A Fine Imbalance

The Dogmatic Traveling Salesman!

This post started as a comment to Sakshi’s post for the ongoing blogathon (which I heard about, thanks to Sakshi) on the subject of homosexuality. It’s a well written post, in the sense that it expressed the right sentiments — people’s sexual inclination should be none of anyone’s business. And in that sense, society needs to accept, if not respect, the choices and move on. Yes choices.

However, after making a claim about homosexuality being a challenge to the normative, rather than being abnormal, Sakshi makes a stronger appeal:

This got me thinking. [It's been a while since I'm writing a real non-fiction post, so bear with me if I'm not coherent]

One of the claims Sakshi makes is that Homosexuality is not a choice, and it is probably genetic. Now, Homosexuality might well be genetic and/or circumstantial. But a “genetic” argument is a two edged one. What if, tomorrow, pedophilia turns out to be genetic? What if there is a pedophilic gene, so to say (if there already isn’t)? Does it become normative, just because it is genetic? No, right? So basically something being genetic is normatively irrelevant (violence might be in our genes, but it’s not included in normative). Normative is decided by what a society/ideology/religion values. Normative is about what should be, not what is. And what should be is by definition what is of value to the society.

Different societies, or even subsets of a society have different concepts of the normative. Some societies might think eating non-veg is sin/vice and may treat meat eaters (or pork eater, or beef-eaters …) as abominable/vile. The real question is not whether homosexuality should be included in the normative (why?), but whether anyone should be persecuted for being out of the normative. Sakshi is arguing for former, but just as one does not like society to decide one’s choices (of beliefs or whatever), one has to give society the freedom to decide what is normative: i.e. what it considers a “standard” or encourage-able practice, and what it does not approve. What Sakshi is asking is equivalent to saying that “beef eating/ pork eating / drinking/ smoking/ pre-marital sex” must be included in the normative. What one can reasonably demand of society is the “freedom” to be out of this normative band, and yet not be persecuted/discriminated against. What we can demand reasonably of the legal system, is that laws must protect people against such discrimination (being denied fair opportunities, being threatened/beaten/harassed/booed), instead of punishing people for falling out of the normative. In my opinion, that is the real change we need.

Another related example I would like to give is of adultery. In lot of societies it used to be a crime (still is?). Now, surely adultery is in our genes ;-). Many of our ancestors (I’m hinting more at pre-human ones, but …) have exhibited adultery. Adultery is consensual. Now, should it be included in the normative? A reason why adultery will probably never be normative in most societies is because it is seen as destroying the normatively sanctioned relationship between two adults of different sex (or even minors! phew) — marriage (which in turn is blessed, one can conjecture, because it is supposed to be for procreation and child-rearing). Should all religions/societal norms that are against adultery be changed just because adultery is genetic or normal?

In that sense, homosexuality has to be treated on par with pre-marital sex, incest (not leading to childbirth), orgiastic sex (between consenting adults), non-exploitative paid sex, and so on. It needs to be decriminalized, and even legalized (just as beef/pork eating and cow-slaughter should be legalized). Societies should be more tolerant and less judgmental (how could you do that) of those choices (and anything that’s not part of the normative, but is not stepping on anyone’s shoes) - which is different from saying they have to be part of the normative. A stronger case is needed to change the normative. Someone will have to project the benefits of homosexuality to the society, for that to happen. Normative, I reiterate is about value — and for a societal norm it means of value to the society. Liberalism, and acceptance of varied life choices of others, as a long-term value is easier to argue for, still that strictly does not require including everything in the normative.

How homosexuality is different from the others on the above list is that the others are not considered “abnormal”, just unacceptable (at least pre-marital sex and paid-sex). In case of homosexuality, this “abnormal” term is typically used not in normative (value) sense, but rather as a pathological/psychopathological sense (as pedophilia is considered, I’m sure?). By taking the discussion on a normative level, we ignore the issue. A strong and independent case can be (and is being) made for normalization of homosexuality on psychopathological grounds. The message has to be loud and clear: that homosexuality might be statistically deviant, but is not abnormal in psychopathological sense. This will be much more useful in changing people’s prejudices in the longer term. The perception of homosexuality as a disease of some sort has to change first, and fast.

To sum it up, I’ll categorize the “no” rules into three categories (below). Note that it’s not a hard categorization, and will again change from country to country or society to society…

A. Normative and legislative: no killing/raping/destroying property/stealing/cheating/exploiting …
B. Normative but not legislative: no coveting someone else’s wife/no premarital sex/no public display of affection/no drinking/eating something or the other/smoking, no marrying outside community …
C. Legislative but not normative: no breaking traffic signals, no evasion of taxes, no active discrimination (w.r.t. cast/religion/gender/…), no hate-speech, no gender discrimination

Currently “no homosexual love” falls into A, as far as I am aware (those draconian and old laws against homosexuality). That’s absolutely ridiculous. It must move to B. Also we need to enhance C to include homosexuality into the “no active discrimination” list (as many western states have). Asking that it must not even be in B, will (IMHO) just polarize the discussion and be counter-intuitive.

“Isn’t knowledge supposed to make us humble?”, he asked.

“Those who are humble are lost to the anonymity”, replied the Guru calmly.

“And what is wrong with anonymity?”, he asked, naively.

“If you’re anonymous, you’re lost to the history. The illuminating flame of knowledge, that you’ve been raised to believe in, is lost to the darkness of anonymity. This is a century of the supernova. When knowledge burns silently, it only lights a single face. When it burns with a blast, it lightens up a universe”

Welcome to Guru 2.0 enlightenment broadcast.

[PS: We're just waiting for micro-finance to go live]

The hot streets
are spewing venom
as I observe
from within the comforts
of the tinted glass
and endlessly complain
about the artificial cold
that’s keeping me away
from the summer of discontent

The tinted glass
is stuck
between the two worlds
but cracks will appear
as we near
the summer of discontent

Hope is burning
under the lens of pragmatism
we’re all masters
of here and now
but we can’t anticipate
the stink of the flesh
that will burn
in the summer of discontent

There will be
no mercy
no shelter
no refuge
every bridge
will melt and burn
and April will be
the cruelest month
in the summer
of discontent

Maybe, now, Chetan Sharma will feel less lonely?

49.6 Vaas to Chanderpaul, SIX, This is the stuff of dreams! Off all times Vaas has to bowl a full toss! Chanderpaul waits for the gift, clubs that across the line and the ball just goes sailing over Jayawardene at deep midwicket. He waits and waits for the ball to clear the rope, a rather long and agonising one, he breaks out in celebration and the entire troupe from the dressing room rush onto the field and crowd around him

[From cricinfo.com]

He has a good company, in the name of Mr. Chaminda Vaas :). There is of course, one Mr. Mashrafe Mortaza, but that hardly is a company you count in international cricket. And then, in principle, you could count Steve Waugh, who conceded a six on last ball for a Tie].

What’s more this lad (you can’t really call Vaas a lad, but still!) gave 10 in last 2 deliveries.

Of course, this wasn’t a final, and it wasn’t a rivalry people kill for. Still, it’s a reminder, if ever needed, that cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties, to repeat a cliche.

Even today, after all these years, when I watch that Javed Miandad six, I feel the pain ;). Poor Chetan Sharma — his whole career achievements were wiped out in that one delivery. Even the joy of being the first Indian to take a hat-trick wouldn’t have helped. Curiously, I found the reference of this “six” when I was reading Kamila Shamsie’s Kartography. The narrator of the novel (my review is due, for a while) talks about it fondly, being from the other side of the border. It took me a moment to digest that someone could be happy about that! Lol! Those unlucky few who were born after the rivalry fizzled out, wouldn’t get the pain or euphoria, sigh!

We live
amorphous lives
die anonymous deaths
celebrate kitsch
mourn lives never lived
never could have been

When the light tempts us
we hide
fake enlightenments
and orgasms
sleepwalk through dreams
never believing
for a moment
never doubting

We live
our senses blunted
by the stink, the clutter, the noise
the noise, the slime
and the after taste
of unacknowledged defeat

There is escape
in empathy
not the liberating kind
but ingloriously humbling
the knowledge
that we’re not alone
in living
vicarious lives

Indian television media es-special today seems to be the proposed fee hike by the IITs. For the uninitiated (are there any?), the IITs have proposed a fee hike from 25k per annum to 50k per annum. And there is a widespread concern (the same channels would like us to believe) of what will happen to poor but brilliant students.

Have they heard of the Kota System? The factory charges 50K for JEE coaching (correct me if I’m wrong), and is responsible for about a quarter of selections to the premier engineering institutes of the country (again, correct me if I’m wrong). That’s just “one” institute. Now I’d be curious to know how many of those who clear IIT JEE have not opted for any expensive classes. How many do not come from previleged social classes (upper-middle class and above).

Without those figures, the debate is useless. But who’ll tell that to this great Indian Tele-media circus?

Hell, the mess bill of a typical IIT student runs up to about 12-18K per year (that was 7 years back, I’m assuming it would be 1.5x more now), out of which 5-6K is canteen - that’s Colas, Milk Shakes, Burgers, and the likes. Add to that cell phones, eating outs, booze, cigarettes, bikes, multiplex tickets, branded clothes, shoes and so on… Do the math. And you’ll know we’re subsidizing the well to do (I’m not even counting the future potential). Yes, a few poor/lower-middle-class guys do manage to enter there, I’m sure, but that’s no longer the typical IITians, and it would be much easier dealing with them as economically backward students, with scholarships or soft-loans. They do not justify a blanket subsidy to the rest 70-80% (and I’m being conservative, in my guesstimate). Again, I’d be loved to be proved wrong.

Touch me, ever so softly
heal me, ever so deftly

When your fingers
move through my hair
a calm spreads within
ever so lightly

When the darkness
mounts all around,
and silence reverberates
in the closing walls,
you wave that
wand of magic,
that guileless smile,
and change my world,
ever so brightly

When your head
rests on my shoulders,
and your hair
caress my cheeks,
your faith, it touches me
ever so deeply

And I hold on
to this dream
ever so tightly

S: This year, I don’t want to keep it for the last minute.

The lives of others. 1:20 AM, The End.

Lost for words. Do watch it.

I’m making an exception and putting this on my main blog instead of KanadaBatata where it rightfully belongs. So I’ll make this into a contest. I got this photo on Times of India site, and just could not not put words into Mrs. Clinton’s mouth. I’m sure the others will not be able to resist the temptation either. So go ahead! Enter “what she said” contest by posting a comment to this post.

The contest ends on Saturday. On Sunday I’ll use the prize winning entry (which I’ll substitute in the picture) for a KandaBatata post. What’s the prize, you ask? That was the prize — being featured in India’s most unknown news portal that serves news like hot spongy besan cakes.

So what are you waiting for? Here is my entry (which will win ONLY if no other entry is submitted).

Rules:

1. Be short — 1 line. As few words as possible.
2. Avoid vulgarity (yes, that’ some asking, but ….)
3. Avoid abusive language

That’s it.