Choice

Choice

When I was born I did not have any choice

My name, what I wore and ate and how

Determined by family, people, others around

When I think back, I really had no choice

Then I gained gradually that thing important

Between my ears in that hard bony cage

Not the brain for the hardware was there

The program to run it the mind dawned

As it metamorphosed it began exercising

In tiny toddler steps to begin with

The one power it inherently had

That of choice, my choice

The colors of clothes, the flavor of Cerelac

Make of footwear, type of cartoon

And more domains now in my kingdom

To choose, active or passive, but to choose

The choice of friends for family was given

Choice of loved subjects for curriculum was given

The choice of teacher for school was given

Choice of serials for watching t.v. was given

The seriousness of choice grew exponentially

Gender, sexuality, opinions, ideology, hatefulness

And the likes of it shrouded thoughts and formed

Intermingled with freedom a heady cocktail

The hollow reprimand of mother earlier

For disdain for a particular vegetable

Now paled before the loggerheads at home over

Traveling, partying, girlfriends, drinking, career

When choices echoed in the portals of society

The echo heard back was sometimes howler

Sometimes applause of acceptance

Or stony silence of questioning them

Straitjacket of various kinds exist

With their keepers wishing I would conform

In thoughts, in action, in choices

Some I choose to fit in others I don’t

Everyone has a mind of their own and hence

Choices of their own which I shall

Respect however vehemently I disagree

For that is cornerstone of humanity

My choice should not be a thorn

In the path of any other being

Nor should it be a framework

For any other to just adopt and fit

In conflict with morality my choices might stand

In defiance of norms they might jut out

Hypocrisy and double standards it should shun

Stabbing, stepping over, it should refrain

The road ahead in the years of life

Will pose for sure situations demanding choice

Which will be of paramount pain or pleasure

Yet leaving no choice to embark on it

My choice is me, both with halo and pitchfork

I choose to show either at my choice of time

In battles of morality shall I choose what I wish

To bear consequences of it all

The Two Sides of the Fence

The polarities are suddenly becoming sharper, the splits very wide, and the schisms very drastic. There are numerous raging, burning, outrageous issues (note the adjectives used for issues), which demand one to take a stand, either for or against; nothing in between. One is expected to take a position on either side of the fence, not on it. This phenomenon causes cramping in the room for informed debate, understanding nuances, broadening horizon of thought, to be considerate at times and above all to understand that life is not about polarities all the time.

In social sciences polarization means the social process whereby a social or political group is divided into two opposing sub-groups having conflicting and contrasting positions, goals and viewpoints, with few individuals remaining neutral or holding an intermediate position. The few are becoming fewer, are bullied into becoming fewer, are coerced into becoming fewer.

Social space, both media and otherwise is rife with issues that concerns the general public. Be it the political ones, where either you are pro-Modi or anti-Modi, social ones where either you are against airing of a convicts interview or for it, one related to sports where one is required to display well demarcated allegiance. And ‘display’ has become an important element of this narrative.

In the melee of such strongly voiced opinions sadly the views of the fence sitters doesn’t get heard or gets misconstrued. Her thoughts are most likely to be interpreted by the majority as one on the extreme sides. Now there is a social reason behind this. It is a constriction of understanding of a middle path, which we are gradually shunning since a long time now. One either cracks an entrance or not, one either gets past that IIT gate or not, one either marries or not, you get the drift. For on the other side of ‘not’ is an unforgiving world.

A whopping 65.8% teens report to have been cyber bullied. The percentage only drops for adults but the fact that it occurs doesn’t go away. Anger, frustration, sadness are the predominant feelings that those bullied on facebook, or twitter or by e-mail have felt. Bullying at one level is again based on sharp differences in opinions expressed socially and that which is then taken to a much personal level.

Many of us must have experienced or noticed that after a point, which is not very distant, debates and discussions give rise to untoward personal attack. Intolerance is on a rise, if one doesn’t belong to a camp, a basic divisive entity, one doesn’t find a place elsewhere. All this breeds another kind of individuals who are groomed with the belief that unless you hold and express strong and controversial viewpoints you will not attract friends or attention. The mental trauma for those who are unable to withstand tirade against them leads to dire consequences, a fact represented by increased percentage of suicides stemming from cyber bullying or social media acceptance.

We should understand and make understand the vulnerable young that it is ok not to have opinions on everything, it is ok not to indulge in slugfest online and lose sleep over it, it is ok not to be identified with the majority or the minority, it is ok not to outrage all the time, it is ok not to have followers who follow you for the bigoted views, it is ok not to choose a side of the fence, it is in fact just fine to sit on it sometimes.

FoE - the new foe



Pic courtesy: matie.devaintart.com

‘Comedy is a serious business. A serious business with only one purpose – to make people laugh’ – W C Fields

On January 20, comedy became serious and as it appears from the journey since then, it couldn’t have gotten more serious than this. For the first time in recent memory has comedy been subject to such social scrutiny and legal harangue in India. AIB, other stand-up comedy artists, along with Bollywood stars, introduced the concept of ‘roasting’. Little would they have thought that in due course of time they would have to apologize for it, remove the video from YouTube, face various sections of Indian Penal Code and IT Act and not to mention become a subject of newsroom and drawing room (if not bedroom) debate. Much has already been written about this, which of other things has brought to fore the issue of ‘Freedom of Expression’, which in an acronym-loving world have been termed FoE. FoE suddenly has become the foe for a large section of people.

This controversy over AIB Roast has created 5 types of people. On one extreme are those who have been outraged over it and want the comedians behind bar for hurting their sentiments (sounds heavy already). Then there are those who find the comedy appalling, are outraged but do not believe there is merit in legal action. The middle category is those who have no opinion about it. Then there are those who have not necessarily liked it but want FoE to be sacrosanct and are with AIB. The last category is those who loved the comedy and will fight against the suit filed against AIB and others (searching for your place on the scale?). There can be a few more category that you could fit in these sections, but for a scientific brain familiar with Likert scale, I came up with the above categorization.

Comedy is the art of making people laugh without making them puke – Steve Martin

I shall not get into the merit of the comedy that the ‘roasting’ provided. I prefer non-obscene comedy and have scripted few for award winning competitions at my university. But, that is just me being me. With due respect to one of the very talented comedians in the show, who has featured in Forbes 30 under 30 list of influential people, who is breaking stereotypes, who is a wonderful person and who is a good friend, the comedy was largely tasteless for me (I very much run the risk of getting killed by her though).

But then I find a lot of politics and policies in the country tasteless, a lot of movies and songs tasteless and certainly a great amount of views of people tasteless. But that is again just me and should be the same for all individuals. If I did not like the comedy, I would not watch it so that I puke, will I?

Pukish one feels at the sections that our law has to try people. Just take a look at the sections slapped in the FIR. They are, 120-b (criminal conspiracy), sections 294, 509 (speaking vulgar, obscene and pornographic words publicly before a women audience) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 67 and 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (circulation of obscene, pornographic content on the internet), Bombay Police Act 1951, the Environment Protect Act, 1986 (environment, seriously?), and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Though our judiciary has usually lived up to the expectations of betrayed-by-politics people, judicial overreach (of a different kind in this case) has plagued it time and again.

The world is a tragedy to those who feel, but a comedy to those who think – Horace Walpole

Then there is a narrative about the social impact of such obscenity. Extremists ask what impact would such kind of comedy have on impressionable minds, what would be the limit of vulgarity, what kind of language and action will act out in the public domain, etc. A parent might worry what would a child gather watching such show, but the worry would then be misplaced. The parent would then have to worry about all the kids in the school concerning what language they bring with them, the kids at the playground, books, cartoon network (you wouldn’t want to know what narratives on relationships they play) and the internet which is easily accessible (unless you don’t allow internet use and take the kid 10 years back in comparison to his/her classmates), and everything else.

The getting outraged brigade is growing in number. It appears to me that their use of FoE is sabotaging the actual issue. The infamous tweet of censor board member and director Ashoke Pandit is a case in point. Which takes me to the issue of hypocrisy. A large section of people find the issue a non-issue because it is the government, Maharashtra government precisely, which is taking keen interest in pursuing this issue. People take government and politicians in same league of mistrust and thus question how hate speeches of a Togadia or Owaisi, irresponsible and communal remarks of a Sadhvi or Father or Maulana is less harmful than a profanity-filled-comedy. Then there is hypocrisy about the kind of popular chauvinistic, innuendo filled comedy that passes off as good comedy and direct below-the-belt comedy is made a scapegoat of.

Comedy is acting out optimism – Robin Williams

Comedy in a society has responsibility too. Mindless comedy for the already stuffy society is good but so is intelligent comedy, satire and other forms which bring before people issues in a manner that a serious LSTV debate cannot (LSTV guys is Lok Sabha TV, a superb channel if you want to know what the nation ‘doesn’t’ demand to know). Cartoonists have been under attack, authors have been under attack, media has been under attack, and these have put serious question marks on FoE.

As my teacher and Takshashila founder Nitin Pai has explained well in his blog (please read http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2015/01/21/q-a-on-free-speech/ ), the concept of absolute FoE doesn’t exist. We have traded some rights to the nation as citizens and absolute FoE is one of them. The ‘reasonable restrictions’ that Article 19 carries under its clause 2 includes serious and relevant categories like security of state, public order, defamation, etc., but also includes decency and morality which is something that depends on an individual, changes with time and is subject to interpretations.

Should such shows which is meant for select audience, who are adults, have the right to choose a government, have the right to marry and produce children be subject to such restrictions? The counter argument for limited access is its access to all via YouTube. I think it will suffice to take a Twitter argument to answer that. ‘YouTube videos just don’t play on their own’.

La commedia e finite (Comedy is finished) – Ruggero Leoncavallo

What impact will this incident have on FoE? I would like to believe that this overreach of a lower court will be struck down by higher courts which will put to rest the legal part of the matter. That will foster furtherance of comedy, of all kinds, in the country. More comedians are sprouting and will grow in number. And that will be the true upholding of freedom of expression.

PS: No one is outraged by this piece, are they?