And on the flipside, what girl wouldn’t want to see me strut in a pair of these?

While the exhortations seem a little over the top, you don't find it at all offensive? Maybe I'm oversensitive -- I think American flag underwear are also offensive, so I'm an equal-opportunity hater.

btw, our values-upholder-in-chief has a few unresolved issues of his own; prominent among them the Anjana mishra assault.

Here's Anjana's story. [2]

It would be very appropriate to have Moraji near the fly given his "tastes"

well, the links didn't suggest that they wanted legal action taken, just protests. their objections may seem silly to you (i don't share the offense, but it is understandable), but props if they go via the route of protest and moral suasion. other groups tend to take a different tack when their sensibilities are offended.

Don't mess with Orissa

It's against the Indian Flag Code for the flag to be portrayed in underwear. Which doesn't mean anything since the product is not made in India. Just pointing out why they may be offended by it.

Besides they are just protesting it. No one is calling for legal action(which while they would probably not win, they would still be entitled to). So that's covered under the freedom of speech. That's India for you. Free speech and shit.

Abhi, you have no idea how grateful I am for your post. Thanks in no small part to you I have the perfect gift for my fiercely nationalistic DBD girlfriend. I would also like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Patnaik for his unintentionally hilarious diatribe against underwear.

I apologize for spamming, though I came across a very well written comment on the article's comment's section:

Sema,France,says:One, Undergarments are not disgraceful. Two, printing the face of a leader on undergarments or pants in no way demeans the leaders in question. The greatness of Gandhi is undisputable and does not need our support in a trivial act of mischief such as this or are we going down the same road of extremism like the Danish cartoon controversy involving publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad?

never mind. Hindus protest use of gods on underwear by US firm:
India's eastern state of Orissa has lodged a protest with the US government seeking action against a California-based website for hurting religious sentiments of people by selling undergarments with images of Hindu gods....

"I, on the behalf of the government of Orissa, request you to take up the issue with the American governemnt for taking action against the website owner to refrain the company from such unholy activities," Orissa's law minister BB Harichandan said in his letter.

Harichandan wrote that Orissa was "deeply shocked and concerned over the unscrupulous means of advertisement" for commercial gains and demanded that the website apologize immediately.

The Orissa police has also registered a case of hurting religious sentiments after a Hindu organization lodged a complaint in the temple city of Puri where the Jagannath temple is situated.

that god for the 1st amendment! yes, i do think that having gods on underwear is in bad taste, atheist that i am i'm not childish enough to want to offend people in that way ;-) and as manish vij used to point out, hinduism tends to get the brunt of these because its gods are part of "mythology."

Abhi, I don't see why you're annoyed with this news item. I agree with the posters in that it is actually a sign of political maturity that Patnaik is advocating protest as opposed to seeking an outright ban. I also see it as a sign of political maturity that nobody in India has gone around rioting, like the riots after the Danish cartoons of Mohammad. (I hope I'm not speaking too soon).

Also, here are excerpts from the Flag Code for India and that for the US:

[India]: The use of the national flag on underwear or on any other clothing worn below the belt shall be forbidden. However, sports figures and others can wear India’s green, white and orange national colours on T-shirts, caps and coats. The legislation makes it illegal to "insult" national symbols by displaying them on clothes and accessories worn below the belt or on underwear. [This includes footwear -- pingpong]. The legislation also makes it illegal to embroider national symbols on pillow cases and handkerchiefs. [link]

[US]: The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. [link]

Based on that comparison, one could argue that the Flag Code for India is actually more liberal than that for the US in that it allows the flag to be displayed on clothing at least in the upper half of the body, while the Flag Code for the US does not allow it on clothing, period. That said, the Indian Code tends to be enforced more actively than the US Code, and in practice, nobody in the US seems to follow the Flag Code strictly (or at all, given the number of sports team uniforms that have a flag on them in some form). This could very well be due to the different ages of the two countries as independent political entities, so if we see again in 40+ years, we might see India being as relaxed as the US in enforcing the Flag Code.

Correction to previous comment: Please read "I agree with the posters in..." as "I agree with the commenters above in...".

while the Flag Code for the US does not allow it on clothing, period.

yes, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code
The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is title 4 of the United States Code: 4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This is a U.S. federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with them and they are not widely enforced — indeed, punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled when the subject has come up in the past.

sorry, just extending the previous comment. not correct ;-) the "but" might misimpress.

I think Mr. Patnaik should wear underwear with a hand on it. This way, when he goes out canvassing for support and for people to join the Congress, he can grab their attention by truthfully saying, "There's a party in my pants and you're invited."

Also, and this is something I've always wondered, does a flag on an underwear fly at half mast during times of high emotion?

does a flag on an underwear fly at half mast during times of high emotion?

Only if the emotion also precipitates motion. And it sounds like you want Patnaik's hand to engage in Congress with what's in his pants.

There was a frivolous political party in India in the 1996 elections that wanted its symbol to be a naked male torso. The Election Commission refused, using some obscure rule that human anatomy is not a source of election symbols, and was promptly hit with an attack - waaah, the Congress can use human anatomy but I cannot, waaah.

And it sounds like you want Patnaik's hand to engage in Congress with what's in his pants.

Well, he should pay heed to the old saying if he wants to stay in power. The hand that cradles the rocks rules the world.

Camille:

While the exhortations seem a little over the top, you don't find it at all offensive? Maybe I'm oversensitive -- I think American flag underwear are also offensive, so I'm an equal-opportunity hater.

All this talk of Bharat Mata and he can't stand the thought of the flag sharing space with a woman's reproductive system? This lays bare the hypocrisy of mother worship in India, if you ask me.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002970.html

related link

Agree with Camille, I find these somewhat offensive, although must add that this gives new meaning to "Kiss my chuddies"

Wait, Razib's news story says they're upset about gods on underwear.

I could see why Hindus would be upset with a Ganesh thong more than a Nehru or a (lol) Shah Rukh one. Of course the government shouldn't get involved, but putting a minority religion's icons on thongs to sell their "exoticism" is at least a little offensive.

well, the links didn't suggest that they wanted legal action taken, just protests. their objections may seem silly to you (i don't share the offense, but it is understandable), but props if they go via the route of protest and moral suasion. other groups tend to take a different tack when their sensibilities are offended.

What Razib said, except there is a lawsuit, it seems: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Case_filed_against_US_website/articleshow/2629806.cms
For me, the test of the thing is to reverse it, i.e., how would it seem if an India based web retailer sold chuddies and thongs printed with Old Glory, George Washington, Abe Lincoln? OTOH, boxers printed with Brad Pitt might not be the same thing.

how would it seem if an India based web retailer sold chuddies and thongs printed with Old Glory, George Washington, Abe Lincoln?

I'd relentlessly make fun of any American that was upset by it.

By the way, having just finished the book 1776 by David McCullough, I can tell you that George Washington was a huge proponent of cleanliness (among the ranks) and it is entirely likely that he would have advocated for clean new underwear for all his troops, despite the fact that his great modesty would have prevented him from being overly excited about men paying honor to his visage in such a manner.

Protests around the world would become more of a spectacle if the mob burned flag-printed panties instead of flags.

Inquilab Zinda-ouch! Inqui-shit!

Not to mention stomping on a burning panty would look rather silly.

India has its social standards on what is acceptable to display -- the use of the flag unofficially (in less innocuous places than this has been protested before). The US has its own standards -- lots of thongs/ boxers/ bikinis are in Stars and stripes. The method of resolving the difference in these two standards involves peaceful protests / communication.

I do not see the controversy.

As Prashant said above, wearing the Indian flag is still technically illegal (in India). In the last ten years this has been loosened so much that it's expected for cricket fans to adorn themselves with the flag these days. But as long as the opposers voice their protests in a civilised way, I don't see the problem.

I personally believe you should be allowed to paint your Johnson in the Indian colours and stand to attention for the national anthem, but despite being an atheist I think gods on knickers is off.

I do not see the controversy.

The controversy is that Orissa officials are lodging official protests (usually done when there is a diplomatic incident) against the US government because of an internet site that sells t-shirts, all the while there are actually real problems in Orissa that get attention diverted away from them.

That first picture is shocking... something actually made in the USA ??

I dont care about Nehru or Gandhi but flag on a thong one actually looks uncool. A token protest thread has been lodged on the website messageboard

Orissa is the poorest state in India. They beat Bihar in 1999 and are still the champs. I can see why this is a top priority issue for Orissa Cong.

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the controversy either, so long as protests are peaceful. The people in Orissa are offended by the acts of citizens in other state and want to go through "proper channels". To the extent that it involves actually contacting the White House (and I don't see any confirmation that that is what they want), fine. The U.S. government can simply explain that it does not have the legislative authority to prevent such depictions (and can hopefully show that the depiction exists for all kinds of U.S. icons as well). Sure, there are real problems in Orissa. There are real problems in the U.S. too (would you like some tea with your subprime and solvency crisis?). That doesn't stop other issues (seasons greetings!)from raising their head from time to time.

If it's the bread and circuses concept that bothers you, I agree, and to the extent that its used to distract the public from the true issues, it's a shame. However, unless you can show that the government of Orissa is only devoting its attentions to this issue and nothing else, I still don't see the gross injustice of it all. It's no different than this site throwing up a Bollywood Barack one day, touching on unreasonable security measures the next day and "ignoring" as some appear to say, the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Besides, I've seen enough Americans of all persuasions get horribly miffed at the sight of ferengis burning their flag and leaders in effigy overseas, so I don't think the tendency to react emotionally to the trashing of icons you hold dear is particularly unique. I'm not saying it should be banned, I'm just saying I get why people might be upset.

What would be helpful would be for people of influence to show that Americans trash their own icons a lot, or even that such things are not seen as disrespectful in America, so that people recognize that: (a) it is not India in particular that is being trashed, but rather the W.C. Fields "I hate everybody equally approach") is being employed or (b) that there are no ill-intentions. And if you can show some Cafepress clothing with Jinnah and the Flag of Pakistan, that would probably go a loooong way towards mitigating the concerns that Indians in particular are being targeted. After all, if one professes to hate everyone equally, one needs to be able to prove it.

Orissa is the poorest state in India. They beat Bihar in 1999 and are still the champs. I can see why this is a top priority issue for Orissa Cong.

Exactly!

It's kind of like how 'family values' are bigger concerns in the poorest U.S. states with the crappiest educational systems.

This here is America, where freedom rules and our crotches are free to be decorated in any manner we choose.

I don't blame people for getting riled up about this. Put aside the deification of Gandhi, Nehru and the flag, this is just in bad taste. You wear something on your underpants if you don't like it. It's a sign of disrespect. Gandhi and Nehru are not gods, but they are still respected figures.

Printing the images are okay on a T-shirt but not on the boxers or thongs? Isn't the crotch as important a part of your body as your chest? Why the aversion? It's hardly tasteless is it?

So if the government of India's richest state raised the issue, then it would be okay? Or are the people of India precluded from commenting on stuff outside their borders as long as they are poorer than the target jurisdiction?

I think a false dichotomy is being set up here. I think (hope) it is possible for governments to devote attention to many issues. Again, to the extent that the government is focussing on this issue to the extent of ignoring all other issues, yes it is a problem. However, if this is just one of the issues to which they are addressing their attention, I don't see the problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5275866.stm is an article dealing with the "Hitler restaurant" in Mumbai. Please note the paragraph where the U.S., Israeli and German consulates are thanked for their involvement in helping to resolve the issue. The governments of the three nations became involved over the name and decor of a private pizza shop. Perhaps it is this precedent which leads the Orissan government on its present course of action. But of course, unlike the government of Orissa, the governments of the U.S, Israel and Germany faced no other more pressing domestic issues on which they could have focussed their attention at the time.

For me the issue is whether the issue is legitimate. I think it is perfectly legitimate to be upset about how people treat your cherished symbols and to express your opinion on that point. I think it is also perfectly legitimate for people in other jurisdictions to point out that their philosophy regarding the treatment of symbols differs, that your particular symbols do not hold the same value to them, that they are in fact expressing pride in the symbol when they treat symbols in a certain way or, indeed, acknowledge that they are trashing your symbols and intend to continue to do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5275866.stm is an article dealing with the "Hitler restaurant" in Mumbai.

Godwin's Law! :)
But just wait until you see my next post later today. You'll love it. Fo sure.

Isn't the crotch as important a part of your body as your chest? Why the aversion? It's hardly tasteless is it?

I wouldn't know, but I've read that it's ideally supposed to taste like pineapple juice.

ente,
Just to be clear, I am not a fan of flags on chaddis, Washington on toilet paper etc. etc.
Hurt sentiments are free money for politicians. These issues don't involve real work. They just have to make angry noises and cash in. Bread and circus, as you said.
Orissa Cong. is not the ruling party, btw.

I think there's a pretty obvious difference between a store visible to everyone publicly passing by that references the Holocaust (Hitler's Cross, complete with swastika? Come on now) and something like this, where someone claims that Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan are 'national heroes' that are being defiled because images of them are on underwear. Now if it were Kamal Hassan I might join in protest.

I'm in India over winterbreak, and I saw a random news report covering the Ganesha thongs - I don't feel like looking up the old post, but it's here. And the report went on for like 20 minutes. I wasn't paying much attention, but all I could think was, "Dammit we talked about this on SM AGES ago - shouldn't a newschannel be more on point?" And then I also found out the Gandhi underwear story is a huge thing here. "The Aunties" keep asking me about it. I just shrug and say, "it wasn't me."

You call this a stocking stuffer, Abhi? That's strange, because I usually stuff stockings inside my underwear, not underwear in my stockings. Does this affect the way your shoes fit? (Oh...I get your strategy. "You know what they say about guys with big feet." ;-)

This man is a true patriot.

I saw a random news report covering the Ganesha thongs

India definitely has the right to voice objection, but it is a waste of time/effort. My brand value as an Indian is diminished by India's desperate poverty, not the dharma chakra hovering above a woman's naughty place

I would like to see how Christians would react if they saw the cross or Jesus on a thong; or see how all those American conservatives would react if the American flag was on boxers...

I would like to see how Christians would react if they saw the cross or Jesus on a thong; or see how all those American conservatives would react if the American flag was on boxers...

Brown Writer: You can find both and understandably they (Christians and conservatives) are not happy about it. However they also know there is no recourse and so this does not occupy the same mental space as gay marriage, school prayer etc. Indians on other hand are used to having the stupid "hurting religious sentiment" law and think that the US must have a similar law. Thankfully the US does not.

I would like to see how Christians would react if they saw the cross or Jesus on a thong

I mean they shouldn't be selling crucifixes that were made by young women who are abused. But it cant end there. They have a responsibility to those young workers in China. They are exploited, they were cheated of their wages. They were housed under miserable conditions, stripped of every single right...I thought crucifixes were made by nuns in the United States. I had no idea that they were made in China. We only knew about it when the workers sent us pictures of the crucifixes and we couldn't believe it.

Do they say “Made in China”?

No, that is another thing. This particular company lied and said they were made in Italy. So there was no origin. In fact, none of these crucifixes have ‘Made in China” on them.

I would like to see how Christians would react if they saw the cross or Jesus on a thong; or see how all those American conservatives would react if the American flag was on boxers...

I was just waiting until somebody left that exact comment so that I could provide this link (also from CafePress) and make their comment sound suddenly stupid. I'm just that Evil.

This is my new favorite slogan. And this is my theme song.

See, I actually LIKE the underwear, it's double-entendre value alone makes it for me ("wanna see my trunk?"). All I'm saying is that I can understand why someone wouldn't and would want to express their opinion on that issue and seek to influence the topic. I don't think it's out of place for them to do so. Yes, sometimes the issues are there to generate more light than heat (or vice-versa depending on which one you feel is better these days) but sometimes it truly is a visceral reaction and people feel the need to raise it--they still have time to devote to other issues of policy. In this case, if the party in question isn't dealing with other issues, then yes I agree, they need to be called on it. But if this is just one point on their platform, whatever.

Symbols are powerful things precisely because of the underlying ideas they represent. So, I can see why some (not necessarily all) persons from group A might get upset about group B setting up the possibility of skid marks (speaking of tasteless) on a deity that they revere, especially if a) they don't see the same things happening to other people's symbols (especially if group B treats its own symbols as sacrosanct) and b) if there is a history whereby B has targetted A or dismissed A's or its members as inferior. As I also said, there isn't necessarily an obligation on group B to change how it treats the symbols, but there is certainly no obligation on A to keep quiet about it and focus on the things that group B thinks are important.

Did I really invoke Godwin's law? It seems to me that the Indian restaurant and/or Western media did on that one. If so, unintentional foul cause I was really talking about the government intervention on an extra-territorial issue. Too meta for me.. :)

And no, the restaurant and underwear issue are in fact the the same. Group A is shocked or pissed off that somebody else, outside their borders, is not treating their symbols in the way Group A expects/demands/wants. Just because you don't ascribe the same values to Group A's symbols as you do to Group B doesn't change the underlying issue. Also, although it's still irrelevant, it wasn't just Bollywood stars--Indian national leaders and Hindu deities were also given the unfull Monty treatment.

In other news, some Sikhs are mad because the Vancouver Sun ran a photo of the Golden Temple with story about a local drug ring bust which had nothing to do with the Golden Temple.

Blasphemy's in the air. 'Tis the season, I suppose.

Ente, I hear you. But Indians don't realize that in the West, people do make fun of their traditional religion (i.e. Christianity). I think because they don't hear any noise about Americans complaining loudly about this they think that it doesn't happen. I am much more concerned about the treatment of Hinduism in primary/secondary education. I have a great deal of respect for/and agree with Witzel and Doniger on many aspects of early Indian history (e.g. India as a syncretic culture with IE diffusion) and religion (e.g. psyche giving form to gods) for example, but they address an audience that has a religious studies specialist definition of words like "mythology" and "cult" that is neutral. However words like this have a derogatory connotation in wider usage and it would be impossible for a K-12 audience not to walk away with a negative impression. I wish people like me could bring up points like this in a sane and respectful way, but groups like ASATA will brand you a "Hindu fundamentalist" and a fellow traveller with Modi/VHP etc.

I am much more concerned about the treatment of Hinduism in primary/secondary education.

Can you elaborate?

While we are talking about sensitivity of symbols, I am curious to know how swastikas are dealt with in US. In India swastikas are drawn for almost all ceremonies (including wedding, house-entry etc etc) as it is the sign for any auspicious occasions. So are these not drawn at all in US hindu celebrations ? How is it dealt with it here by the hindu/buddhist community ? I remember EU wants to ban the symbol but hindus protested that.

I actually have a friend who is Catholic who has a 'Jesus is my homeboy' shirt. If I wore shirts with slogans on them I would want a 'Buddha is my om boy' one.

I am much more concerned about the treatment of Hinduism in primary/secondary education.

Can you elaborate?

No, I am sick of it and most of SM has made its mind up. Large numbers of the educated elite in the West are turning towards Indic philosophy in some shape or form, so to waste time on it would be to grant the inevitable losers more time than they deserve

Actually, the picture of Indian flag on that panty makes it look like a bull's eye, rather something thats focussing right on ya. Here in Austin, Long and Horny is good!

Long live Ashoka Chakram!!

And no, the restaurant and underwear issue are in fact the the same. Group A is shocked or pissed off that somebody else, outside their borders, is not treating their symbols in the way Group A expects/demands/wants. Just because you don't ascribe the same values to Group A's symbols as you do to Group B doesn't change the underlying issue. Also, although it's still irrelevant, it wasn't just Bollywood stars--Indian national leaders and Hindu deities were also given the unfull Monty treatment.

I think the restaurant case is different from the underwear case because the restaurant is publicly visible and hopefully the underwear isn't. It's more actively causing offense, to anyone walking by, in that way. That includes local Mumbai Jews. I agree that putting national leaders and deities on underwear (or shoes) is in bad form, though. It's just that the OCP ridicules itself by calling the Big B and SRK 'national heroes' that need to be saved from defilement or something.

While we are talking about sensitivity of symbols, I am curious to know how swastikas are dealt with in US. In India swastikas are drawn for almost all ceremonies (including wedding, house-entry etc etc) as it is the sign for any auspicious occasions. So are these not drawn at all in US hindu celebrations ? How is it dealt with it here by the hindu/buddhist community ? I remember EU wants to ban the symbol but hindus protested that.

I've known some DBDs who have painted it on their doors, they quickly erase them and bring them inside. There are many Jewish Buddhists in NYC, they are at first shocked and then realize it had no anti-semitic significance until the 1900s. Most museums in the US explain this in their Asia collections. I don't make a fuss over it because I've always thought of it on the level of a good luck charm like a four leaf clover, rather than a deeply significant religious symbol like the "Om" sign or crucifix

Did anyone else hear that story (I wonder if it's an urban legend) about the Hindu woman getting married to a Jewish dude whose wedding invitations, sent to both their families, had the swastika printed all over them? Heh.

I think that there is still a reflexive horror reaction by the "mainstream" in the U.S./Canada when they see a swastika. That has changed slightly in areas where there is more awareness of usage by other cultures and I expect it will continue to change with continued exposure. The Hindu/Buddhist communities may be more circumspect as to how and when they display the swastika (e.g. on the INSIDE of the wedding invitation), but it has not been completely obliterated. Moreover, as Hindus and Buddhists start becoming more comfortable with their place in society (see, 2nd gens are good for something ;)) I suspect they will be more assertive about usage, just as I suspect 2nd gens are probably more comfortable (as a whole if not on a one to one basis) about the Indian flag underwear.

louiecypher, I agree with you regarding the manner in which Christian symbols are treated. That's why I think, if the matter threatens to get out of hand, it would behoove someone in India to pull out some Jesus condoms and show that no, nothing is sacred in the U.S. marketplace, at least when it comes to leaders and religious symbols. Then the issue can be about the depraved U.S. as opposed to the bigoted imperialist anti-Hindu U.S. ;).

(as an aside, I got the sense that a lot of people out here assumed/feared/expected that globalization meant that so called Western values would become the new dominant monoculture. These days, I'm not so sure that's how things are ultimately going to play out).

This could be such a hit with the ladies. You know, wearing the underwear my motherland laid out for me.

The Hindu/Buddhist communities may be more circumspect as to how and when they display the swastika (e.g. on the INSIDE of the wedding invitation), but it has not been completely obliterated.

I know a Korean women who wears a a large swastika pendant encrusted with diamonds.

And no, the restaurant and underwear issue are in fact the the same. Group A is shocked or pissed off that somebody else, outside their borders, is not treating their symbols in the way Group A expects/demands/wants. Just because you don't ascribe the same values to Group A's symbols as you do to Group B doesn't change the underlying issue.

Trivializing the genocidal extinction of 6 million members of a community is a tad different than wounding somebody's religious or nationalistic sentiments. All offense isn't created equal. (That said, I don't think protesting these irrelevant issues is worthy anybody's time).

I think the restaurant case is different from the underwear case because the restaurant is publicly visible and hopefully the underwear isn't.

What if low riders became common in India, nala?

I think Indians, especially hindus, are big on symbolism (e.g. no feet on books, idols for worship, etc etc). To each culture their own. If is only a mere protest I don't think it's a big deal although I totally concur that it is for cheap publicity. I just remembered a story about Vivekananda explaining symbolism/idol worship.

All offence isn't created equal.

Indeed. My point is, who are YOU to decide what group A should find more or less offensive? You're coming at it from your viewpoint, they from theirs. If he'd called it the Columbus Day Cafe (you know where I'm going with this), would that have been ok? Since the stated fact is that genocide and extermination cannot be trivialized (is there anyone here who wants to deny the extremely negative population impact of colonization on indigenous groups in North America?) --shouldit be okay? Or do we further qualify by saying that it's okay to trivialize genocides that occurred 100+ years ago, but not genocides within the last century? Or maybe it's okay to trivialize genocides that occurred on our own soil but not when committed by someone else. Or maybe just genocides where heirs to the perpetrators are the eventual winners are joke-worthy.

One can certainly disagree with their assessment that offence to religion is no big deal (but I'm guessing in a land with a history of communal riots, the audience may be less sympathetic) and continue to buy Durga underoos. They can disagree with our assessment regarding the restaurant and say that they in turn think it's no big deal to dress up a restaurant with Nazi regalia. Look at the end of the day, each raises the issue, the concerns are noted and possibly addressed and still the world moves.

63 · ente said:

I agree with you regarding the manner in which Christian symbols are treated. That's why I think, if the matter threatens to get out of hand, it would behoove someone in India to pull out

diwali is well on its way to becoming the orgy of consumption

Hasn't it always been so? When I was growing up, it was always looked on as an occasion to spend by nearly everyone I knew. Food or firecrackers or clothes or travel. The budgets would be different of course, and it might be more ostentatious these days because of growing prosperity and wealth, but I don't see the fundamental attitude to have changed.

Zuni, in my personal opinion, based on my own experience, Indians are no more or less affected by symbolism than people in the U.S.--it's just that the power/lightning-rod symbols, and the rules surrounding the symbols, are different. In my view, if symbols weren't as big a deal in the U.S., there wouldn't be the annual "War on Christmas" debate that has been going on for some time now. There wouldn't be public outcries and resulting debates about whether it's okay to fly a Confederate flag on a state legislature or to call someone "nappy-headed" or the other "n-word". There wouldn't be the plethora of wrist bracelets ("wriststrong") out there and there would be no Darwin fish (a deliberate reaction and retort to the Christian fish symbols some people put on their cars) around.

Zuni, in my personal opinion, based on my own experience, Indians are no more or less affected by symbolism than people in the U.S.--

I agree, and not to mention as residents of the worlds strongest nation American cultural conservatives have so many salves to heal their hurt sentiments with. An American conservative can go from "I am outraged by Life of Brian" to "Dude, I am jonesing for some Krispy Kreme" in less than 5 seconds. Po' Indians don't get no candy, so all we can taste is the bile

I was just waiting until somebody left that exact comment so that I could provide this link (also from CafePress) and make their comment sound suddenly stupid. I'm just that Evil.

I'm glad CafePress is equal among the religions.

I think the restaurant case is different from the underwear case because the restaurant is publicly visible and hopefully the underwear isn't.

What if low riders became common in India, nala?

You'd see the back part of the thong (the string) with low riders, not the front part that contains the offensive image (though the backside could be an offense in itself).

ente, I would find somebody who thinks that people in Native American gear prancing around at basketball games is acceptable while being appalled at a gratuitous use of Hitler inconsistent. This could obviously devolve into an orgy of stultifying political correctness, which is why I think taking offense at largely meaningless things like this is silly. I also agree with your larger point that, sure, people can get upset about these things, as long as they don't feel the need to resort to property damage or threats. And I reserve the right to mock them in return (the war on christmas is a prime example here in the US).

nala, thanks for the detailed clarification. What if somebody had the flag tattooed on their backside though?

No, I am sick of it and most of SM has made its mind up. Large numbers of the educated elite in the West are turning towards Indic philosophy in some shape or form, so to waste time on it would be to grant the inevitable losers more time than they deserve

I have not made up my mind so I am sure there are others as well. I am presuming you are talking about the treatment of Hinduism in a world religion class or something.

I am in Bhubaneswar, Orissa (my home town) for the last week. I heard this news, but its not a conversation piece. No one I have talked to mentioned it to me. I think the reaction came from an Orissa leader perhaps because of Lord Jagannath's images (see http://www.odisha.in/news/151/ARTICLE/1969/2007-12-23.html) in some of those underwears, and the leader probably thought he will get some mileage by making those statements. From the non-reaction here he failed. However, it got picked up by the national and international media.
The local media, may be printed the story once, and then forgot about it.
See http://www.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS249US249&hl=en&ned=&q=Orissa+underwear&btnG=Search+News

Orissans revere Lord Jagannath. For those of who who may not know about Lord Jagannath you may check out
http://www.jogaworld.org/. It gave English the word "Juggernaut" and the Rath yatras that take place in many
locations around India and the world.

Since there were comments about Orissa's poverty and backwardness, things seem to be on the positive trail here.
If I may, I compile news about progress in Orissa in http://orissagrowth.org.

nala, thanks for the detailed clarification. What if somebody had the flag tattooed on their backside though?

I'd say they're taking their nationalism to a whole new (lower) level. :)

If I may, I compile news about progress in Orissa in http://orissagrowth.org

Thanks Chitta, and I'm glad (as you say) the local population is smart enough to see when a politician is trying to inflame them for no good reason.

No, I am sick of it and most of SM has made its mind up. Large numbers of the educated elite in the West are turning towards Indic philosophy in some shape or form, so to waste time on it would be to grant the inevitable losers more time than they deserve

I have not made up my mind so I am sure there are others as well. I am presuming you are talking about the treatment of Hinduism in a world religion class or something.

I am talking about the California textbook controversy where anyone who had issues with the section on Hinduism was lumped together with the VHP no matter how reasoned or reasonable their concerns. It's not too much to ask that other religions be presented critically or to suggest that in a wider audience (i.e. not Religious studies MS & PhD students) that:
a) Mythology means a collection of baroque tall tales
b) Cult means a group that uses brainwashing for nefarious ends
c) god is a disrespectful diminutive of God

There are no penalties for calling someone a fascist in real life and fewer still for calling one online so I don't care anymore

louiecypher: Thanks for the information. I have heard of the controversy but to be honest have not really looked into it. I will look into it now.

I think the reaction came from an Orissa leader perhaps because of Lord Jagannath's images (see http://www.odisha.in/news/151/ARTICLE/1969/2007-12-23.html) in some of those underwears

Newsflash: Patnaik realizes the similarity of nomenclature between food items and the Lord, demands ban of dough fried in oil and eaten with potatoes!

I am talking about the California textbook controversy where anyone who had issues with the section on Hinduism was lumped together with the VHP no matter how reasoned or reasonable their concerns.

louiecypher, most of what I had heard about the controversy was opposition to mention of the Aryan Invasion theory, because it was an affront to the uniquely homegrown and billions of years old "made in India" culture. To be honest, though, I wasn't following it very closely. What were the specific mentions of Hinduism that you are alluding to?

Aside from the AIT which I accept, there is objection to the use of the specialist language I allude to above. There are valid critiques of Vedic Hinduism that the VHP objected to, but curiously there are no critiques of other religions

I think the protest against Indian flag on underwear is valid. Americans can do whatever they want with their own flag but doing it to other soverign country's flag is insenstive and offensive.

The same rules of political correctness in comedy applies here, "one can crack as many jokes as they want about their own ethnicity -- joking on accent/culture of others would become bullying". These rules apply to religion too. The majority religion can afford to poke fun of itself, but disparaging a minority religion in a country implies bullying again.

It wouldn't have been offensive if these products were produced in India because, the controversies like these make people of the country examine the silliness/seriousness of their beliefs. It is indeed demeaning if done by others, irrespective of the intentions of Orissa congress party.

By the way, displaying the product on the internet garners much wider audience than a restuarant in one single location.

Yes, you are oversensitive. Sure, it's definitely tacky. I wouldn't wear any of that. But does it really damage your sense of national pride so much if some or other company launches underwear with Indian icons? It must not have a strong foundation then. Sure it's dumb. But there's no need to raise your bloodpressure about it.

It has nothing to do with my sense of national pride -- I think these are in terrible taste. But maybe people have no idea of what a flag is supposed to symbolize, and are thus comfortable with being totally inappropriate. I take its display and use seriously, and while I don't think it requires limiting "free speech" (really, is this the case for free speech?), I'm comfortable saying it's a stupid thing to do.

And even worse if it's featuring gods.

You'd see the back part of the thong (the string) with low riders,

It's called a whale tail, yo.

Hi Chitta,

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal (which I can't find now) about some villagers who were being forced to sell their subsistence farms at a pittance so a huge steel factory could go in. I'm sure the free market fundamentalists on this site will say that those farmers will be better off when they get the jobs they're guaranteed at the steel plant--that their annual income will rise along with the GDP. But what really surprised me, consider that the article was from the very pro-business WSJ is a great deal of column space was devoted to the story of a neighbor village where the farmers did indeed sell their land. They lived off the money from the land sale for a while, but the proposed plant construction was mired in delay and those poor people ran out of money before the jobs ever materialized.

Do you know what I'm talking about? Any update?

By the way, Chitta, I forgot to mention that both those villages were in Orissa.

Camille @ 86 said:

And even worse if it's featuring gods.

You mean like this? (From the link Dizzy Desi provided at comment 26.)

No :) Unless the $100 features a Hindu deity that I missed?

Camille, this is America- money is God.

You mean like this? (From the link Dizzy Desi provided at comment 26.)

Definitely brings a different meaning to the phrase, 'Show me the Benjamins!'

"And even worse if it's featuring gods."

Is there a fine line between art and sacreligious fashion? For the lurkers, who'll pounce upon a moment's notice, I am NOT saying this is fashion. BUT, this incident reminds me of a time when I wrote a fashion story on Manish Arora (the Versace of India). One of the runway images that accompanied my spread has a tight fitted tunic, with the OM symbol emblazened in the lower corner. The tunic was worn with tights and created in his usual melange of kaleidoscopic colours. Needless to say, Hindus in Canada and the US deluged the publication with their haterade for both his designs and my story! I didn't know whether I should be impressed with Hindus taking a stance, or upset they targeted me as the typical Westerner, who exploited the religious connotations within fashion. For the record, the images was one of 48 from his runway show, so I had no idea or voice about the choice. BUT, I did get a raise since the hate mail made the story even more scandalous.

What a bunch of idiots, really! Haven't they heard of the saying "Let barking dogs bark"?

Why are Indians so insecure about anything and everything? Are our leaders and icons so frail that they need us to constantly defend them whenever some idiot fashion designer chooses to "defile" them?

Btw, the spamkiller word in the posting area is not an image, so you might want to make it one!

check this one out.... http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=23&theme=&usrsess=1&id=182203

Ente@ 38,

You are assuming that the government of Orissa is speaking for all Indians -- all one billion of us. And they are not. The Orissa government (including former chief minister Biju Patnaik) is not particularly well-regarded where governance and promoting citizens' welfare is concerned. Have you heard of the Anjana Mishra affair? Or the rat-eating tribals of Kalahandi? So the same gentleman who did not lift a finger when a defenceless woman was gang-raped in front of witnesses, and who used the power of his political office to obstruct justice is now, suddenly, the defender of the Indian flag? The same Biju Patnaik who failed to provide food to the famine-struck villages of Kalahandi (which is why they resorted to eating rats) is now traumatised by the tricolour-bearing thong?
And you are defending his choice of priorities? Umm, let me see...helping famine-ravaged tribals vs protesting against Cafe Press! Umm the thong wins! Are you kidding me?
I would say the Indian nation and the Indian flag was shamed more by his actions than it would be by any number of tri-colour bearing chuddies.
I also think you have a very naive understanding of Indian politics, which is why you have been generous enough to attribute noble intentions to Biju Patnaik and his ilk. WHERE WAS MR PATNAIK WHEN THE STAINES FAMILY WAS BURNT ALIVE IN THEIR CAR BY HINDU FUNDAMENTALISTS?
As an Indian, (and a Hindu) I am more ashamed to see that I am represented by politicians who have already made a pact with the Devil. Believe me, tri-colour sporting chuddies do NOT keep me awake at night, Anjana Mishra, Bhanwari Devi, Godhra and Graham Staines do.

Hardeep:

Such news reports do appear and there is truth to them. Its a complex issue but here is my side of it in short.

Orissa is rich in minerals, has a pretty big coastline, but is perhaps the poorest state in the country. Until recently, minerals
were mined from Orissa and mostly transported to the rest of the country and the world. The mining royalty rules pay pittance to the state.
I tried to figure out some of it and compiled some info on that at http://mines.orissalinks.com .
Recently the state government has taken the stand that it will insist that companies who want mine leases also set up a value addition units (steel plants, aluminum plants etc.) in the state. Hence a lot of steel, aluminum, and power (lot of coal in Orissa) companies are setting shop in Orissa. Similar things are happening in Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh; but Orissa has a coastline. These developments are leading to new highways, new rail lines and new ports in Orissa. (e.g: Tatas and L& T are setting up a port in Dhamara. etc.) The CEO (Anil Agarwal) of one of the companies (Vedanta) setting up an aluminum plant and many other units has pledged $1 billion from his own (not his company's) money to make a Harvard/Stanford type university in Orissa. See http://vedanta.edu.in/. I have talked to their officials in Mumbai and Bhubaneswar and they seem to be sincere. This is a quick summary. One can get a more comprehensive idea in the web pages I mentioned earlier.

Now all these need land. The land records in Orissa is very badly maintained. People are poor. Almost 40% of the land mass of Orissa has a majority of adivasis. Many of the minerals happen to be in these areas. The past legacy of various governments (central and state) in terms of paying people properly for their land taken (for Rourkela steel plant; for Hirakud dam) is very bad. And many people have indeed taken the money and spent it and have become poorer than before. Things are better these days. Companies like Tatas have started taking better care of displaced people. (Google: Tata Steel parivar and also see also http://www.orissalinks.com/orissagrowth/?p=82) However, more help, in terms of making sure that displaced people are appropriately compensated and educated about finances, is needed. Unfortunately, there is more politics than real desire for help. Many political parties (such as the Communist Party of India and its variants), who do not really win any elections, create havoc in opposing any development; especially the big name ones as those give them more publicity. These actions slow Orissa's progress to get out of the bottom of all development indices.

Preeti (96):

You are confusing the "Patnaiks". The recent comment was made by JB Patnaik, the Congress leaders of opposition in the Orissa assembly; and he was the one involved in the scandal you mention.

Biju Patnaik is a different person. He passed away in 1997.

For info on Biju Patnaik see the NY Times article on him
at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E4DD173EF932A15757C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

There is also a nice article on him in the Economist that needs premium access.
http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TQRDNG&CFID=940248&CFTOKEN=419d2b23a46727b1-0F17E8A1-B27C-BB00-014302BDF1A0F080

Another Patnaik, Naveen Patnaik, the current chief minister of Orissa, is the son of Biju Patnaik.

Abhi, this is a sure way to NOT GET LAID. :)

Strutting is surely not a catalyst for rutting.

What about the image of Jesus on sanitary pads and toilet tissue? Strange how that never strikes someone as fitting a neat market niche? This guy talks about some "nobody politician" in Orissa (a state with a larger population than, say, Louisiana, where students get murdered in broad daylight), but what do you think a famous guy like BAAAAbby JindAAAAl would say about the products suggested in the first sentence of my comment? What would you say, Abhi babay of the land of milk and honey?

What about the image of Jesus on sanitary pads and toilet tissue? Strange how that never strikes someone as fitting a neat market niche? This guy talks about some "nobody politician" in Orissa (a state with a larger population than, say, Louisiana, where students get murdered in broad daylight), but what do you think a famous guy like BAAAAbby JindAAAAl would say about the products suggested in the first sentence of my comment? What would you say, Abhi babay of the land of milk and honey?

Svaha: We in the US have the right to abuse religious symbols and we regularly do so. India has a law against "hurting religious sentiment" and does not respect free speech. Abhi already pointed out that the same shop that Orissa is protesting has this Jesus stuff. We have shows in the US like Southpark where the creators regularly make fun of Jesus and other religious figures without any civil disturbance. So the Orissa government can protest over the fact that we in the US have an iconoclastic sense of humor, but they should be aware that we don't have any stupid laws against "hurting religious sentiment" that we can use to give them the "justice" they seek. And what point are you making about lawlessness in the US ? Do you really think violent crime doesn't happen in India ? Do you contend that the justice system works better in India ? BTW, as much as I dislike Jindal you are going out on a limb suggesting that he should show special consideration for these victims just because they are Indian. This is the job of law enforcement, his job is to give them the funding they need. I am happy that the police in this country are not the hired goon squad of the ruling party as they are in India

Why are Indians so insecure about anything and everything? Are our leaders and icons so frail that they need us to constantly defend them whenever some idiot fashion designer chooses to "defile" them?

I second that.

Our deities, leaders, and icons will be worthy of admiration or worship regardless of what people say about them. In the end, who is going to be remembered... random designers and CafePress or Ganesha and Gandhi?

Reacting like small children doesn't exactly prove your maturity. If anything, flying off the handle for little things like this, while ignoring cases like the Anjana Mishra case, makes you appear remarkably unworthy of any sort of power.

Blasphemy!

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/photo?slug=14514f350d7d0e39c738584d72a22575-getty-cricket-aus-ind&prov=getty

Indian fieldsman Wasim Jaffer watches a streaker wearing the Indian flag being escorted from the field by police during the first day of the first Test match at the MCG in Melbourne, 26 December 2007.

ndian fieldsman Wasim Jaffer watches a streaker wearing the Indian flag being escorted from the field by police during the first day of the first Test match at the MCG in Melbourne, 26 December 2007.

"I was there ;) and boy was it fun especially after India had Australia on the ropes."

lucky you! i was tempted to call it a night at the lunch break but fortunately i stuck it out to see india make a match of it.

What? An Indian politician is actually voicing an objection publicly to something he finds upsetting? Ridicule/scorn/laugh at/question the enlightenment of/ that corrupt/lazy/ineffectual/cynical/ignorant man.