Great - tourists come to visit India and get treated like criminals by some Nazi police officer, and the half wits at Times of India report it gleefully. Idiots.

This story is bloody depressing. Some details are a bit odd, though - two strangers from Muslim, and presumably conservative, countries start necking in public within minutes of meeting eachother...is there more to this story than meets the eye?

The police and public in India seem to be selective about who they target for indecency charges. When I was a lot younger, I travelled to Bengal with my then-boyfriend (who was white, to make things worse), and we pretty much spent the entire trip in a clinch. We kissed on the street, we kissed at dhabas, we kissed on crowded trains. We got a few voyeurs gawking and trailing us - but no one said or did anything hostile.

Somebody please tell me the difference between this post and the Orientalist posts that this website so regularly denigrates.

Yes, someone please explain to AQ the difference between a cowpath and Mumbai.

ooooh... someone is a wannabe Nicholas Kristof today, reporting on oppressed women in India South Asia from the sheltered "bunker" (is that what you guys call your dwelling?). Lazy Sunday haan? Probably you ought to see the Samberg/Parnell clip.

Totally agree with A Question. Besides, when in Rome do as the Romans. There's definitly a bit of dissing here - like they're only repressed Indians, lets show them what liberation is. I doubt people like Uberwench would be as blase in parts of the U.S. where this is not acceptable. And the contrast between the U.S. and say Italy is stark. Why is it so hard to understand that people in different parts of the world have varying levels of comfort with this?

Yes, someone please explain to AQ the difference between a cowpath and Mumbai.

More Indians live on cowpaths ;)

Prope//er explains sexuality for us:

... I used to go my friends place to watch late night TV... his mom showed up when there was this real hot scene on TV and I really didn't know what to do except hold the paper and stand in front of the TV.

You have absolutely no idea how big of an invention the remote is. I used to sit next to the TV to switch channels and made my parents believe that this was really a spot I liked to watch TV from. So I had to sit right in front for Ramayan, Mahabharat, Superman, Chitrahaar, News, Cricket all these just so that I wont be suspect when I watch late night TV. [Link]

Why is it so hard to understand that people in different parts of the world have varying levels of comfort with this?

Do you support jailing people for kissing in public?

Do you support jailing people for kissing in public?

No. Not at all. And I also hate the morality police. I just have a problem with the attitude that the Indian way (what you call repressed) is the one that needs solution and not the western way - to use a matching pejorative, promiscuity.

There defintely should not be laws against such behavior. I'm surprised there are. Bet if we dig deep enough to find the origin of these laws we'd probably trace them to the British. They're the ones who instituted all kinds of morality laws. Indians never ever had them. I just meant to show support for the Indian way, which is to go by tradition not laws.

To Divya - I'm Canadian-born, perhaps don't get what you mean by the parts of the US where kissing in public is not acceptable. Where in the US would it not be acceptable??? Besides which, I wasn't 'dissing India' - in fact, me and my fellow-clincher were generally treated tolerantly. I do diss the law which jailed/deported this couple.

Divya,

English have been gone from India for now ~60 years. Isn't time, we looked carefully and re-evaluated our social conditioning?

Morality police in India is like cockroaches, they show up every where. On Valentine's day, some of the morality police vandalized a person's brother death anniversary and harassed the women themselves - all in the name of stopping valentine day celebrations.

I do not know if nostaglia is doing tricks, if I remember, things get out of control very easily.

I agree that some of these laws originated during English period or during the series of invasions from Central Asia from 7th century onwards. The whole concept of military garisson having its own social structure, cantonment (as seen in India and other British colonies) was to minimize social contact but still, it is about time...........

I could never fathom or stomach the "no sex please, we are indian" hypocrisy.
And it is not as if we living by this mantra.....no sirreee, babulal
If anything, we are having way too much sex.......evidence, the burgeoning population, which will soon surpass China's.

Anyone read the Laws of Manu lately? Looks like a bunch of moral laws, Hindu-made, to me...pretty nasty consequences for violations too. Aint just the nasty English and Muslim invaders who started it all.

Most prolly the ady was a proffessional sex worker. You find a bunch of them from that part of world(Russia and rest of USSR too) in India these days.

Dharma Queen:

Manu's laws were never followed in ancient India. To wit - Ajanta, Ellora and Kamasutra.
And whether we like it or not, the invaders [Muslim and British] did impose their mores on our ancestors.
It is a different matter, that we should stop assigning blame and work towards a more evolved society.

Looks like I stomped on some sore nerve here, nice segue by the way. Manish, we are aware of your Google and "data-mining" skills :), we weren't questioning them.

Yes, please update us when you watch Spice Channel with parents and siblings in the same room. Till then, Carrry on Googling.

The ToI claims two tourists from Morocco and the UAE were deported for making out in Mumbai. What say we pass the hat so the thin khaki line gets laid once in awhile?

Back to the topic at hand, what exactly is your point of your post? Me thinks you have some issues yourself.

[*] Suggest somehow that Indians are all repressed
[*] The khaki people don't get laid and therefore arrest people who are all lovey-dovey?
[*] Suggest that Indian Police can't find its way out of a wet paper bag?
[*] India is a pi**pot and that people be free to overstay their Visa.

The Sulekha post also makes a point, I do not watch porno with my parents in the room. The Union Station in Washington DC has shields covering the private parts of Roman figures based on the ordinance passed by the US government. It has nothing to do with repression. By the same token, choose your location to get intimate. If you are a tourist, do your homework on what to do and what not to do. Of course, this argument does not in anyway justify manhandling.

You are probably making yourself look silly with another of your tabloid topics. What next? Desi Body Odour and Hairy Indian Women?

"the invaders [Muslim and British] did impose their mores on our ancestors"

Or sometimes, they themselves acted in ways that seemed self-censorship and/ or self-preservation. Like more use of sati, and many more things.

That all happened centuries ago, time to move on.

We may have been a land of kama sutra or what not, but in present day India, being repressed is the norm rather exception.

Kush Tandon et al.,

Why is this being discussed under the guise of repression? Isn't this a case of etiquette? Ofcouse, manhandling by the police is a totally different question. India is a country in transition. You can't fire up a laptop, read the news and expect people to behave the way you do. 10 years from now, unless Osama's bhateeja takes over India, Manish would be a happy camper when he fires up his laptop to see tourist's lip-locking with possibly Celine Dion's songs in the background. Who knows. Manish, you like Celine Dion? :) What? did I say something offensive? Am I being blocked?

Many of us would be happy to admit that US society is also repressed (ie for example, with respect to homosexuals) if some of you would please spare us the 'You Americans do it too' species of defensiveness. Whatever the Americans, or Canadians, or British do, does not make this stupid law regarding kissing in public right.

As loath as I am to dig up dead posts, reading prop!!er's peeve, I am compelled to make an exception and jump in.
Merits of this post notwithstanding, there does seem a tendency amongst soem mutineers to denigrate Indian societal norms.
I recall for you a post from some whiles back where one of your writers couldn't stop sniggering [at those poor supressed Indian women] when she/he came across a grocery shopping bag from India, which was embalzzoned with the term- "Ladies' best friend".
The fact that this bag was story worthy in itself speaks volumes.
As if American houselholdd cleaning products or various other " home chores" related products are never targetted towards women.

propeller,

Please forget Manish and his data mining skills for a moment. let me ask you three questions, please answer me honestly. Hope Manish does not mind.

1) You are walking with your girlfriend @ 10:00 PM in a dark alley. A jeep/ van of five policemen pulls up. Where would you rather be in this moment - a) Dallas or b) Delhi?

2) You are a women, you and your friends are walking from movie theater to home @ 7:30 PM, winter night. You have noticed an overbearing cop walking up to you guys. Where do you wish you were a) Madrid or b) Mumbai?

3) Are Indians are more repressed, as in present-day compared to their counter-parts in Americas (both North and South), parts of Africa, and Europe? Yes or No answer.

4) Are cops in India significantly less self-disciplined, compared to other liberal democracies in present-day? Yes or No. Please do not bring 60s Jim Crow laws and incidents.

Anyone can answer these questions. I am not going to debate their answers, just give some answers @ SM.

You are probably making yourself look silly with another of your tabloid topics.

What your nani thinks of PDAs: tabloid

Enforcing at gunpoint what your nani thinks of PDAs: bad law

Conflating individual with state, tabloid with law, sexual freedom with ultrafeminism and any critique of India with treason: priceless. You've earned your rep well:

have you noticed that no one takes you seriously? [Link]

there does seem a tendency amongst soem mutineers to denigrate Indian societal norms.

A lot of Indian societal norms need to be reformed, especially gender roles and sexual freedom. See related posts.

one of your writers couldn't stop sniggering [at those poor supressed Indian women] when she/he came across a grocery shopping bag from India, which was embalzzoned with the term- "Ladies' best friend".

Where?

Denigrating societal norms is a happy perk of all modern, liberal, democratic societies. Young people in the 20s and the 60s in much of the Western world shocked mainstream society with their ridicule, denigration and flouting of societal norms.

what's the problem? different rules in different places...India is not US...India is conservative and this type of behavior is not acceptable in public there, so these people getting arrested was justified

India is conservative and this type of behavior is not acceptable in public there

BOMBAY, India - Along Marine Drive, a sweeping ocean promenade ringed by fading art-deco buildings, lovers kiss and grope each other on the sea wall, seemingly oblivious to the showers of ocean spray and frenetic traffic around them... At the lush Hanging Gardens, scores of couples lie stretched out strategically among the flower beds, only feet from one another. Many are covered partially or completely by colorful dupattas - long women's scarves... "People always came here to romance," says Vimal Saave, a reedy man in a fraying khaki uniform who has tended the garden for 22 years... [Link]

Manu's laws were never followed in ancient India. To wit - Ajanta, Ellora and Kamasutra..

what, did ancient india have a french style centralized government? i.e., if ajanta, ellora and kamasutra exist than it means that the laws of manu had no force anywhere at anytime?

puleez.

Manish: how does that prove that it's acceptable there...?

i think tourists should try to respect the local customs wherever they go - it is common sense, and brings you less trouble. but that is different from justifying the police actions here. I have heard even in places like Bangalore, police is constantly on the look out for couples in parks (esp if they can sense the couple is not married) and the cops find it a nice way to make some money as well - telling them that their parents will have to come and sign the papers to release them is a very common blackmail. this morality police stinks - and there is plenty of rotten things in india and they deserve to be talked about. that is how change comes about.

also, how much revisionism can we engage in at this point with a straight face? are the hard-core hindutva style religious conservatives the ones who "throw off" muslim and british imposed mores re: modesty & sexuality? as opposed to westernized indians who hew to outsider morality? brownee puleez.

prudishness isn't a surprising cultural invention, it is a human bias which gets expressed to various levels in various cultures for various reasons.

how does that prove that it's acceptable there...?

It's quite acceptable among the young in Bombay, and the vast majority of Indians and presumably Bombayites are under 35.

Anyone read the Laws of Manu lately?

Um, I don't think anyone's read the Manu laws. Except the commies of course. And they were never state sponsored, or legally-binding.

Kush - It would be the greatest boon for India if it scrapped the British laws. They were conceived to serve the Empire and are actually seriously bogging the country down.

I have no interest in getting embroiled in one of these stupid arguments, it should be pretty apparent where I stand by agreeing that Indian societal norms DO need challenging and my answers to Kush's questions are: Dallas, Madrid, No, Probably (note he said liberal democracies).

However I just wanted to voice my appreciation for a genius line which seems to have been either misinterpreted or taken out of context:

What say we pass the hat so the thin khaki line gets laid once in awhile?

That's brilliant. Propeller if you're claiming sexual frustration has nothing to do with how Indian police treat people then you are almost certainly male and are unlikely to have been around many Indian policemen.

Manish: bombay is not india...bombay is quite urban and westernized so Im not surprised but the majority of Indians and India in general do not approve of these behaviors.

the punjab police get laid all the time

This issue isn't only one of 'etiquette', and 'doing what the Romans do'. In sexually repressive societies, women pay by not being allowed certain freedoms, being blamed for rape etc., and both sexes are miserably unfulfilled.

I remember going to a cinema hall in Kolkata one night with my boyfriend and being puzzled that the first three rows were filled with young men. The show was a European arthouse film. Eventually, from some of the comments I heard, I gathered that these men came to see Western films in hopes of seeing nude scenes etc. Then a middle-aged man came in after the film had begun and sat directly behind us. The hall was fairly empty but for the first few rows, so this was odd. I suddenly felt a finger running down my back, through the crack between seats. I turned around sharply, but the man pretended to look at the film. He did this several times and we moved. I could have freaked at him, but for a finger running down my back?? Afterward, I just felt sad for him. Imagine what a lonely life you must have to get off on running your finger down some woman's back.

It is amazing that anyone is defensive of traditions and laws that make so many people unhappy.

Right - so now we know - if it wasnt for the Muslims and British India would have been the most progressive and wonderful land of joy and justice, ambrosial laughter, sexual equality, there would have been no caste oppression, women would be free, in fact it would be like heaven on Earth. Any mention of the laws of Manu is a conspiracy by the commies. I get you. Oh yeah - the commies - they are like the Muslims and British, all have a part to play in violating the virginal sanctity of ancient India, her wonderfulness, perfection, utopian joyful pleasent and sweet land of perfection where children played with gamboling deers. No shudra was ever treated like a cockroach, no woman was ever oppressed. Oh Divya, take us back to that time of sanctified perfection!

And what is it with people who say 'You are not showing respect to tradition and customs' - so what? Why should anyone show respect to any tradition or custom that they don't want to? Welcome to the 21st Century people, everyone gets to say what they want and challenge what they want!

I dug up old Manu for y'all:

"By the early centuries of the Common Era, Manu had become, and remained, the standard source of authority in the orthodox tradition for that centrepiece of Hinduism, varnastrama-dharma (social and religious duties tied to class and stage of life). Over the course of the centuries, the text attracted nine complete commentaries, attesting to its crucial significance within the tradition, and it is cited in other ancient Indian texts far more frequently than any other dharma sastra..."

So the law book wasn't some mutant one-hit wonder, preserved through the ages by virtue of its sheer freakiness. It was part of the fabric of Hindu society at one time. And women and sex don't do well in it...

So the law book wasn't some mutant one-hit wonder, preserved through the ages by virtue of its sheer freakiness. It was part of the fabric of Hindu society at one time. And women and sex don't do well in it...

Whoops! looks like Divya was telling some bare faced lies there. Either that, or she really does believe all of the brainwashed nonsense about conspiring commies and all - I don't know which is worse - either way they are both instructive. Time to get an education Divya.

Andand, There's no need to bust a blood vessel. And there's no need to fall for every bit of demented scholarship. And please do not accuse me of lying. How ridiculous to drag Manu and the caste system and sati into a discussion about kissing and police behavior. Do you think any of those cops have even heard of Manu?

This is so typical. Anyone says anything in defense of India and right on cue the entire brigage pipes up about the caste system and sati.

Divya

Relax sister, quit the pompous outrage. Follow the line of this thread and you will see how the issue arose, partly through the stupid claims made about India being plagued soleley by the laws of the British and Muslims and, ummm, the commies in a big conspiracy too; all impinging on a pristine India untainted by backwardness and stupidity. You need to understand that all things are open to questioning and not 'bust a blood vessel' yourself when you are called on it.

Now are you still seriously suggesting that the nastiness and brutality of life in India over the centuries was solely caused by the laws of the British and the Horrible Muslims? What was the influence of the laws of Manu on Indian life? Let us know Divya, let us know. Or is it all a commie conspiracy?

These people argue that womens' rights were worst in the "Vedic Dark Ages"

There were exceptions to the rule, even during the Vedic Dark Ages following the collapse of the Indus civilization. Eastern India (Purvadesha), including Bengal, with its majority Mon-Khmer population, was only slightly Aryanized. The Shakti cult (mother-goddess) predominated (75 % of all the idolatrous population is sill Shaktis), and women here had a much higher degree of freedom. Thus for instance they were not required to wear the veil. Shakti (or Tantric) cults involved the worship of women, and the acceptance of their supremacy. Needless to say, the Shakti cult was only limited to Bengal and Assam. The Dravidian women were also freeer. Malabar was a center of the Tantric form of the Shiva-Shakti cult, and matriarchal customs still prevail. Till recently, polyandry existed.

Besides these two islands, the rest of India confirmed to the picture given above. This lasted until the establishment of the Islamic Khalifat of Hindustan in the 12th century A.D. Muslims came to form more than 50 % of the population of Hindustan proper (India north of the Narmada), and under Islam, the status of women improved considerably.

In modern times the degradation of women’s status is related to the rise in Hindu Fundamentalism (in actual fact, a thinly disguised form of Aryan Fanaticism). The extremist organizations that comprise the Sangh Parivar (BJP, RSS, Bajrang Dal, Ranvir Sena, VHP etc.) are reviving the practice of Sati, dowry, female infanticide etc. in various parts of India. Thus, in modern times the status of women has declined sharply due to the activities of Hindu (i.e., Aryan) Fundamentalist organizations.

A wife, a son, a slave , these are declared to have no property; the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong. Manu 8.416 Manu 8.299 [A wife, a son, a slave, a pupil and a (younger) brother of the full blood, who have committed faults, may be beaten with a rope or a split bambboo. 9.77 ? When he created them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their( seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice and bad conduct.

More on Manu and women:

Manu Smrti.VIII.371 " If a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or (her own) excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her lord, the king shall cause her to be devoured by dogs in a place frequented by many."

Manu VIII.416
" A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property ; the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong."

Manu V.148
" In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a women must never be independant."

Manu Smrti IX.3
" Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independance"

Manu Smrti V.164
" By violating her duty towards her husband, a wife is disgraced in this world, (after death) whe enters the womb of a jackal, and is tormented by diseases (as the punishment of) her sin."

Well Anti-Divya the source of your screed is a religiously partisan site itself so it has an axe to grind too.

Nevertheless, the unrelenting drip of water - the outrage at the testing and criticism of 'customs', the paranoia and 'how dare you' mentality, all of it too predictable and useless, Divya and her type, one note pianos and one trick ponies.

And yet more on Manu and Women:

The most relentless of the Brahman law givers was Manu whose Code of Laws is the most anti-feminist literature one could find. At the outset Manu deprived woman of her religious rights and spiritual life. "Sudras, slaves and women" were prohibited from reading the Vedas. A woman could not attain heaven through any merit of her own. She could not worship or perform a sacrifice by herself. She could reach heaven only through implicit obedience to her husband, be he debauched or devoid of all virtues. Having thus denied her any kind of spiritual and intellectual nourishment, Manu elaborated the myth that all women were sinful and prone to evil. "Neither shame nor decorum, nor honesty, nor timidity", says Manu, "is the cause of a woman's chastity, but the want of a suitor alone". She should therefore be kept under constant vigilance: and the best way to do it was to keep her occupied in the tasks of motherhood and domestic duties so that she has no time for mischief. Despite this denigration there was always in Indian thought an idealization of motherhood and a glorification of the feminine concept. But in actual practice, it could be said by and large, Manu's reputed Code of Laws did influence social attitudes towards women, at least in the higher rungs of society.

Yes, these authors all have axes to grind, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong.

Anand, comment #45 is just quotes from Manu, without any added interpretation (although the site did have some comments to make). Surely you're not going to simply dismiss those as well? More importantly, dismissing an argument based upon its source is a fallacy. You have to consider each remark on its own factual merits without resorting to the short cuts of "good guys / bad guys" or "impartial / biased".

Divya, the 'demented scholarship' you are referring to was published by Penguin Books India in 1991, in an introduction to the Laws of Manu.

You asked for the Manu discussion etc. by blaming the existence of Indian morality police on the British and others. You are not defending India by doing this, you are doing India a deep disservice. Gandhi was one of the most ferocious critics of Indian social mores India has seen - he who loveth chastiseth...

Anti-Divya,

I do not want to get dragged in this specific "Manu" discussion. Anti-Divya, you are using a religious propoganda website to slam another religion. if you really want to discuss, use some independent (or secular) scholarly work.

Anand and Divya - relax and order some frappuccino @ starbucks

The problem discussed above is more social within the present-day context rather than having Manu origins. Maybe, something to do with public servants acting lords/ lards - misuse of privileges and power - a legacy of colonial times and third world frame of functioning - that is where the historical context ends.

I have seen with my own eyes cops beating up people in India for no apparent reasons. They use hands more than mouth.

Kush:

Are "independent (or secular) scholarly work"[s] always right? And who gets to judge what is "independent" and what is not? As I said:

dismissing an argument based upon its source is a fallacy. You have to consider each remark on its own factual merits without resorting to the short cuts of "good guys / bad guys" or "impartial / biased".

Very often the only people speaking one side of the story are partisan. That doesn't mean that they were wrong. By your logic, the British should have dismissed any argument made by the INC because it was "biased" and relied instead on the "impartial" british media.

Anti-Divya

You don't need to inform me about these things, thank you. I know what is what. Dharma Queen says it best - I concur with her.

I'm too lazy to read all the posts and jump in the ongoing debate/conversation. My 2 cents on the original post:

It's total BS to happen to anyone, tourist or local Indians. But I don't think there is anything wrong with deporting the girl who had her Visa expired.

" As luck would have it Lamyani’s visa had expired. " Wtf is wrong with TOI? As luck would have it? Didn't Lamyani know what date her Visa expired on? What does Luck have to do with that?

"Yes, someone please explain to AQ the difference between a cowpath and Mumbai."

Good one,Manish.

Actually my point is not about how repressed Indians and IndianAmericans are. My point is, if this story didn't have an author attached to it, I would guess "Orientalist Media" - it smacks of a rookie reporter sent down on his first international assignnment.

Anti-Divya, Stop believing everything you read online. From my experience, HALF the 'religious' websites out there are nothing but propoganda used to demerit other religions.

Many of Ancient Indian Sadhus and Sages have been women, I think it's pretty obvious they had women reading the Vedas back then.. Them Hindus got GoddeSSES, do you really think they beleived Women were sinful?

Bah, I'm wasting my time.

Whoa this post is getting a lot of action. Seriously, how *did* all this stuff about the Laws of Manu get embroiled in this story about PDAs in Mumbai? That seems counter-productive and like so much smoke and mirrors. Indian pop culture (at least in urban India, especially in Mumbai) has less to do with The Laws of Manu (a primarily Orientalist obsession anyway) and more to do with things like MTV and Bollywood and we all know the level of conservative restraint that's applied there.

So while I usually get bristly at sanctimonious Western condescention of "repressed sexualiy" or "oppressed women" in the East, I have to say - COME ON. You're going to deport people for kissing in the streets? That's not protecting precious Indian culture - that's just facism. India has a notoriously double standard when it comes to sex; the fact that rain-drenched girls in leather crop-tops and micro minis can gyrate their way to fame on TV but you get hassled for any kind of PDA or show of affection in public is just ridiculous and frustrating. Why does the populace get to witness other, famous people peeling it all off and are encouraged to consume things like Maxim and Femina and Cosmo and Shobha De but not express any kind of sexuality themselves? Tell me it's not nutty.

What is so terrible about calling a spade a spade?
While India, around the time of Islamic invasion, may not have been the paradigm of American/India progresssiveness, it wasn't adhering to the injunctions of Manusmriti either. And anybody who claims such needs a serious lesson in history.
Indeed, the Islamic hordes did impose some very dracnoian measures on the natives of that time.

On a slightly different tangent - Why is that we can't discuss the atrocities committed by the English and the Islamic invaders against India without some people here getting seriously angry....

I meant to say Indian - American progressiveness and not American/India.....do excuse

Wow, I picked up quite a fan club! Dharma queen - Penguin scholarship is as suspect as any other western scholarship in matters of caste. And I did not relate morality police to the Brits. I said the laws could have come from the British. Big differnce. Morality and tradition were always around. By making things illegal you invite oppression. Same thing happened when we had drug laws thrust upon us. While everyone used to be merrily stoned, including the cops, now people are thrown into jail upon a whim. Foreigners are specially harrassed for this. Ditto for homosexuality laws which are a british import. Otherwise, India was a totally don't ask don't tell society (for all sexuality, not just homosexual).

To answer Expose's question:

It's obvious that the English and various Muslim invaders committed terrible atrocities in India - atrocities from which Indian society has yet to recover. But at some point Indian society has to face up to itself and take responsibility for its future. Why is criticism of the way women and sexuality are treated in India taken by certain people as criticism of India as a whole?

A major reason for these kinds incidents are due to tha fact that India does not have enough de-centralisation of laws. An overly centralised decision making, with most of the laws being framed in New Delhi, results in the too much generalisation by trying to keep everyone happy.

India is a country that integrating with the world at an incredibly fast pace. When this happens, there are certain parts of the country which will move faster than the others. These parts need separate laws to deal with a separately evolving culture. A man asking a woman for directions in Mumbai or Bangalore is commonplace, but a man asking a woman for directions in a village will most likely get him beaten up. A couple holding hands in Mumbai will not attract much attention, but in Ganganagar or KrishnaPalli the guy will get his dick cut off and woman slandered forever.

India needs to delegate more power to the states, and in turn the states need to delegate more to the districts and taluks. That way, local bodies can make laws that are more in tune with the cultural norms of the place. Mumbai can then loosen PDA norms and Krishnapalli can have it's own penalities.

Today what's happening is that the same laws are made applicable to Krishnapalli and Connaught Place(Delhi). The cops use this to their advantage to make money on the side. Once you decentralise decision making, you take away the wind from such incidents.

Of course, there needs to be some Central/State oversight. Otherwise citizens of Krishnapalli will pass a law that if any lower caste boy looks at an upper caste girl, his eyes will be gouged out (or vice versa depending on the caste equations).

M. Nam

The post is on 2 things

- couple smooching in public, and the police objecting to it

A Big "Up Yours" to the police

- The women staying on an expired visa, gets imprisoned for a day and deported

A Big "Good job/ Pat on back" to the police.

+++++++++++++++++++

- All those discussing Manu, Muslim/British invasion and its effects

Quoting lines picked up from elsewhere does not make you an expert. Most of us will be out of our depths discussing any of these topics. All the "What If" analysis isn't going to help India one bit.

Most of us will be out of our depths discussing any of these topics.

Finally a voice of reason! Sheesh! Reading about these things in some Intro to whatever class makes none of us experts, so we should all really tone down the e-rhetoric.

Whoa, it's one of those crazy times - I agree with MoorNam. Having said that, I am not an expert on Indian internal political machinations, so I don't know the full implications of a move like the one MoorNam describes, but it seems like good sense.

Expose, there are plenty of people on here who can happily discuss the crimes committed by Muslim or British invaders, but the discussion only becomes shoddy when certain commenters begin to suggest all ills in modern Indian society are due to past rulers. Hence those frustrated with this viewpoint bring up things like Manu out of desperation; to make a point. I will agree that Manu is broadly irrelevant to this particular point. But so are British and Islamic influences. Britain, for example, gave India its legal system - one that needs change and is littered with archaic and unnecessary laws. But Britain has moved on. Homosexuality, which Divya claims was widely accepted before the British, is not illegal in Britain anymore. Are you trying to say that if the British hadn't arrived, gays would enjoy equal rights and freedom from discrimination in India Divya? Ha. All countries installed anti-gay laws over the past few hundred years, but many have turned those laws over in the last fifty. India hasn't.

The 'No sex, please' phrase was originally 'No sex please, we're English', so the English in particular can completely understand the Indian dislike of PDAs, but the English have learnt to abandon their disdain, presumably because it's not so wrapped up in religious sensibilities.

This whole discussion's been quite interesting to read, the blame-shifting is pretty amusing.

With all due respect to everyone from those who try to "explain" this phenomenon, I say that India's culture is preety f^&*ed up.
Infact even today, most young people (let alone old people) dont approve of a relation ship between an unmarried young man and a woman which 90% of the time is NON sexual and more like middle school crush type (in American cultural terms) relationships. The girl will be given names and would be considered "damaged". All these even if the girl is actually a virgin, Okay. Thats India for you.

yippeee. i have my popcorn now, time to watch the fight. there i was posting on some forgotten topic, when all the action is out here.

re: manu then. i don't know how relavant manu was. i am no history student. frankly i don't think i really care, who has the time nowadays? besides, going by the number of personal attacks and the amount of contempt (anand's "divya and her type" for example), i really don't think we are having a discussion here. as is always the case in these topics.

i don't think anyone will disagree that no one here likes manu's edicts---divya does not, nor do the anti-divyas. there is also a good chance that the cop who is supposed to be following them has not heard of manu.

to me the irony here is this: his edicts may (unfortunately) remain "in force" in the future, not because anyone likes them or wants to follow or enforce them, but rather because of these fights. my 2c: i don't think either one of the sides is capable of effecting any change in the society on its own. and of course, it is sacrilege to acknowledge there may be a *grain of truth* in the other side's arguments. so everyone takes an untenable extreme position that helps no one. or are forced to take, since nothing could be "worse" than being mistaken for one of the "others".

Didn't we write a penal code since british left? then why the heck are we blaming for british for this? It is really amusing to me when i hear that there is no big deal with being gay in india - barring muslim and british influence on our laws. are you kidding? there are several communities in india that were left untouched by both british and muslim conquests and they all have pretty rigid social structure. forget about the gays, even among brahmins, widows were never allowed to get married again - they were supposed to shave their head and live the rest of their lives in white cloths and that practice continues still today in many communities. the existence of caste system and the oppression of lower caste people are enough evidence that Manu's (or similar) laws had effect in Indian societies. The very fact that it survived so many centuries is an indication to me that people gave importance to it. of course muslim and british laws were not sane either - the point i am making is that the attitude that 'our culture has done nothing wrong' will not eve resolve issues.

moornam-the advantage of centralizing laws is that you and your girl know where you stand re making out; otherwise keeping track of local laws when you are on a romantic pan india trip can be very frustrating- 'honey, you can put my arm round only around my tummy when we're in thonchikoppil, but when we get to bangalore i promise you a best of 5 series in tonsil hockey etc.'...

that is funny. but i think the laws are de-centralized enough. for eg. i know in kerala, smoking is banned in public places while most other states do not have it. i also know that one panchayat in kerala has banned spitting in public places (yes!). so, doesn't the mechanism already exist?

Ladies and Gentlemen :

I mostly agree with the thrust of this post. Reproduced below is my comment in # 13.
"I could never fathom or stomach the "no sex please, we are indian" hypocrisy.
And it is not as if we living by this mantra.....no sirreee, babulal
If anything, we are having way too much sex.......evidence, the burgeoning population, which will soon surpass China's."

However, I do take umbrage when some people drudge up the Manusmriti in response to a comment about the [Negative] influence of the colonisers who ravaged India for nearly a millenium. Everyone knows about the "progressive" victorian mores.
And yes, the British did leave us with the rule of law concept, which by the way they happily ignored whilst their rule over the natives. How benevolent of them.
p.s. Najeeb, Hope you are affording similar benefit of the doubt to the American occupation of Iraq. After all rome wasn't built in a day...right?
And given a chance the American's and the British will surely leave Iraq a better place than they found.

The girl was deported for expired visa.

Which part of this is hard to comprehend ?

Really its amazing to see people worked up over "Repressed sexuality".

Regards

Oh! and this post almost makes TOI look like a serious newspaper.

Regards

Najeeb - My apologies. The p.s comment shouldn't have been addressed to you.
Too many comments to keep track of. Please forgive.

"Najeeb, Hope you are affording similar benefit of the doubt to the American occupation of Iraq. After all rome wasn't built in a day...right?"

if you are refering to my comment about the indian penal code, the analogy isn't right. the iraq constitution/laws was written when americans were occupying iraq - if americans leave, that would not probably be after a freedom struggle by Iraqis. most likely the same folks (chalabi etc..) who cohooted with u.s would govern that country and i can see why americans can be blamed for the faults in the constitution. on the other hand, if americans were ousted, the existing frameworks were replaced and a new party comes to power and rewrite the penal code, americans can no longer be blamed for the faults in the laws. that was the situation in india - we wrote the penal code well after independence and after the last viceroy left india. i think we should atleast own up our own laws and truly in this case we are a conservative society and we know that the society doesn;t like the public display of affection. so why blame it on others --

india is paradise. tourists just stay away....

ok. no problem. i should have refreshed before i posted the response :) so u can ignore my last msg.

i don't think either one of the sides is capable of effecting any change in the society on its own.
>>None of the side has any say in India. Majority here are South Asians and rest ex Indians. None has any voting rights in India so they cant contribute in anyway in chaging the laws. All these discussions are good for entertainment though as most people do take themselves uite seriously.
And as i said earlier rheir are high chances of this case being about paid sex and client trying to get into her right there in one of high end theater in south bombay. I mean two middle esterners meet in another eastern country and start making out within 10 minutes. Oh if they were in one of the designated places to do such stuff in Bombay(MD, Juhu Beach, Bandstand) no one was gonna disturb them. But regal is a bit highend theater where cops obviously aint gonna allow it.
Oh btw yeah we Indians are pretty sexually oppressed. we are tought sermons of Manu every sunday 10AM to keep our sexuality in check thats the reason we havent been able to elect any woman to the top office of goverment. Hopefully it will change as we learn more from libral South Asians.

"india is paradise. tourists just stay away...."

No, India is shithole and Visa doesn't matter.

Najeeb,

From very early own, I am saying that we have to own up to our problems and fix them.

However, from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Penal_Code)

"Indian Penal Code came into force in 1862 (during the British Raj) and was amended in 1993. It is based on British criminal law."

Perhaps, a SMer with law background can throw more light on amount of changes since 1862. Has it kept with times?

india is paradise. tourists just stay away....
>>Illegals should. Bengladesis can help by moving back, that would definately reduce Bombay and Delhi's population by couple of millions.

Random P,
I agree with you that there is something black in the pulses.
But, I couldn't disagree more with your voters only need to comment rule.
Imagine how boring the blogosphere would become. Or some of our lives for that matter.
For me, a day does not begin until I [an Indian citizen] do not admonish my American [voters all]blogger friends on how they should be running this country.
No really, Imagine that......................................

I should really stop drinking this stuff. Note to self....Moonshine bad...Moonshine bad.
# 81 was penned by me - Expose and not Randomposter.
And now I will shut the %^&* up.

Kush,
I stand corrected. I was under the assumption that IPC was revised in 1950 along with the constitution. But, still i think that is our fault though. we didn't have to continue to with archaic laws - i assume we felt the IPC was fair enough for indians.

Ok, one last comment.
Kush T,
Thanks for bringing that to everybody's attention.
Hope this helps some commenters change their opinons.......

Lol at the reference to Manu smriti.

I'm with Manish and Bong Breaker on this one, then I got bored with the thread. Why is it so many Indians get defensive when we make fun of stuff going on back there? FFS there are tons of Indians 'cultural traditions' that need reform, some just need outright discarding. I wonder how many defensive people have actually lived there.

randomP,
I never said that non voters shouldnt be commenting. Everyone deserve a good hobby to pass his/her time.
Only thing is their comments wouldnt make any significant difference. And things in any society changes gradually not over night. The situation about sex and women and lower caste has changed in last 59 years. Afterall no one thought that a lower caste WOMAN(unmarried one on that) could rule the biggest and one of more conservative state of India. So things are only improving.

Sunny,

The girl was deported because her visa had expired. Otherwise there is no way tourists can be deported for kissing (Ah! Sweet Goa).
In essence this post is misrepresnting the incident.
Manu Smriti, Soical reform, Code of Jedi blah blah are not relevant to the matter at the hand.
Why do you, a fine specimen of "liberated" desi,have to indulge in non-sequiturs?

Regards

I'd suggest a lot of the defensive people have lived in India. I think the 'criticize India and I'll rip your head off' mentality is actually a by-product of colonialism. Stems from a feeling of vulnerability.

Gaurav,

I think a lot of people are upset why should cops intervene someone necking. It is none of their business, and TOI getting all excited about "luck".

Enforcement of visa laws is OK.

DQ,
Turning a discussion about illigal migrant involved in paid sex into ManuSmititi and sexual oppression comes from being fed those orientalist image of Indiavby your respective govt and media?
Oh BTW Times of India is Newyork Times of India in terms of reliability.

oh lawd.. i just watched that video.. it makes me want to slap that BITCH! I am telling you.. some women truly take advantage of their power. ugh

Gaurav said:

The girl was deported because her visa had expired. Otherwise there is no way tourists can be deported for kissing.

But he was wrong (assuming the article was accurate):

The police then submitted a chargesheet to the court which convicted Lamyani to a day’s imprisonment. She was released on Wednesday and made to pay a fine of Rs 5,000. Ali was also fined. They were both deported to their respective countries on the same night.

“Their files have been forwarded to the look-out cell and the immigration cell so that they cannot come to India again in future,’’ a police officer said. [Link]

Let me repeat. The article states that both tourists were deported. Presumable, this was because they were kissing, otherwise what grounds did they have for deporting him forthwith?

Gaurav, before you accuse Manish of misrepresenting the incident, wouldn't it be good to check the article?

Now what do you all say?

I think the image of Indian cops hassling amorous couples in parks has become part of the cultural fabric so to speak... if I remember right, the film "Monsoon Wedding" depicted such a scene.

KT,
I am pretty sure that by morning it will become a case of two adults holding hands in public. Ahh evil law enforcers of India, must be because that lady cop also attended same social school of Manu as rest of Indians do.

Now what do you all say?

South Asians go home!!!! (expressing xenophobia, another legacy of the British)

I lived in India for a year, own a house there and have travelled extensively through the country. My image of India is not dictated by Orientalist media hogwash. Though this particular story may be unreliable and/or exactly what you call it, there are enough other stories (I read them in The Statesman when I'm over there)to corroborate the point that displays of sexual affection in India are taboo. That sucks and should change.

I note that your assumption about this woman being a whore confirms the worst Orientalist prejudices about Indian males. You may want to reconsider it.

Kush,

I found a subtle spin in the post and the ensuing psycho-analytical discussion to imply that the deportation was for necking.

Regarding kissing in public,I am not a trained sociologist or psychologist or antropologist so I can only speculate that in west kissing between contempararies (in a sexual or non- sexual relationship)is an acceptable public gesture,In India it is not, kissing is considered to be an intimate gesture.
I don't agree that it was Bristish who made kissing a taboo, my (extended) family comes for a rural background and I don't think kissing is as an acceptable custom there. However lewd (suggestive) songs and conversation is acceptable during some occasions (I don't know the specific). *Shrug*

Regards

Kush, I found a subtle spin in the post and the ensuing psycho-analytical discussion to imply that the deportation was for necking.

If it wasn't, then why was he deported too?

Ennis,

You can not be deported for kissing.
In my opinion TOI is living up to its usual high standards.

By the way I apologise for any inadverent offense, but there is only so much Freud an Indian living in India can take on a single day.

Regards

Dharma Q,
At least us "rip your head off if criticized" natives don't suffer the lock em up in guantanamo and let us f$%^ up another country colonial by product.
Maybe we will be like that once we rid ourselves of these vile kissing in public laws....I mena look how evolved it has made some of the western countries.

@dharma queen, #88
possibly for some. but it is hardly easy to say. i don't think fobs/desis india are any less confident or any more insecure than abcd's. but remember, if you generalize, you should be willing to accept what it says about you.

Expose, since I'm Canadian that didn't hurt a bit. Most of us hicks up here think the war on terrorism has been insanity of the foulest kind. You go. If you want to hurt my feelings, you could always take on the softwood lumber dispute.

"Indian Penal Code came into force in 1862 (during the British Raj) and was amended in 1993. It is based on British criminal law."

Perhaps, a SMer with law background can throw more light on amount of changes since 1862. Has it kept with times?

Kush,
I think you are right. Some of the laws have been updated but A LOT remain from "The Raj".
I remember reading somewhere that when Lal Bahadur Shastri was PM, he was of the opinion that the entire penal code should be re-written. I dont think that ever happened.

I hope someone with Indian law knowledge can add more.

DQ,

>>You dont really read enough news about India otherwise you would know that i am not assuming about whoring thing. I been informed by enough friends back home that its quite common for women these days to come on tourist visa and make quick buck. AND i am not against it. Whoring for me perfactly fine and if there is a vote tomorrow on it in India i will vote for it.
I mentioned that because it is quite possible that the couple were going overboard with their necking/kissing(they just met remember?). Also regal is not a shoddy theater but a higend one. And that out of place behavior might have invited the cops.

You can not be deported for kissing. In my opinion TOI is living up to its usual high standards.

Gaurav, perhaps you're right. I checked and can't find another source for this story, it's TOI only. However, I would think that any offense serious enough to be arrested for is probably a violation of your visa terms and could lead to deportation. What makes me suspicious is actually the efficiency with which they were deported - I didn't realize that the bureaucracy could move so fast!

Ok I googled and found this link that shows when laws were written and modified
I see several 1870's laws in that list :-)

Here is an excerpt from that blog about old Indian laws

Over on The Examined Life, Ravikiran makes a case that legal options for regular folks like us are not desirable because our complicated laws actually favour large corporate groups with lots of money who can afford to wait around for years while the common man goes nuts waging his battle against them. Says Ravikiran:

Our legal system is too slow because we have too many laws. Each law is individually vague and each individual action is covered by so many laws that there is no way to tell whether an action is legal or not till it is actually brought to court and a judge actually pronounces on it.

Alas, this is all too true. I heard someone say on TV once that our Income Tax law is the longest in the world, having gone through hundreds of modifications over the years.

But to add to what Ravi is saying, our big problem today is that the laws governing us are so convoluted simply because they are so damn old! We are governed by so many archaic, anachronistic, useless laws that just the interpretation of them ties up cases for years. Many of our laws are a century old; some even older. These laws have to be interpreted in a modern context to deal with the realities of this century, but they were written in an age when none of these issues were thought of.

Dharma Q,

Well, since you insist. And given that our debate/argument/mudfest revolves around a moral/imoral law. Thus by extension morality.
I could never understand how the canucks could hoodwink the world into believing that they are somehow different/better, more MORAL than the American's or from most of the world for that matter.
The truth remaims that while you may lecture the world on morality and act all holier than though...take some time to peek into your own backyard.
Your treatment of the native canadians is reprehensible. At least your neighbours to the south are atoning for their sins.
An endangered animal species in canada has a better chance at survival than the poor native canadian, whose land by the way you live on.

Ennis,

Well there is a point,
Indian police and bureaucracy is fast when it is pissed off, but even the burra sahibs can not revoke the visa so quickly.
Ofcourse the incident is very suspicious because I can not believe that India police (even that of Mumbai)have become so honest as to decline grease. Methinks there might have been more which meets the eye.

Uninformed speculation follows

May be the couple mentioned in article were paramours having a rendezvous.Once the girl was deported, the guy decided that there was no point in staying.

Regards.

Expose,

LOL. You forgot the softwood lumber, that's where the real dharma - I mean drama - is.

I hear a lot of black people down there are upset a lot of the time, about a lot of things. Not to mention migrant workers. And Sikhs who get shot because some Yankee thinks they're Muslims. And Muslims who get locked up for no reason. Maybe you can put all these people in touch with the Natives in the States who, according to you, know the secret to being treated well by the powers that be.

Canucks don't have to prove anything. People have a funny way of running to the Canadian border when they need help, or justice, or freedom (blacks on the underground railroad), or the right to marry (gays), or affordable drugs (everyone). And Americans have a funny way of wearing the maple leaf on their backpacks when abroad...

Don't think has specifically been brought up, but the ToI article states the exact laws they were charged under:

The police booked both under section 110 of the Bombay Police Act for indecent behaviour in a public place; Lamyani was also booked for overstaying in India (section 14 (1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and section 7 (3) (iii) of the Foreigners Order, 1948).

A quick search (someone may be able to find the exact text?) brought up the following about what section 110 covers:

Section 110 of the Mumbai Police Act says 'any 'indecent' behaviour in public places, including kissing, putting arms around the neck or reclining on your companion's lap, is punishable.' The fine for being let off on bail is Rs 1,250.

If the 'offenders' don't pay up, they are taken into custody for a day. The next day, they are produced before a magistrate, who decides on the punishment which could go up to seven days' imprisonment.

The decision to deport both, especially so quickly, is very curious, agreed. I thought India's court system was infamous for trials that drag on for years. Perhaps Mumbai is different? Or immigration/visa violations are handled differently?

I'm surprised the dude wasn't able to just slap some rupees into someone's palm (over or under the table) and stay, without the visa issue .

"I'm with Manish and Bong Breaker on this one, then I got bored with the thread. Why is it so many Indians get defensive when we make fun of stuff going on back there?"

I think its because of all the insane and inane observations that individuals who have been to India maybe once come up with. I for one am tired of all the "Is it really like that in India" questions from people and I believe this post perpetuates that. And I notice the 'star' in these police harassments so far are corrupt policewomen, giving rise to offensive posts titled "Bitter much?". How offensive is that?

"Why is it so many Indians get defensive when we make fun of stuff going on back there?"

You make fun of somebody and then are surprised when they get upset? What kind of logic is that?

Dharma Q,

I am from the land of no kissing. So all that talk - water off ducks back.
Hey, how come you fall back on that tried or should i say trite candian bait and switch.
i.e., remove the natives forcibly from cities. move them to the boondocks where they will slowly perish, hopefuly. interim, lecture the world on morality.
and when the native topic is broached....do the avoidance dance and never own up to any moral wrongdoing.
DQ, You are a good canuck, eh.

Expose,

You got me there. Native Canadians generally do not live well in Canada, and are subject to widespread racial prejudice. Now try to find an American, or an Indian, who'll admit to their problems so graciously.

DQ

P.S. That said, not all natives live in segregated boondocks. I work with a couple of natives who live in the city and make good salaries.

P.P.S. The Canadian government has been on its knees, begging forgiveness and apologizing and throwing money at native communities, for a long time.

Man, I just love it when it starts getting all non-PC...good fun as long as it lasts :)

nanda kishore #114,

yup, full funs it is. :) now that manu died off, if only somebody somehow starts the aryan theory...

DQ, I think there are a wide variety of opinions out there in India just as there are in your country, and there is debate all the time...people start getting defensive when some of the provocateurs are not Indians. Not saying that is how it should be, but that's how it usually it is. I also think it is related to the fact that Indians (and I imagine other former colonial countries) are extremely conscious of how they are perceived, and how their country is perceived, esp in the west, and that's where part of the defensiveness comes from.

Dharma Q,
A breakthru, finally.
Are you a single female by any chance?
Expose

Wow i had no idea this many people would be reading/commenting good old SM on a Sunday! If i wasn't online to buy tickets and just happened to click on over i would have missed all the brouhaha. I'll see y'all fellers tomorrow (when I'm actually getting paid).

Oh and yeah, deporting those two was kinda lame, the overzealous cop-chick was kinda lame, and ToI is very lame. I could, however, interpert it as some strange form of cosmic retribution for one of the tounge-swappers (the one from UAE):

I remember visiting Dubai several summers as a HS student (I had family there; thankfully they left Sheikh Muktoum's land of opportunity for Shake Bush's). Although I had a blast with my family, this one time we were stopping over on the way back from India. The overzealous customs officials made us open our bags and subsequently confiscated two 3-foot-tall metallic murtis of Shri Krishna we had bought at Dwarka. I was only 15 but made a huge noise and demanded (foolishly, like the American kid so used to religious freedom that I was) to speak with a manager, etc. My relatives hushed me into submission, whispering on the way home that "we have to live here, you get to leave in a few days..."

How 'bout we report THAT, ToI?

When you have about every other person inquiring about poverty, caste system, arranged marriages etc. in your country, it's hard not to develop a defensive chip. Admittedly, something positive has been added to that list lately - IT, so we can relax a little more.

Well now if they were in UAE, caught in such an act would have landed them in jail as well. Unless they married.

ha!

tempest in a tea-pot. yeah, i can see how motherland-browns get all defensive, i do as an american when people say shit that isn't cool, though self-critique is an essential part of being a modern. but look who posted this, manish, does anyone here think that this dude has been to india "only once." sure, he be american and americo-centric, but i think you need to cut him some slack, and not just because we're friends, his heart isn't in the evil place some of you ascribe to it. every nation has warts, focusing on warts only isn't usually cool, but manish doesn't focus just on the warts. so what gives with the hating?

sure, there are serious issues that are elided by this post, but this is a weblog, not a peer-reviewed social science journal. taking it in that spirit, i think that warrants chillin' with a cool glass of wine and letting the love flow....

tempest in a tea-pot. yeah, i can see how motherland-browns get all defensive,

Razib,

I didn't.

I once went to Kurt Vonnegut's talk. It was hilarious and I remember him saying, "Americans can be really self-critical and do something about it". He went on with lot of historical examples. He is one self-critical guy himself.

I think it is getting better about desis not getting self-defensive. Ten years, they would be fist fights, now at least people agree to disagree.

We have had people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who challenged the foundations of Indian society,

I still think Manu digression was tad deep end.

Expose,
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that you are some kind of impostor. There is just that touch of bitterness in post 107 which only an American could achieve, or a Canadian pretending to be an American could know about. Besides which, someone from the land of no kissing would surely not be asking whether I am a single female or not.
DQ

Besides which, someone from the land of no kissing would surely not be asking whether I am a single female or not.

Oh I would.

Are you?

Kush and others,

Jiski Phati naa Pair Biwai, Woh Kya Jaane Peer Parai.

Another one

Lohe ka swaad Lohaar se nahi pooncho, us Ghode se poonchon jiske moonh mein lagaam hain.

Regard

PS. I assure you that there were many more Indians than Ram Mohan Roy who reformed Indian Society. Try Guru Aurobindo,Dayanand Saraswati or Swami Narain for size.

Holy Crap. I think a lot more than the thin khaki line needs to get laid. . .

kush, haven't you lived in the united states longer than you have in india? not really relevant to the thread anyhow, i was making a trendline observation, not a absolute judgement.

kush, haven't you lived in the united states longer than you have in india?

Yes.

Moornam # 61

A major reason for these kinds incidents are due to tha fact that India does not have enough de-centralisation of laws. An overly centralised decision making, with most of the laws being framed in New Delhi, results in the too much generalisation by trying to keep everyone happy.

India needs to delegate more power to the states, and in turn the states need to delegate more to the districts and taluks. That way, local bodies can make laws that are more in tune with the cultural norms of the place. Mumbai can then loosen PDA norms and Krishnapalli can have it's own penalities.

That's one of the craziest post I have ever read on the boorish behaviour of the lower ranks of Indian Police.And Rohin agrees with Moornam! Some clarifications are needed.

1. Law and order is a State subject. Central Government has no authority on Indian police. State Government is the mai-baap of Indian police.So Indian law and order business is already decentralised.

2. Cental Government controls army and para-military forces. It's due to a strong Central Government that you find India still in one piece. Otherwise people like Laloo Yadav,Mulayam Yadav and Jayalalitha would rule the roost like Afgan warlords and Baloch Sardars. Kudos to Ambedkar & co that they resisted the temptation to give States more power despite being champions of downtrodden. How longsighted they were!

3.During Hindu-Muslim or caste riots the role of police is always suspect.They go with groups that can bribe them more. It's always Central forces that restores normalcy and protects minorities and lower castes. UP's PAC(provincial armed constabulary) is notorious for instigating riots.

4. Indian police is a colonial dinosaur. British created the Darogas and Indian police to rule Indians. The concept of service is absent. Police think that they are the rulers of people not servants of people. Vested interests stalled reforms of Indian police. So you have Indian police which is pretty much the same police force of colonial era.

5. The most important point. Lower ranks of Indian police is selected from school and college dropouts. Police constables sit through a sham exam but selected on the basis of how fast he can run 100 meters or how long can he jump. So you have an uncultured and unsympathetic police force.

Moral of the story

Law and order should be centralised while States should be given more economic freedom. Central Goverment exclusively raises direct and Indirect taxes while States can only impose Sales tax and Octroi tax(that too is being taken away from them by introducing VAT. This should change.

Holy Crap. I think a lot more than the thin khaki line needs to get laid. . .

I have witnessed similar incidents, in every case it was an attempt at a shakedown, more to do with economics than morals ( or some freudian impulse ).

I think the image of Indian cops hassling amorous couples in parks has become part of the cultural fabric so to speak

Knowing this makes it less special though. You thought at the time you were rebelling against societal norms by making out (and paying the price for it) - turns out all your friends were making out at the same time at a different place. I don't know, it takes something away from the fond memories of the thick end of a lathi on your back.

That's one of the craziest post I have ever read on the boorish behaviour of the lower ranks of Indian Police.And Rohin agrees with Moornam!

Well, I DID say I didn't know what I was talking about. Sounds weird to be referred to by my real name on SM too. However the points you make aren't an argument against delegating power to states, apart from point 2, which I had not thought about. The rest are criticisms of the police and their poor reputation was never in dispute.

As an Indian, I think the type of moral policing reported in the article needs to end but I am struck by the lack of historical and comparative context in many of the comments.

Firstly, even in the "unrepressed" West, not everything is permitted. There are societies - increasingly few as more get "civilized" - where women move around bare-breasted. In the unlikely event of people from such societies moving to Western countries, would the women have the right to move around in public without covering their breasts? I suspect not - but then it seems to me that in this particular case, the distinction between India and the West is one of degree, not kind.

So much for the comparative angle...with regard to the historical angle, it is noteworthy how much things have changed in the West in the last hundred years or so. I remember a long time ago listening to Ali Mazrui who in the 1980s made a controversial series for PBS titled "The Africans." In trying to make sense of the mess in many African socieities, he observed that the European colonialists when they first came to Africa, regarded the "lack" of clothing in such societies as a sign of their lack of civilization and made it their mission to clothe them up "properly." A hundred or so years later, when the mores in Europe had changed, the same societies were again castigated for being repressed. Ali Mazrui commented "No wonder the Africans are confused." I am not knowledgable about Africa to comment on the validity of Mazrui's observation: I bring this up only to point out that holding up non-Western societies to current Western standards should be done with caution. I do *not* say that such comparisions should not be done at all and I fully appreciate that taken to extremes, this sort of "sensitivity" can result in a failure to condemn practices which ought to be condemned.

No doubt, India has problems - sexual repression being among them - which need to be addressed. But I am not convinced that the solution lies in adopting the *current* mores in the West. To be frank, I don't know the solution; indeed if it was that simple, we would have found the solution already. This is not something that can be tackled by governmental fiat - social reform is much more complicated. Witness the prevalance of untouchability in India inspite of the fact that there is a law forbidding the practice.

My 2 cents worth on the subject.

Suresh.

There defintely should not be laws against such behavior. I'm surprised there are. Bet if we dig deep enough to find the origin of these laws we'd probably trace them to the British. They're the ones who instituted all kinds of morality laws. Indians never ever had them. I just meant to show support for the Indian way, which is to go by tradition not laws.

That's what I originally said. I guess I stand vindicated. It seems the Indian legal code is from the 1860's, someone now asserts that the police force is a colonial dinosaur, I remember a friend of mine trying to sort something out while buying a piece of land and it turned out the laws were over 500 years old! Things need to change for sure and starting with the laws would be a very good idea. Perhaps they don't change precisely because a lot of people benefit from the obfuscation.

The whole point of the post was to contrast laws with tradition and not the British with Manu. Never underestimate the sepia collaborationists to drag in every bit of irrelevance at any opportunity and with the utmost virulence.

That's what I originally said. I guess I stand vindicated.

Not entirely sure how you came to that conclusion. You rightly claim that Manu was dragged in as an irrelevance, but re-reading what you originally wrote I'm reminded of the head-in-the-sand mentality that people objected to. The British are just as irrelevant, what bearing do they have on the police or the justice system now? None. The belief that tradition and the original Indian way was so fantastic and the evil British spoilt everything is hilarious.

And if you're suggesting 'tradition' is preferable to law, you're pretty deluded. But your point about why laws don't change is correct. I don't believe any Brits, Muslims or even Manu are involved in that.

And if you're suggesting 'tradition' is preferable to law, you're pretty deluded. But your point about why laws don't change is correct. I don't believe any Brits, Muslims or even Manu are involved in that.

Perhaps I should've amended that to "Brits, Muslim invaders or even Manu..."

manish - off-topic, and yet topical - is there a 'vision statement' to the blog, is there a need for one - to be the sounding board on what should be posted - and gives you all a principled high ground from which to manage the feedback and keep the thread from vacillating from one extreme to another. the same issue extends to the news boards - there is a glut of information with no threat to tie it all except that it is linked to india and generally makes the poster feel pumped (as in proud or as in reamed).

I travelled to Bengal with my then-boyfriend (who was white, to make things worse), and we pretty much spent the entire trip in a clinch. We kissed on the street, we kissed at dhabas, we kissed on crowded trains. We got a few voyeurs gawking and trailing us - but no one said or did anything hostile.

And that makes you, like, so cool.

extreme to another. the same issue extends to the news boards - there is a glut of information with no threat to tie it all except that it is linked to india and generally makes the poster feel pumped

And if you're suggesting 'tradition' is preferable to law, you're pretty deluded. But your point about why laws don't change is correct. I don't believe any Brits, Muslims or even Manu are involved in that.

Who said the Brits were relevant? It's a conclusion everyone simply jumped to. I said I'm surprised there are such laws and wondered where they came from. And it turns out to be true that they came from the Brits.

And by the way, if you think laws are preferable to tradition you are a sadist. But let's try and do this without any further name-calling.

'Deluded' isn't technically a name, it's a transitive verb. 'Sadist' is a name. Laws are of course preferable to tradition, as everyone will define tradition differently.

Divya,

If you seriously believe that there was no established legal framework in place within India before the British came along, then I suggest you do some extensive research on the organisational infrastructure of the Mughal Empire and then reassess your perspective.

And by the way, if you think laws are preferable to tradition you are a sadist.

Not necessarily. Laws, unless of the Shariah variety, are deemed to be man-made and in a democratic society can therefore be changed. "Traditions", however, cannot necessarily be amended with regards to changing times, customs, and social mores. I would therefore say that imposing "traditions" on people and expecting them to adhere to them, regardless of the individual's own wishes, the context of the situation, and the relevance of those "traditions" to the timeframe and location one happens to be living in, is actually a far worse thing to do to someone than simply expecting citizens to adhere to the rule of law in a democractic society.

Folks, I'm only talking about the relevant law, i.e., anti-kissing. This type of behavior in India was regulated by social norms and not legal ones. The whole point is that there are different traditions in different places. Just as in Italy people kiss all over the place and in the U.S. it's far less and in India comparatively non-existent. A law is a one size fits all thing but doesn't work for all in the same way. Are you saying that there should be kissing laws? If not, then how does one determine where to kiss and where not to? People do it according to what feels right and that is often dictated by custom (which is almost as binding as law but you don't get thrown into prison for it and you don't need to bribe cops).

And by the way, if you think laws are preferable to tradition you are a sadist.

=====

sadist

n : someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain or others

======

Divya, why do you characterise those who privelige laws over tradition as inflicting pain on others? That has to be the strangest comment I have read in a long time.

Jay - it was the first pejorative that popped in my head to counter deluded. We don't really have to analyze everything to death, do we. What kind of person prefers to have laws about kissing anyway.?

Divya

I'm not analysing everything to death, just wondering in what way preferring law over tradition is an act of cruelty. That's all. Given that some Indian traditions are pitiful and backwards, as a general rule, I think people should slash and question traditions as much as possible, without worrying about the sensitivities of traditionalists.

Dharma Q,

Restassured, I am not an impostor - born and bred in the land of no kissing. And proud of it.
Never been to Canada. Never been outside New York, the place I arrived 7 yrs ago.
Can prove it if need be.
Anyhow, my citizenship or origins have no bearing on my critique.

Women's activist Madhu Kishwar's take on the Manusmriti.

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2001/1-2/2001-1-22.shtml

by the way, folks, the following section from IPC is the basis of 'no kissing' edicts.

"141[294. Obscene acts and songs
Whoever, to the annoyance of others-
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.]" link

While it is true that this was written originally by the British, the definition of what is obscene has changed in a century and it is the indian legal system that continues to interpret kissing in public (in this case atleast) as obscene. So quit blaming the British.

While it is true that this was written originally by the British,

What is more important is that it was written by the British in 1860.

From the link provided by Najeeb:

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
Act No. 45 of Year 1860 1

Najeeb - Okay, I'll try this one more time. The Brits did *not* influence Indians to stop kissing in public. Indian tradition dictated that anyway. My point is that they made a law such as this. This should not be a legal matter. Period. Similarly, there should not be nudity laws as there are in the West. People will wear clothes anyway. However, if someone wants to protest in the nude they should not have the book thrown at them.

I'm begining to get the impression that people don't really have a defense for why such laws should exist and for their lack of a case are simply turning around and accusing me of blaming Indian traditions on the British. I think it's time to close comments on this or in any case I'm going to treat them as closed. One can only restate a point in so many ways.

yes, that was originally brought to my attention by Kush. if a girl walks around topless in San Francisco(ok, except during bay to breakers) the police might detain you - my point is that such laws exist even in most liberal democracies. - what makes a real difference is the interpretation of it. in india, 'obscene' is interpreted as 'no kissing' and in the U.S it is being 'topless' for a woman. Big difference.

While it is true that this was written originally by the British, the definition of what is obscene has changed in a century and it is the indian legal system that continues to interpret kissing in public (in this case atleast) as obscene. So quit blaming the British.

Besides which, who the heck is asking India to keep the code on the books?

I have a feeling that "morality" cycles. The West is generally in a libertarian love phase, where all is permissible as per the conscience of the individual. India is in a very conservative phase. The West may become more conservative in the near future and reassert its patriarchy in the face of its demographic decline. India may do just the opposite, as consumer capitalism gives individuals a way out of the joint family system. "Cultures" ain't set in stone as razib has made clear on several occasions.

Divya, I am not sure why such laws exist either - i am not a supporter of such laws. but in places like india, traditions have always become as good as laws and if you break the tradition, you are an outcast. in all practical terms, it is as good as jail time. so i don't think the rules enforced by tradition are any better than the ones enforced by law.

Sunday has been busy on SM..

One point that you guys have missed.

About 10 days before this incident, 26 year old Abhishek Kasliwal was arrested for allegedly raping a 52 year old in his car at Sriram Mills in Worli, Mumbai.

Couples in public places have always been soft targets for the Indian Police.

Now, the Mumbai Police had to show that they were DOING something to make the city safe again. At the very least they had to deflect some media heat off this case.

A similar rationale was probably used by the cops involved in Operation Romeo in Meerut.

The Brits and Mughals no longer rule India... Sides which argue for the Kama Sutra theory or those which argue for the Conservative India theory are both being irrelevant. Try and concentrate on present day India which has a very unique hotch-potch of societal and moral blends. So many people have their own opinion of what is 'Indian' and what is not. Why won't people realize that culture cannot be engraved in stone and kept as-is... exchange of opinions and ideas should redefine the society from time to time.

If the couples cuddling out there on Bandra Band Stand, Mumbai had more affordable, private places to go to.. If there were more forms of entertainment that couples in India could go to... they wouldn't really be sitting in front of 100 strangers. That is what's sad...

Take it from someone who's been there and done that..

so i don't think the rules enforced by tradition are any better than the ones enforced by law.

This is an acceptable point of debate. In my opinion they are.

Ennis, India has innumberable laws that require changing. They will not prioritize this particular one. Besides, there's money to be made off of such laws. Besides, Indian society has changed. Indian society now accepts normative rules for social behavior. Otherwise, India did not have a moral "ought". Even if tradition was forcefully binding it differed in various parts of the country. If India were to rewrite the kissing laws now, it probably would add a couple more clauses of its own. Maybe we're better off the way it is.

The topless law was successfully challenged in Canada some time ago, women can go topless here. Most don't of course. But the choice exists. (This may be restricted to some provinces - dunno)

Divya - please explain why people who bring up conservatism in the Hindu tradition (Manu being the most handy example) to keep others from jumping all over those 'bad whiteys' and 'bad Muslims' are collaborationists? Good God, woman! Have we been transported to Vichy France? Are the fascists coming?

Lastly, to my admirers: 'Queen' has more than one connotation in the West.

Spot on. It is as much a part of growing up in urban India as goofing off in the college canteen, rating FTV models, and getting dumped by your girlfriend because "papa is very strict". In fact, if you were never harassed by the police, chances are you never got any action at all.

Cogito you got me thinking about how it was in HS/college here in the States. The cops give everyone a "hard time"(pardon the pun) not just in conservative India. And they might not slap you but hell if they don't make you pull out your ID, and depending on your age (and your partner's age), how far "into the moment" they caught you, and where you live threaten to call your parents or find an excuse to give you a ticket (no parking, past curfew, missing socks...)

How many SMers out there can recall being interrupted by the Law rapping on the fogged up windows of daddy's Toyota Camry, or the frustrated commotion caused in the back rows of empty theatres, or that time on the beach near LSD, or the pool table at the frat house, or that embarrased family of hikers in the forest preserve, or...

(damn, i'll be back in 10-12 minutes)

Dharma Queen,
While I've been enjoying reading your comments, the problem with bringing up Manu, specifically, is that it's a moot point and serves no purpose. Manu was championed by the British as representative of normative "Hindu" values - sorry, but that's outdated Orientalist scholarship. The Laws of Manu were perhaps even more obscure and peculiar in "ancient India" than they are now.

In present day India it's not "laws" vs. "tradition" that's the problem. "Tradition", whatever that means, has largely been buried under a culture of hypocricy when it comes to sexuality. There are all kinds of anti-obscenity laws in various US states for exammple (You shall not kiss your wife on the northern side of the street on a Sunday) that no one bothers to consult or implement because they are so culturally outmoded. And no, I'm not valorizing the States (gah) I'm just using it as an example.
So the problem here isn't the law books or what the essence of Indian tradition is - it's one where a mixture of harassment and paternalism still seems to reign free in the streets with a simultaneous scramble to push for maximum exposure and skin in pop culture. You can get deported for kissing, but strangely, you still get groped, prodded and hollered at trying to get through town with charming frequency. Repression, much? And I'm not being disdainful of Indian crowds either - but show me one woman on this forum who hasn't felt violated at some point in the cities. And it's hard to sympathise with "morality" when there's billboards with some sweaty starlet in nothing more than a bikini wax and a tube top petulently staring at you from the side of the building while couples in parks get busted for locking lips. I'm having a very hard time wanting to defend "Indian culture" on this one.

i think sexuality is something which with most societies have a schizophrenic relationship. in the u.s., you can have graphic sex and language in movies or on tv, and graphic depictions of plastic surgery and breast augmentations, but the nipple will be blurred out. then there was that big brouhaha over Janet Jackson's nipple and attitudes towards women breastfeeding in public, something that is a common sight in many developing countries. a national geographic cover featuring a topless tribal woman in a developing country can be featured in the main magazine section but a topless western woman on the cover would be placed in the adult magazine section. in italy, a clothing ad featuring clothed models - with only one barebacked guy -- recreating da vinci's last supper scene (itself an interpretation of a biblical scene and not directly from the bible) was banned by the courts because it would offend sensibilities. yet in italy there is a high quotient of porn and scantily clad women on tv that is not banned. in the uk you have topless women in newspapers but they initially banned an australian tourism advert featuring the words "bloody hell."

brownfrown - I agree about the hypocrisy in Indian culture. But I wonder if it is always that. There's an element of cluelessness in it. There we'll be sitting cozily in the drawing room with assorted members of the family only to have the TV begin to ooze soft porn. And everybody acts like it's perfectly normal! That's the part I don't get. I know my family and neighbors well enough to know it's not because they are hypocrites although I'm yet to figure out what to call it. Why is there such a disconnect between how they personally behave and what they watch on TV (with 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds present in the same room)?

"Why is there such a disconnect between how they personally behave and what they watch on TV (with 8-year-olds and 80-year-olds present in the same room)?"

there's a goodness gracious me skit about that where the family is watching tv and eating. whenever an uncomfortable sex scene comes on, they immediately start talking really loudly, all together, to drown out the tv noise. very funny.

physically harassing and deporting someone for kissing is wrong and abusive, but i wonder how many people here, say while on a trip to visit relatives in india, would engage in a full-on liplock or necking session with their significant (or insignificant) other in front of their own elderly or other relatives at a crowded tourist hotspot?

I wouldn't engage in a liplock in front of elderly relatives, though I've had my arm around my boyfriend in front of them, held hands etc. I wouldn't 'neck' in front of my Western friends here - call me a prude. Actually, I can't tell my elderly relatives that I've broken up with my last boyfriend, who came to India with me, as they expected us to get married. My sweet old great uncle would probably have a heart attack. But I think this sort of concealment is stupid. Why do we ABCDs always have to conform to Indian expectations, and not the reverse???

well, i'm not an abcd. i think everyone has their own comfort level, even in western society, although they are more "open" about it. i don't think its always about concealment, otherwise why would you not neck in front of your western friends to whom, i assume, it would be more "normal" behavior than in most of indian society. and from many of the comments i've read here, i do think abcds expect indians from india to conform to certain behaviors and modes of dressing etc. here as well, so it's a two-way street.

with changing mores in india (some good, some not so good), maybe the "moral police" will learn to handle the situation more sensibly whilst still respecting prevalent indian sensibilities. i once holidayed in an islamic part of kenya. the unspoken rule there is to dress modestly - at least a t-shirt and long skirt or pants for women or some other form of traditional modest clothing. however, one american woman decided to parade along the small main street in her bikini top, offending the residents. they were nice people and although it upset them they didn't kick her out or anything. but she could have put on a t-shirt. i'm not sure what point she was trying to prove. no doubt, if one dug deeper, one would find hypocrisies in that small kenyan town, but as tourists the rest of us decided to respect our host's sensibilities.

Whose God,

I hear you about the American woman. I've seen American women behave similarly in India, and it is ridiculous. But when it comes to a simple kiss (not a liplock), or being upfront about important decisions in one's life (ie breaking up with a boyfriend), or wearing an open-necked shirt (not a bikini top), or wearing jeans, or smoking a cigarette, or having a glass of wine - NONE of which should be blatantly offensive to any sensible being in the world, ABCDs, especially females, get royally screwed.

uberwench, i don't disagree with you about the hypocrisies of having to hide certain simple innocuous things and life decisions from your own family (especially women), much less society at large. as far as jeans and open necked shirts go, i don't see why anyone in urban india would object, unless they come from a very conservative family, or they find the jeans too tight and the shirt too revealing. again, it varies from family to family. for mine, jeans and and open necked shirt would not be a big deal, but smoking and drinking in their house would be and (although i don't smoke) i would never do it in their house as a guest unless they okayed it.

i do have one small quibble about smoking though:) it is offensive to those around the smoker, because second-hand smoke can cause cancer.

I want to take the quiz from post 22! I know im late to the game but I have things to do.

1) I'd probably rather be in Delhi, especially if my girlfriend was hispanic, black, or white. I think I've seen the situation you've described in a Hindi movie though.

2)I think I'd be fine with either. When I was in India two months ago, my sisters and two female cousins used to go watch movies, and get back later than 730, with no problem.

3)No

4)hahaha thats a joke! Hmm I'm having trouble thinking of a time when American cops were not disciplined, maybe I saw something about it on the news one time.

one question off topic: am i right in assuming that prolific posters during weekday working hours are largely grad students? :) if not, plz plz tell me where you work... gotta go now. flight to catch. while i will argue with you all, i will be remarkably meek and mild when it comes to homeland security.

I have a strange feeling that was directed toward me byte. The answer is undergrad student. The lowest of the low on the Sepia Mutiny food chain!

Kums,

Yeah only an undergrad would think he could take a black girlfriend to Delhi and have an easier time than in, say, NY. As for the American boondocks...well, there we all look the same anyway.

Kums:

You are by NO means the lowest of the low here on SM...

*sigh* if only it were possible for us to trade shoes for a weekend (or spring break weekend to be exact)

back to the grease-pits

wow, the eyes hurt just to read ALL those comments on such a issue.

i am wondering though, the video makesmy comp. crash, so i havent seen it, and amd am wondering, were those tourists deshi looking, meaning, i know they were arabs, but did they look blond blue eyed arab, or did they look brown arab?

because, would they have been treated the same, if they were lets say, a redheaded swede and a blond russian?

it has been amazing the comments come out of the woodwork of people's psychy, u really get a sense of whose who based on the comments they make on particular issue. if one were a behaviour scientist this sort of thing would be fascinating. ahrm, ahrm, not that one is ofcourse. um.. ahrm.

and as always, i cannot get over the overgenralisation individuals make about others based on a few statements, or perhaps, a few lines typed in haste/anger/angst. i wonder if they act like this in real life, or this being on the interwebs, if its ok for them to act in a manner they wouldnt otherwise. hmm, makes u think doesnt it, if those tourists were doing just that, as it was not there country.

=)

PS: believe it or not, it is possible to be south asian living inthe west without being a abcd or a fob (or fop).

Yeah only an undergrad would think he could take a black girlfriend to Delhi and have an easier time than in, say, NY.

Anyone can have an easy enuf time in delhi (or any metro) with a girlfriend/ boyfriend; just need to move around in the right places depending on where you are - in delhi its where rich teenage kids hangout - malls, cineplexes, clubs etc. If you have the uncontrollable urge to make out in public, however, i cant help you ;-).

Growin up in big cities in india, most people pretty much get used to all this. Even in the most conservative metropolis Chennai, there are lots of areas of beaches and parks where couples of make out (and more) all the time (mostly because they do not have private places to go). As long as you are not in-your-face flaunting it, most people dont care. OF course near the month end, there will be an occassional policeman trying to make up for his low wages.... or once in a while a politically motivated crackdown on "public indecency". Youngsters take it all in their stride and neither have the time nor enough outrage to take on the system.

"PS: believe it or not, it is possible to be south asian living inthe west without being a abcd or a fob (or fop)."

hooray!

"because, would they have been treated the same, if they were lets say, a redheaded swede and a blond russian?"

i believe so. there was that kerfuffle over the israeli couple who unwittingly kissed after being married in a traditional hindu ceremony in rajasthan (much more conservative than Mumbai) and that finnish woman who decided to go for a nude stroll through rajashthan. i don't think they were deported though (i'm assuming the arabs were deported for visa violations and not for the kissing per se) but admonished.

i'm with you brownfrown, its the hypocrisy that gets it. it seems like it would take a lot of the fun out of it to have to deal with people who can't openly be comfortable with their own desires. it seems like one thing to have some kind of reasonable expectation of how to go about expressing desire --- i think in the US sometimes things become too debached and debased. but i think some times the indian mentality takes it too far to the other side, to the point the contradication is embarrassing. its tough to watch some of those desi music videos and square that with the messages being thrown. it also seems like in these schemes its the woman who has to be responsible for the sexual virtue of society, which is bogus. its probably a bad idea to be that hypocritical

"but i think you need to cut him some slack, and not just because we're friends, his heart isn't in the evil place some of you ascribe to it."

Razib,come on, nobody hates Manish. In fact I think most girls have a crush on him (or his writing,same thing). I do wish though that he would stop continually pitting the readers into two camps - the "We are most sophisticated than you" AKA the SouthAsian-Americans vs the "We are more authentic than you" AKA motherland folks , with several more straddling the fence.

back in a new place. no kums, that comment was not targetted at anyone. i am in a univ, and i know the "joblessness" associated with being in academics. that is why i asked. besides i had no intention of getting deep into the manu vs macaulay fights, so i posted an off topic comments :). why pit two dead people against each other that too when neither one knew of the other?

1.

There is an unquestioned assumption that "repression" is the cause for the "harrasment" of the couple by the Police woman. What do you mean? Would the woman constable not have warned the Arab couple of indecent behavior if she were having proper sex? It reminds me of an American girl who claimed that "she saw homosexuals wherever she went in India" because she saw men putting their arms around other men. Her reasoning for this "out of control homosexuality" was the "sexually repressed" society. "Sexual repression in India" is like "Bush in the U.S." ; he/it gets blamed for everything. What does the sex life or lack of it of the police woman have to do with her being a police woman?

2.

Divya makes a good point: the aversion to kissing in public is not because it is the law, but because people think it is improper. In other words, if today you were to take a representative sample of indian paopulation, and ask them if "people should be allowed to kiss in public", I claim that, overwhelmingly, the answer would be a "no".

Do most people on this board, think the answer would be an "yes", and hence see it as some kind of oppression? Why do people think people are defensive about India, if we question your assumptions? You must give our comments a honest thought before dismissing them as 'defensive'.

Most of the people on this board, probably have parents who grew up in the sub-continent. Do you think they would approve of the people kissing in public? Would they be comfortable doing it? I know...I know, they are a different generation and all...but, I want to illustrate the point that your are not exactly alien to the idea of sexual conservativeness. You know someone close to you who holds ideas that are antithetical to yours. Please give it an honest hearing.

3.

People will try to create socities that reflect the values they share, and as the values change, the laws will change sooner or later. The woman constable is not some external entity; she is part of the society, enforcing the prevailing norms of the society.

I am not talking about the harsh behavior of the Police towards offenders. I am only saying that it is prudent for police to arrest couples who kiss in public. It's law of the land. You want a society where it is not a crime to kiss in public. I want it otherwise. NAMBLA wants a society where it is OK to have sex with boys; the anti-abortionists want to make abortion illegal. One side of the issue recieves the favor of the law; the other side does not.

You must realize that equally intelligent or equally dumb people argue on both sides of all issues, and have respect for how a society comes to create norms of what is acceptable. Its one thing to say that "you wish the law were different" or that "you wish people felt differently about kissing in India", but its a whole another thing to imply things like "the police enforce laws because they are sexually repressed", which is what I feel you are implying.

You will probably say, "take it easy dude..I am joking", but it's funny to you and offensive to me. I am sure a lot of prejudice passes under jokes. I am not saying there is any malice, just unexamined bias that you probably are not critical about.

A Question -
Isn't it in Manish's et al's interest [$$$$$] to pit one camp against the other?
After all the more tabloid style controversey they generate the more hits they garner, the more hits on SM translates into more advertising $$$$ down the line..
Sad but expected. After all it is the Yankee way.

Thank you, whocares, for playing into our diabolical plan. Shh, don't tell anyone... just keep posting tabloid-style controversey [sic].

In fact I think most girls have a crush on him (or his writing,same thing).

I was going to post this under Humor, now I see my original impulse was correct :)

Manish -
You do have a vested interest in increasing the traffic to your blog. After all you do put in sweat equity and only fair that you are compensated.

Yep, and I thank you for increasing the value of our stock. After your last comment, we've scraped together enough funds for a Gulfstream IV. Keep on stirrin'!

I think you've doubled our advertising revenues with this post alone!

But where are the ads !!

But where are the ads !!

Hello? Abhi's face in the bottom right corner of the front page? This man-meat is priced to move!

"Hello? Abhi's face in the bottom right corner of the front page? This man-meat is priced to move!"

Ah! Hope that pays well!

Regards

I did say "advertising down the line"
Build it and they will come, gentlemen. And come they will, the ads that is.

Aslam, well, wonders never cease, another voice of reason. u must be one of those who either grew up here, moved here, or live somewhere in south asia. i have learned here that apparently those are the only deshis who exist.

and thank you, seriously, admin for offering up these discussions. a comment count of almost 200 has to say something about what peoples like to argue discuss vs. a comment count of 10.

seriously, makes a nice change from arguing debating a bunch of westeners.

#22 2) You are a women, you and your friends are walking from movie theater to home @ 7:30 PM, winter night. You have noticed an overbearing cop walking up to you guys. Where do you wish you were a) Madrid or b) Mumbai?

7:30 PM in Bombay ??? I think you confused Bombay with some other city. 7:30 is way way too early for any cop to come and approach you. 3:00 AM would be more like it in some deserted lane if you are talking about Bombay, but even then unless you are drunk and making some kind of a scene, it is highly unlikely that cops will come and start hassling you in Bombay. And almost all the time you can just bribe your way out of the situation. Bombay by far is the safest city for women. I used to regularly commute at 1:30 AM on the local trains and you can see that the ladies compartments were still crowded (ofcourse now they are manned by constables). On weekends the beaches are crowded even all through the night. I have had lip smacking cheese pav bhaji and dahi batata puri at 2:30 AM on juhu beach and it was crowded with families, kids, mini ferris wheels and all.

dont give up now...just 9 more after this comment makes it 200!