs when they see others having healthy respect for their ancient culture.

The role of western funded media in reinforcing such attitudes is not insignificant.

When they come across people from foreign lands who openly show respect to ancient indian culture, they may be stopped in their tracks. But rather than introspecting and examining their beliefs, many of them tend to brush off such a person as an aberration, an odd case.

Wouldn’t it be better if at least some of them, stop, introspect and take a re-look at the diamond they hold in their hands which they are in the process of throwing away in their attempt to reach for a piece of broken glass ?

———-
comment-49 – >>>> The problem I see in the forum who ask for modesty in clothing, or going back to traditional values etc is forgetting one basic ethos in our culture, the girl is an aspect of the divine mother, or the divine feminine aspect. That means giving respect to women. Now what is happening is everyone is talking of modesty of women without the need for respect.

Doesn’t that strengthen the case to reclaim the ancient indian culture that respected women.

P.S @Indian, about my post regarding modesty it wasnt referring to your post specifically it is the general tone of the responses in this forum I was referring to.

re: comment in 57: When a call for modesty is justified by all people saying it triggers instincts of men, an argument using the same instinct is allowable. However taking that alone as my argument is over the top, and shows how narrow minded our culture policemen have become. Simple to show why we will get only taliban styled hindu culture police without proper understanding and introspection of the real needs of revival of the culture in the right essense.

@ Shantanu 61 – >>>>> I chose the word “Taliban” deliberately …. “

The tendency to label people is very prevalent nowadays. This is an import from the west. It is the christian theology that condemns any non-believer as ‘heathen’, ‘pagan’ and ‘devil’s children’ which was then used as an excuse by imperial Rome, later the Roman Church and subsequently colonialists to attack, subjugate and plunder the recipients of such labels.
Other religions and ‘philosophies’ from the west such as Islam, Feudalism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Atheism, Rationalism, Feminism and so on also applied this technique of labelling the ‘other’ effectively.

Ancient Indian Philosophy in its highest form of Advaita Vedanta saw no ‘other’, it realised itself to be Brahman. The Bhakta saw divinity in everything. The Karma Yogi sought Dharma through actions. The practician of Yoga found stillness within him.

We seems to be abandoning the philosophy of those who preceeded us in this land originally who left for us a treasure chest of wisdom accrued through generations.

The imported technique has been so well used by the media nowadays that many people internalise it and employ it, sometimes unintentionally , when they want to condemn somebody or some act which they don’t like.

This tool is effective because of multiple reasons. One, it helps in forming public opinion. Especially when somebody with influence uses it. History is replete with instances of how this ploy has been successfully used.
Secondly the onus on proving otherwise becomes that of the accused. It puts the accused person on the defensive and half the fight is won right there.

Further, it helps the originator in rallying support, consolidating his position and spreading propaganda.

The question – >>>> “However, I find it odd that you feel . . . . . . . . . . . . – unless I have misunderstood you ? ” , even though may not have been intented so, is actually a variation of the same technique of putting the ‘other’ person on the defensive.

@Vidhya
>>>”why isnt a male student wearing tshirts that are tight to show off his biceps or chest muscles banned?”

I completely agree with you, it not just women who needs to be suppressed under the rules of so called modesty. I surely also condemn such outfits where the nature does not allow it means your health and appearance has to be in sync.
Like in Mumbais’ humid weather it is better to wear lose cloths.
We lots of South Indians ear lose dhoti the reason is simple that it is hotter in that part.

All relgions have been mancentric. Take the founders of all Abrahamic relgions, they have been men. It is only when science came with full force and established the rule of law, that women came to be respected. Atleast , in India , you have the concept of Goddess , Shakti ( which is of course not used in right meaning). In the Abrahamic faiths , God is still given a malecentric view. There is something about Mother Mary , but it is predominantly male. The trouble with Indian literature is that many have been lost. I got this information discussing with peers. So there could be layers of history superimposed on lost literature. Has the loss of this literature, resulted in ignoring the concept of Shakti?

Sometime back, after my spiritual bath in Ramana Ashram, I took a bus ride to Hampi, where many were discussing about the newly embraced pubs on other cities of the state ( a recent import?) There are pubs in the West. I do not go there , I used to when young , but now given it up completely.

One thing which struck me was the total lack of security like that given in UK to the pubs. This inforamation, I gathered from shamelessly eavesdropping in public. You want to be like the West, but at the same time , you do not want to give complete security as it is expensive and you want to save money. How is it possible to give protecttion to anybody if you leave the doors and atmosphere open. Remember it is a alcohol charged environment , which can result in any fight or eve harassment leading to the famous pub brawl.

This is what has happened. No security at all. So the moral is if you copy the West , copy it well, otherwise , do not do it half baked. Sip , your famous lemon sherbet and be happy. Many warned me about Ecoli , dysentry etc if I take lemon sherbet. Nothing happened , I belched happily , and found my spring in my feet to keep my wanderings and inquiry about India.

@Nanda, Why not is always an answer when only one sided argument in given!! This reaches ridiculous heights when rape, sexual abuse or harassment is justified by saying women dressed provocatively. All I was doing is if instinct and sex is given as an excuse for men why cant women dress attractively, here it only means in a very simple term of dressing up, not talking of streaking! But that doesnt give licence to abuse someone simple. It is only we humans who abuse the women. Attracting the opposite sex is a natural part of life, what is so bad in that. I think one saint had said, it is we humans who made this sex a big taboo but cant keep it out of our heads. The moment I raised a simple fact of life it has been taken to the extreme!

How many times do I see the argument, “women must dress modestly since otherwise it stirs the instinct of men! In fact you even raised it! What is modesty, how extreme can it be taken? Our ancient women did wear revealing attire? Is that not our culture, or will you deny it. They are being bad according to u, or didnt have enough respect.

Ohh please so if I raise such points I ridicule a religion? I know my religion and am proud of it, but am also passionate about it to stop it from being hijacked by such narrow mindedness!!! It is much broader to be affected by a simple argument on women’s rights or saying whats wrong if women want to attract.

“Hinduism is the least organised of religions–without a prophet or a central text” These are the kinds of statements that Hindus who are intellectually lazy generally make–it ranks right up there with “all religions are the same” and “Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life” (this is the personal favorite of the RSS).

Hinduism is as organized or as disorganized as any other religion. It has its central texts –the Vedas, its specific rituals relating to the samskaras, its philosophical contemplations as well as its hierarchy of priests, swamis and sadhus who provide different but complementary religious service. It is goverened by a specific theology, a specific world view as encapsulated in the Vedanta. It has had its “prophets” in the form of avatars and gurus. It has its own history of lineages which are mentioned again both in the Vedas and Ithihaasa.
It even has its eschatology about the final destination of man. Because it has traditionally focused not only on belief but also the right action, and because it allows individuals to envision the divine according to their own understanding, this does not mean that it doesn’t have a certain world view. The world view is specifically that the Divine is not separate from man and that man’s perception of the separation stems from Maya.

Earlier I had written about the Hawaii monks. Here is their web site.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com

Go to publications section in the above web site, there is a online books section, you will get Living, Dancing and Merging with Siva. There is Loving Ganesha. There are many more, for those who are interested.

“This kind of lemon has been sold a lot” – hillarious 🙂

For those who are interested in learning more about Hinduism and want it explained in more western terms, please go to http://www.dharmacentral.com and check out the articles by Dr. Frank Morales. Joseph Campbell’s book on Oriental Mythology might also help clear up doubts about the symbolism of Indian Mythology and how it ties up with the Vedantic world view.

@Harapriya#72

I agree with your description of Hinduism. I also agree what you say about the untruth and falsehoods that have been perpetuated. The injuntion attributed in the Vedas that “all paths of worship of God lead to the same God” obviously has meaning in its rightful context: the Bhagavid Gita has it that it is through action, acts of worship in the home etc. How can that be equated with what Muslims believe of Allah as the complete submission to his will? Or with Christians, complete submission to the will of Jesus? When I talk of submission, it is really about submission to the state as these religions envisage for themslves. It is also about their idea of a state within a state which have asssumed responsibility when they have either taken over their host state or when their own nations have failed them. Christianity rendered valuable service to the West in the Middle ages when political and moral order failed. Hinduism has not been able to do this because of the plaurality of views it sought to represent and what defines it even today in a different world context. What I see is the vacuum caused by the failure of Hinduism in the social and moral spehere is being filled by other contenders for power be it Islam, Christianity, communism, Maosim et al. What I mean by social and moral failure of Hinduism, is its willingness (may be its politics) to accept abject poverty and exclusion without really intending to do anything about the peoples conditions. The fact remains is that Muslim nations are flush with funds which they are willing to use to win over India to Islam, and Christians seeing a danger of a disturbance to political order in the world by this change are equally committed too.

The lessons for Hinduism is quite evident in the narration of the changing social and political order of ancient India. The forces of religion are as compelling now as they were then, because they reflect changing balance of power. Hinduism in modern times has ignored them and for which India has been in turmoil for a millenium. Unless the issues are honestly and fully addressed, and I have seen little evidence that they are, we will be subsumed for good or ill by more powerful forces that are playing themselves out.

The Hindu method as is quite evident has been to acede to a gradual change by accretion of layer upon layer of a narrative that informs the country that it is today. That is fine for a country in the distant past where myths tell of the struggle of one God over another as a euphemism of violent political change: that is no less true today.

@Incognito, detailed analysis at a sentence level and I can also do that. Please dont try to analyze stuff that is not being said and interpret to ur liking.

1) >The major thing that is needed is respect towards women and not this posturing of vedanta and culture.

Should be blind posturing without following and understanding real vedanta.If you cant follow this point sorry cant help it.

2) About skirts, jeans etc:

Covering clothes is also not followed when dothis are worn without shirts, when shorts are worn etc. I think every human knows what is his/her health requirement. I have seen people in cold climates wear shorts once the sun shows its head, but temperature will be very low, will you force them to wear five layers? Forcing rules based on prejudices isnt right. Do those who are asking for covered attire say to skin cancer? Absolutely not.

c. But lack of action on the former should not be cited as justification to not act on the latter:
Unfortunately most of the dialog w.r.t to women’s rights is always one sides most of the time. Once we question, then such arguments of ‘dont question the other problem’
are given.

d)>Don’t give the lemon that every person who maligns indian culture is doing it altruistically.
Those framing rules in name of saving Indian culture isnt doing it altruistically either!

e)>Only those who see the problems by themselves do it.
So all these rape victims, abused women should purge Indian culture of these problems right? All others will add to injury in name of protection of culture, say this woman didnt wear right clothes, so can be called a slut etc. If we talk against it, we become anti-hindu culture, thanks for that title. I have already been called hindu fundamentalist, now anti-hindu culture and distributing lemons in the name of other side folks. Excellent waiting to hear the next name too!!

d) >and hence for both modesty reasons and protecting culture we should not abandon them.

Sorry that should have been abandon our attire like sarees etc. But oh wait, u didnt understand the sentence, without even seeking clarification made your own judgement! I never said we should abandon anything, I am only against giving stupid reasons to frame rules for women when our culture is going to drains for other reasons. Indian culture is not going to get lost if people dont wear saree or will not survive with that alone. But it is already getting lost due to the way women are treated.

However u chose to ignore possible typos, and dont even care to see what the person is trying to imply. I know you are strong hindu, love our culture. But your argument is only producing revolt in even strong hindus like me. Are you going to change minds this way? This is the problem with the hindu nationalists, most are like you or nanda. So ordinary hindus like us get repelled from it, and prefer to keep quiet. Should everything be looked at as a threat to hindu culture? Am I as common hindu not even allowed to wear a jeans to work? Does that make me less hindu? If I wear a short skirt as my professional attire does that make me less hindu? However now I am being labelled as giving out lemons why?

a) I said what’s wrong in women wearing any attire of their choice, why should that be based on the inability of men to control their senses
b) I said our culture is not in threat due to dresses, its more important to respect women first before going into such petty rules.
c) I said pointing out problems in our culture is not wrong, it is needed and needs to be fixed, and there are sincere people too, but didnt realize pointing any problem in our culture is a serious no no, it makes you anti hindu
d) I wanted values to instilled in children, and others, but you see the topic of vedanta offtracked the purpose, my bad. I didnt realize values and vedanta are not synonymous, and path of vedanta can only be lived and learned when one attains the self, and till then people can do any crime. I didnt know all this positive action, helping others, service, not causing harm etc cant be done till one attains the self. MY bad, didnt know what vedanta even meant.

As a result of all these instead of focusing on the women’s problem, it has become a task of adding one more person to the list of vehement anti-hindus. I know I will get a reply please say who said “anti-hindu” , but extrapolation is possible by everyone.

The only girl in this forum putting her point of view w.r.t to this topic is given an open hearing by only a couple of people, one so called “rabid anti hindu”. Once men start listening to women and hearing their point of view without being so defensive lot of issues will get solved. This isnt about hinduism or istam or anything, but how much people are willing to hear the woman and understand her.

82- >>>> Please dont try to analyze stuff that is not being said and interpret to ur liking.

Why don’t you give specific examples of such behaviour in others if there are any as you allege, instead of exhibiting such behaviour yourself.

>>> Should be blind posturing without following and understanding real vedanta.If you cant follow this point sorry cant help it.

You were asked to prove your charge of ‘posturing’. Instead you qualify it with ‘blind posturing without following and understanding real vedanta’.

This irresponsibility towards your words and the charges you make is unbecoming.

>>>> Covering clothes is also not followed when dothis are worn without shirts, when shorts are worn etc.

Yup, they are not suitable dresses for going to college.

>>>> I think every human knows what is his/her health requirement

Thats an assumption from you.

>>> I have seen people in cold climates wear shorts …

Suggest to them to wear a shirt also when they are on their way to college.

>>> Forcing rules based on prejudices isnt right.

Charging without substantiating is again not right. This has been pointed out before.

>>> Do those who are asking for covered attire say to skin cancer? Absolutely not.

Not clear.

>>> Unfortunately most of the dialog w.r.t to women’s rights is always one sides most of the time.

This tendency to see things from lenses of women’s rights, ‘minority’ rights, ‘dalit’ rights, student’s rights, his rights, my rights, etc., instead of what is RIGHT, Dharma, is the result of the ‘surgery’ that was advocated in your earlier comment.

And this proclivity to forgo Dharma, what is Right, for narrow self interest or interest of a segment of society is the reason for the decline of Dharma or Righteousness in society and the accompanying ills of corruption and damage to environment.

>>> Once we question, then such arguments of ‘dont question the other problem’ are given.

Please don’t misconstrue deliberately.
You know very well that that was not what was said.

You are absolutely free to question, and you know it too.
What was said was that lack of action on one side should not be cited as reason for not taking action on another side.

In a lighter vein a method to induce college authorities to take the action that you suggested was recommended to you as well.

>>> Those framing rules in name of saving Indian culture isnt doing it altruistically either!

That statement is a prime example of misconstruction.

You are imputing wrongly the excuse of ‘saving indian culture’ as the reason college authorities have given for the ban.

That is deliberate misconstruction. They have clearly stated their intent of bannig such clothes as to discourage the menace of eve-teasing. NOT ‘saving indian culture’.

Comment 4, in case you deliberately chose to overlook, is about ‘Commodification’ of human being by interested parties to sell their products.

The effect of such ‘commodification’ in contributing to behaviour such as eve-teasing was also stated.

‘Saving indian culture’ is your construct that you are imputing Wrongly.

Such misconceptions, deliberate and otherwise is the result of insisting on viewing things only through the self-chosen lens mentioned before.

>>> Only those who see the problems by themselves do it.
So all these rape victims, abused women should purge Indian culture of these problems right?

Do you mean to suggest that the spiritual leaders mentioned in that context were all of these that you have mentioned now ?

The point is that these spiritual leaders saw the problems existing in society at that time due to abandonment of ancient indian culture and strove to rectify it.

The sentance used in that comment is being repeated here so that you may overcome your tendency to deliberately overlook clear facts. “Swami Vivekananda, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Narayana Guru had the ability, just like everybody else, to see the problems and took actions to rectify them.”

Note the words ” had the ability, just like everybody else , to see the problems and took actions to rectify them.”

Have you understood what is being said, now ?

>>> All others will add to injury in name of protection of culture, say this woman didnt wear right clothes, so can be called a slut etc.

Isn’t that again, a display of the tendency to deliberately misquote and mis-attribute ?

>> If we talk against it, we become anti-hindu culture, thanks for that title.

Aren’t you trying to see yourself as a martyr here, without reason ?

>>> I have already been called hindu fundamentalist, now anti-hindu culture and distributing lemons in the name of other side folks. Excellent waiting to hear the next name too!!

The first two qualifications are entirely your appropriation for yourself.
The third one is a fabrication of yours. It was the ‘idea’ in that context that was criticised as ‘lemon’. Not your actions, Not you the person. But you are trying to extract personal mileage in the mistaken impression that if you claim to have been branded such and such, you will gain some moral high ground. This mistaken impression is due to the internalisation of teachings of the church who feed the lemon that son of god died for your sins, all you now have to do is accept that you are a sinner and consider him as saviour.
Those who get taken in by this lemon inherently do not feel saved nor satisfied. They seek to dispel their dissatisfaction by trying to feel the pain of being crucified intellectually. So these people try to appropriate for themselves brands which can possibly help them in ‘feeling martyred’.
So such attempts.

But, such attempts to feel martyred are actually futile. Even Christ did not feel martyred when he was crucified. He merely said to the effect that these people don’t know what they are doing, which is more of a comment on the ignorance and idiocy of those who were crucifying him.
Probably Christ would have commented the same on those who are trying to become intellectual martyrs as well.

>and hence for both modesty reasons and protecting culture we should not abandon them.
Sorry that should have been abandon our attire like sarees etc.

Do you mean to say that your sentance should have read- “I have a question to those who keep talking of jeans, skirts as not Indian attire and hence for both modesty reasons and protecting culture we should abandon our attire like sarees etc. ” (?)

It makes sense only if you say ” … abandon them for our attire like sarees etc. “. Which is what was suggested in comment 75.

If you meant something else, please clarify.

>>> But oh wait, u didnt understand the sentence, without even seeking clarification made your own judgement!

As mentioned above, that sentance is still unclear. So, an ‘If so, . . . ‘ was used in comment 75, which means ‘no sweeping judgement’.

>>> I am only against giving stupid reasons to frame rules for women when our culture is going to drains for other reasons.

As mentioned before, you are bringing in the reason of ‘culture’ incorrectly.

>>> Indian culture is not going to get lost if people dont wear saree or will not survive with that alone.

Nobody suggested otherwise, if you care to notice.

>>> But it is already getting lost due to the way women are treated.

This is the case of putting the cart before the horse, mentioned in comment 75.

It is due to losing of the culture that women are not treated well, not only women, nobody is treated well, including nature, if you care to notice.

>>> I know you are strong hindu, love our culture.

Beg to differ on both. The ‘our culture’ that we are having now is actually ‘cultureless’, if you care to notice.

>>> But your argument is only producing revolt in even strong hindus like me.

Understandable, given that ancient indians did not call themselves hindu. So their culture is different from those who call themselves such. Any argument in support of the ancient indian philosophy is likely to generate ‘revolt’ in ‘strong hindus’.

>>> Are you going to change minds this way?

Didn’t Krishna say, do what you have to do.
Don’t you think that is worthwhile following …. ? Or because Krishna did not call himself a ‘hindu’, it is not ?

>>> Should everything be looked at as a threat to hindu culture?

That is for you who call yourself ‘hindu’ to consider.

>>> I said what’s wrong in women wearing any attire of their choice, why should that be based on the inability of men to control their senses

Feel free to wear your choice.
But when you come to college, come with not with the purpose of showing off your body or your fashion sense. Even if that may not be your intention, some other girls may construe that to be the case and may feel that they too should follow you.
Wear what you want to wear when you go out in the evening.
In college respect the rules and the environment which should be to foster learning.

>>> I said our culture is not in threat due to dresses, its more important to respect women first before going into such petty rules.

Rules for colleges are the prerogative of colleges. They are duty bound to frame rules to create suitable environment for fostering studies.

The issue of culture is something you have been trying to bring in unreasonably, as pointed out before.

>>> I said pointing out problems in our culture is not wrong, it is needed

Not pointing out. What is needed is understanding why the problems are there and taking steps to resolve them.

>>> I wanted values to instilled in children, and others, but you …

If you care to read comment 75, you will notice that the need to inculcate values in children was absolutely agreed to. The rest of your comment are further examples of mis-attributing and misconstruction that you have been displaying a tendency for.

>>> Once men start listening to women and hearing their point of view without being so defensive lot of issues will get solved.

Abandoning the lens of ‘women’ may be a first step to seeing reality as it is.

Lets not get too touchy about clothing. Its fashion and it keeps rotating. Few years in jeans and few years in salwar-kameez and few years in skirts. I still remember tight clothes(even slawar kameez wear tight) for women during sharmila, Nanda, Babita and Asha Parekh times, than bell bottoms during Zinnat, Neetu Singh times and what not. College girls use to wear all such clothes in 50’s, 60’s, 70’s and 80’s too. Than came slawar- kameez back. So its keep rotating. Only filmy people and celebrity has that capacity to change the society. In my community many rituals wear considered old and obsolete, but when they showed in many of the Karan Johar movies it has become trend to go in to the details of rituals. Ethnic suits too are in trend now. So in that respect ethnic dresses will be in fashion in few years.

@Harapriya,

There is a dress code almost everywhere. And I feel that no one does really object to one. Or am I oversimplifying? People from North India take off their shirts and wear a mundu over their pants when entering Guruvayur temple. They consider it a minor inconvenience to be suffered for darshan. Local customs ki Jai! A furore erupts when someone is turned away from a club or a hotel for not wearing shoes or a pair of pants. Not so much Jai?

This is no big deal, and we have been unconsciously conforming to many dress codes without even noticing them, piercing our body parts and face and hanging strange matallic shapes from them, cutting/shaving/tying up our hair, carrying weapons openly, doing many unhealthy things and even saying that we will not conform and thus conforming to a certain style of nonconformism. This has nothing to do with health or local conditions. Fashion comes first and the philosophers follow to attribute reason to any act.

The Kanpur diktat was symbolic, and the protests were also so. The learned professors tried to put girls in their place, and they refused to take it lying down. ( Nasty sexist pun unintended). The opponents in this issue understood each other very well. Everyone knows that even niqab or age does not really protect a woman from men, so why the sham? And the discrimination? Of course, the professors might have read Desmond Morris and known that the male body does not really turn on a female, so they might be right after all.

It is true that feminists should concentrate on the really big issues. But, ma’am, this is a war of attrition. No one will come out and say “Thou art a woman. Thou shalt not have a free and full life”. Freedom has to be chipped away bit by bit, all the while repeating the “It is for your own protection” mantra, so that in the end the subject accepts the chains as an ornament. How much better it is to have the subjects police themselves? After all, the bahu is mostly burnt by the saas, and female circumcision is carried out by women with the help of the mother. I also remember Muslim women staging a protest at a meeting where Shah Bano was to speak. Against her. The thin edge normally has a wedge behind it.

And in case this was not such a big issue, why should people come down upon Vidhya like a ton of bricks? If she was only tilting at windmills, the reaction was overkill.

91- >>>> “It has been seen that eve-teasers generally target girls wearing jeans or modern clothes.”
This was the issue – the linkage of the dress code to eve-teasing i.e. transferring the crime from the doer to the recipient.”

—“It has been seen that eve-teasers generally target girls wearing jeans or modern clothes.”

That is an observation.

—“This was the issue – the linkage of the dress code to eve-teasing ”

A link was observed .

—” i.e. transferring the crime from the doer to the recipient ”

This is a construction made by the commenter, however, in doing so, the crucial fact about the observation of a link between the dress and the act of teasing is overlooked.

>>>>”We have a dress code in our office, too – no jeans.”

Thats funny.

A dress code in office is agreeable. But one in college, where students go to study (not to indulge in dressing up which they can do in their leisure, on holidays or in the evenings), is not agreeable.
This is not understood.

Office goers could be considered more mature and therefore more responsible regarding the choice of dresses than college students. But here it is the office goers who are given a dress code which is vehemently opposed for the college students.

lack of rational thinking by self-claimed rationalists ? Or inability to distingush between what is RIGHT and what is not, due to conditioning over long period through feeding on propaganda of interested parties without independent analysis ?

The observation that “It has been seen that eve-teasers generally target girls wearing jeans or modern clothes.”, if correct, needs to be analysed.

Eve-teasing or any other misdemeanour for that matter, cannot be ascribed to instigation from victim’s side. As has been commented in this blog, women dressed properly are also subjected to mis-behaviour.
This points to the probablity that deviant behaviour
stems from the mind of the deviant.

At the same time, the observation of link between the dress and the act of teasing should not be overlooked.

Behaviour such as eve-teasing etc., is, quite often, the result of seeing women as inferior to men, sometimes as ‘objects’. This is a notion prevalent due to the paternalistic and male-chauvinistic attitdes in society.
In this context the lines by Vidhya in comment 49- “How many households allow their male kids to do household work, it is the realm of women. How many parents teach young boys to respect other women as their sisters, or mothers? ” is pertinent.
The notion that women are inferior actually reveals the inherent insecurity of male-chauvinistic societial consciousness. It actually demonstrates its inferiority.

Nevertheless, many men as well as many women are influenced by this prevalent notion. The support some women have given to wearing of burkha is, to some extent, an indicator of this.

This societial attitude generates a reactionary force among some, notably, among so called feminists. Their method of reaction is to aggressively oppose the prevalent notions. Although it may appear that condition of women are improving in some ways due to the efforts of such ‘activism’, actually the fundamentals that caused the notions to prevail are not addressed, with the result that such so-called ‘change’ is cosmetic and confined to limited circles. The larger society is unaffected and unmoved.

Moreover, what appears to be ‘change’ often turns out to be blind acceptanece of notions of permissiveness, which is actively exploited by marketing agents to further their profits.

These are factors that needs to be understood.

Tight clothes and revealing clothes are most often designed to project certain body parts.

While this form of deriving self-worth through being appreciated for one’s skin tone, colour and shape of body parts is not bad in itself, it has a secondary effect of promoting a thought on impressionable minds that it is those parts that are significant and that they needs to be maintained well to be appreciated.

This leads to ‘de-valuing’ of human.

College is a place which should ideally foster higher thoughts in students.

That being so, dress code in colleges that promote sense of decency and respect for human being should not be opposed. Students are free to indulge their fashion sense when they go out during evenings or during weekends.

I offer my observations on the issue. I first wore jeans in my teens for a mixture of reasons. Unlike most concerned I was slow on the take but I saw no reason for being part of a fashion which demonstrated some practical benefits. At school I wore my uniform which I had to change out of at home. They were tough and practical for the work and play activities I was involved in. Later on I found jeans were too costly to dry at the laundery in winter months I discarded them. The few that I had I bought then lasted so long that I threw them away many years later though they had little wear and tear. The jean and tight cloth fitting culture of todays young women is an expression of their sexuality (as it is for men who want to express that they are equipped to do something tough) and that would be the case whatever they wear. Reading the Kama Sutra, I actually thought our people could not have been more liberated in our social habits in ancient times. I expect nothing but denunciation from the Islamics who would have all women covered head to toe, or Chief Justice Cyriac Joseph who obviously holds to the Christine equivalent. It seems in the election, great harm was done to the electoral prospects of the BJP by self styled parishads parading as the moral police. There is no doubt of the discomforture of the BJP to what it regards as cultural pollution by the West. The question I ask is which version of Hinduism are they defending, and is it the right one? The Eve teasing and ragging that has proved such a problem amongst the youths in India has to be addressed by providing the outlets for their high testerone behaviour. Love and romance is a normal part of growng up for any healthy young man and woman. Our hard past has lost sight of what was most precious to our civilisation. It is hardly going to be managed by dress code alone. Imitating die hard Muslims and Christians is no answer.

After reading all the above points I feel very sad. In a country like india where we consider women as god, call her shakti behind everylife and worship her. There are many who say something and do opposite. I m really shocked to see that more ppl are in favour of this ban then actually opposing it. And this mentality is the only reason why we are like this today. In india we have everything by nature and it is a blessed place by god for natural resources. But it is the thinking and mentality of us which made this country one of the worst place to live. It is our nature to look at others and pass comments abt them. Why can’t we live our life and let them live there? If a girl is happy in wearing short/skinny/skimpy outfit wht is ur problem. If u don’t like just get lost from that place.she is not telling u anything. She is not objecting on ur cloth. She is not raising any doubt abt ur character then who the hell are u to stop her.

We talk abt culture and society and other serious issue, friends when we say some 30-40 odd ppl on this blog cann’t agree on one simple issue of giving women there due right , wht good we all will do to society. Here it look like we made it a ego point . we shd work towards improveing our society. Today every Indian and it is the fact we live in fear. Fear of parents, fear of school teacher, fear of society, fear of police, fear of politics, fear of friends, fear fear and fear. We need to get rid of this fear and how we can, by making our society a better place to live, by giving each individual his space. We need to learn abt giving others there right to exist. We shd learn to give others there freedom. Live and let live shd be our motto

96- >>> … cann’t agree on one simple issue of giving women there due right ,

Dress code for college students = violating women’s rights ( ? )

Note 1- Same dress code applicable to teachers also, regardless of gender.

Note 2- Similar dress code already followed by many office goers such as commenter 91.

Note 3- Dress code not applicable after college hours and outside campus.

>>>>> We need to learn abt giving others there right to exist.

Dress code in college = denying others the ‘right to exist’ ( ? )

Mis-identifying ‘dress’ as one’s ‘self’ causes equating of dress code with denial of ‘right to exist’.

99- >>> in office one can follow dress code cos one is not owner just employee so he is bound with rules and before joineing the job one has agree for that.

Are students the owners of the college ?

>>>> in collage if at the time of admision u say we have dress code for all it is ok, but suddely u impose this code and that too for cetain sex this is not acceptable.

It implies that the dress code being suggested is something unavailable in the market, that it is something outrageous. Ground reality is exactly the opposite.

As for the gender issue, note that the dress code is applicable to ALL students of the four colleges considered AND to ALL teachers as well, regardless of gender .

>>> look at the reason given, it help eveteasers means we are surranding infront of them.

As if eve-teasers are engaged in a war to make girls wear decent clothes and if girls do so, it would mean they have surrendered to eve-teasers!

This is the logic of that erstwhile union minister who exhorted women to fill the pubs to show that they have not surrendered to Muthalik!

>>> tomoorow if those eve teasers start teasing girls wearing saree we will stop our womens from comeing out of home then???

A relation was observed between the wearing of so called ‘modern’ dresses and the act of eve-teasing.

It is noteworthy that advertisers who want to catch the attention of male customers invariably use scantily clad women as props.

More importantly, do not feel that the eve-teasers are being deprived of their fun. Since the dress code is suggested only for the college, those who insist on not ‘surrendering’ to eve-teasers are free to wear their choice dresses when they go to movies and resteraunts in the evenings and during weekeneds.

The suggested dress code will probably only help in moving the eve-teasers from in front of the colleges to resteraunts and movie halls. So both parties can have their fun without disturbing the college environment.

And that brings up the hundred!

But that is no cause for celebrations, since in our land it is not righteousness that dictates political action now, it is selfish political interest and whims as shown by the political directive in this case.

some ppl just wanna say something without thinking wht they are talking. and this is the sadest part of this country is we have lots and lots of this type of breed in our country.

Hey Incognito & Patriot, could you guys maybe try and talk to each other directly by addressing each other instead of using third person – that would be the mature and polite way to discuss an issue, no? I mean, you talk of making India great and what not, and can’t even have a discussion with your fellow-countrymen directly and with kindness? 🙂

As for code of conduct for students, all colleges have such a code of conduct – in some case, it may be a dress code, in others, related to use of drugs/illegal substance, or noise issues, or ragging. So, I see nothing unreasonable in certain rules or a ‘code of conduct’ that a college administration has for its students or faculty and staff. Yes, in many cases, this code of conduct may not be strictly enforced by college administration, but it’s still there in the books.

Anyway, all of this stuff may just become discussions for curious academics in the future, if women decide to tread this path, without men:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/09/women-men-better-off-without

The science will be ready in about 10 years, so say it will take about 100 or so years for men to be wiped out completely.

Ouch! But, would be justice rendered, I think.