Clothed in Hypocrisy - Selective Targeting of Dress Codes

In recent years, rural community panchayats have come under repeated attacks at their mostly unsuccessful attempts at restraining young women from excessive use of mobile phones and from wearing “provocative” western outfits. We have witnessed outraged TV anchors and their handpicked panelists emote passionately for endless hours against such “Talibani diktats”. We are told the very idea of dress codes is oppressive, is anti-freedom. On the surface it sounds reasonable that each person should have the freedom to wear clothes of their choice. I for one would never justify use of violence or coercive means to “discipline” individuals.

But those who pontificate total individual freedom for others feel rattled when you extend the same logic to their own lives. 

For example, is it a coincidence that all male T.V anchors-whether of Hindi, English, Tamil or Marathi news channel, are dressed alike in black, navy or dark brown western outfits -- a full sleeved high collared shirt underneath a full sleeved coat and a tie to complete the brown sahib stylistic statement?  Even as a viewer, I break into a sweat seeing our anchors suffer this stuffed up western attire borrowed from cold-weather Europe. Since they are not subservient to any "Talibani diktat", I would like to know which master computer has programmed this dress code for all of India's male anchors? Why is it that none of them dares to come in a dhoti, or kurta pajama, a half sleeve bandi or even T-shirts, at least in summer months?

Female news anchors may have moved on from the days when a saree was considered mandatory outfit for news readers. But most have adopted corporate suits, never topless gowns, halter neck blouses, dresses with plunging necklines or mini-skirts. Those dresses are reserved for women anchoring light entertainment shows. Even a classical music show would not be anchored by a woman in a mini skirt.  A woman news anchor may go wearing a backless choli-ghaghra to a late night party, but she wouldn't be allowed to host a serious talk show in such an outfit. Similarly, one wouldn’t walk to mourn a relative’s death wearing a bright red saree.  In India, it is an unwritten code to wear white on such occasions while in the west, people wear black.

Clearly, every profession, every institution, every occasion has a written or unwritten dress code, not just in India but all over the world. But our self-styled reformers protest selectively against some. And the choice is revealing. For example, in post-independence India, we continued with the dress code imposed on young girls by elite English medium & convents schools with such pride and commitment that skirts and tunics were adopted even by ordinary private and many government schools as a mandatory dress code.

Having studied in one such convent school where no other dress was permitted, I can say with conviction that a skirt is the most inhibiting dress for a growing girl, especially if you are studying in a co-ed school. You have to be forever watchful about positioning your legs in a “lady like” manner so that you don’t reveal your panties or your thighs. When you are in the playground, you dread a fall not only for the bodily hurt it may cause but more for the embarrassment of your skirt flying high and revealing your guarded secrets. During the days of menstruation, one is even more self-conscious in a skirt. I still have unpleasant memories of my school days when a favourite tease of boys used to be to lift a girl’s skirt from behind with a foot ruler or come and stand underneath a hanging jhoola to peek underneath girls’ skirts. They would then compose limericks on the colour and shape of our under garments.

Moreover, in the freezing winter months, wearing a skirt is a real torture. But, schools even in snow covered hill stations insist on girls wearing the same old knee length skirts during the icy winter months. A few elite schools have adopted pants, but if you ask for the freedom to wear salwar-kameez in a school that prescribes pants for girls as the compulsory dress code, you will be told that such “behenji” outfits are not tolerated. Why do we ignore that this too amounts to cultural enslavement and denial of free choice for women?

It puzzles me that over six decades after independence, nobody feels offended at the dress code introduced for judges and lawyers by our colonial rulers being dutifully followed by our legal fraternity. The heavy black gown with a necktie to boot not only constitutes an aesthetic assault but is a plain nuisance in summer months. Would a lawyer become less competent if he wore a white kurta pajama? Similarly women police are expected to wear tight belted khaki pants which are highly inconvenient during pregnancy. Is salwar kameez not a more suitable outfit?

As for restrictions on the use of mobile phones even the “ultra- modern” families in Metros all over the world are worried about the adverse effects of addiction on children and youth to mobile phones and related gadgetry. Even in classroom, they are busy texting messages, downloading pornography, exchanging smut or simply twittering late into the night. Young men use the cell phones to video record and broadcast intimate scenes with girlfriends as a blackmail technique. Many educated urban families have begun to strictly restrict mobile and internet access. In cities they are called “enlightened”. But rural families become Talibani for wanting similar controls.

The message is clear, 

a)   If you are coerced to ape western style clothing, no matter how inconvenient, we should embrace it as a step towards “liberation”. But even a mild advisory that we should stick to more convenient traditional outfits is dubbed as a sign of backward obscurantist thinking and Talibani temperament.

b)   Parents, teachers, community elders are not allowed any say in matters of dress code and larger matters of social morality. This privilege is exclusively reserved for Metro based self-appointed social reformers and zealous TV anchors who have taken on the mantle of "civilizing" Indians since our colonial rulers were made to leave India without completing their historic mission.

And we call these imperious attacks lessons in liberalism and modernization!

An edited version of this article was published in Hindustan Times on January 24, 2013 (See link:http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/Clothed-in-hypocrisy/Article1-998844.aspx )

Adding Absurdities to Anti Rape Law - Why Not Top it All with “The Duty to Waive Appropriate Laws before Offenders” Act?

Despite its colonial bias, the Indian Penal Code enacted in 1861 by the British who ruled us then, is still serving us far better than the entire gamut of post-independence legislation, especially the laws enacted ostensibly for protecting or strengthening women’s rights. But every time a law fails to deliver its promised results,  instead of taking a cool headed review, a small but volatile and media savvy coterie of NGO’s starts a hysterical campaign for making the law more stringent. The government of the day willingly obliges by adding a few draconian provisions to the existing law—increase the term of imprisonment, make the crime non-bailable, shift the burden of proof on the accused and brush aside due process to placate the hysterical NGOs and their allies in the media for the simple reason that it helps deflect attention from its failure in getting the existing laws implemented with honesty.

Since most of these laws are passed as knee jerk reactions their “use-by date” is over even before women for whose benefit the law has been passed get to know of its provisions or intent. But that does not stop zealous reformers from baying for more amendments, more stringent punishments to be added to the much amended law, as they did with laws to combat dowry, domestic violence, obscene portrayal of women in the media, foeticide and so on. They are often enacted even before law makers have had the time to define the crime with clarity and accuracy.

Take the example of anti-rape law. It was amended in 1983 under pressure from women’s rights activists after the rape of young Mathura in a Hyderabad police station. It enhanced the minimum jail term for rape to 7 years with 10 years for custodial rape. In case of death due to brutal rape, there is provision for life imprisonment as well as death sentence. But none of these provisions proved effective in curbing sexual crimes against women which appear to have actually become more rampant and more gruesome. Leave alone curbing incidents of rape in secluded places or in privacy of homes, government machinery has failed to curb even custodial rapes in thanas and hospitals.

Last year the excessively zealous Women and Child Development Minister, Krishnna Tirath raised the age of consent for consensual sex from 16 to 18—thereby treating a 17 year old male who has consensual sex with another 17 year old as a “rapist”.  She was then brimming with confidence that the law would act as a magic wand for persuading or frightening teenage girls from having sex before they turned 18. But this pious measure also failed to produce the desired result.

In the meantime, the police made it merry by harassing young lovers looking for some private lovey -dovey moments in parks or other secluded places. The police also make a kill by implicating men on the basis of motivated, trumped up charges or absolutely absurd allegations of rape under the existing supposedly “lenient” provisions. For example, in recent years there have been a spate of cases of women getting their lovers and/or live-in partners arrested on the charge of “raping them continually for X number of years” by making a false promise of marriage or a film role or a particular job.  These men surely deserve condemnation for breach of promise. But to charge them of rape is making a mockery of women who actually suffer gruesome assaults on their bodies.

But for the media expose, we could well have had a case filed by the woman lawyer who was caught on camera with Abhishek Manu Singhvi alleging rape, had he failed to make her a judge of the High Court—a job she demanded in return for sexual favours!

To say that a man is legally obliged to marry a woman or give a promised job to a woman he has had sex with and failure to do so will mean a prison term for 10-20 years is to play with fire. Are we willing to extend the same logic to women and have them arrested and jailed if they change their mind about marrying a man with whom they have had an affair?  Can women demand such one sided laws in the name of equality without making themselves objects of disdain?

Predictably, the only people who benefit from such fierce laws are corrupt policemen and unscrupulous lawyers. Just as the police bribe rate goes up for helping criminals in cases of non bailable offences, so also the lawyers’ fee rises astronomically if the offence invites draconian provisions. Genuine victims rarely get the kind of support our police gives to those who have committed crimes against women. Most genuine victims can’t afford to hire lawyers who charge a bomb for arguing their case.

All this would have gone on for ever without any one in the Government losing any sleep if a few gruesome cases of rape in the heart of Delhi had not mesmerized TV channels into making rape into a cause célèbre last year. Therefore, in sheer panic the Government appointed a special Commission headed by legal luminaries who too in sheer panic submitted a humongous report in record 30 days’ time and then pressed more panic buttons to demand that their recommendations be turned into an Ordinance in order avoid delays in passing a new rape law. Never mind that the public hearings of the Commission held just 48 hours before they were to submit the voluminous report were a mere formality because the feminists who wanted certain law changes had already supplied all the ammunition to the Commission before it carried out the formality of public hearings.

So now we have a situation where even before there is consensus on whether to call the crime ‘rape’ or “sexual assault”, whether to raise or decrease the age of consent, how to define ‘voyeurism” or “stalking” it has been decided to make it a non bailable offence—meaning the moment a woman makes this charge, police are duty bound to arrest the person and send him to jail because only court can give him bail. It has also been decided in the draft law that the minimum punishment for rape will be raised from 10-years to 20. Now that the BJP has decided to beat the feminists at their own game, it is going to support a “tough” law simply to get one-up on the Congress party!

Since I am actually feeling sorry for the UPA government for having to act under siege, I have a humble suggestion to help it overcome future embarrassments. Along with the new rape law, the UPA government should enact another law that mandates that EVERY woman must at ALL times carry copies of ALL the laws ( along with their numerous amendments) enacted for protection of women on her person. These copies should be duly certified by the area magistrate so that she can waive the appropriate law with utmost confidence about its authenticity at whoever comes to harm her, beat her up, rape her, violate her dignity, and sense of pride as a woman! This could be called the “The Duty to Waive Appropriate Laws before Offenders”. This could be a drunkard husband come with a knife to kill her or break her skull or a gang of sadists come to rape and tear her body apart or a leery boss wanting sexual favours in lieu of allowing her leave when her child is sick or a pervert carrying a can of acid to disfigure her for having dared snub his advances.

Failure to carry any or all of these laws on her person should invite strict action against the woman or at the very least disqualify her for seeking the help of the police in booking the said criminal because failure to wave the law with a confident flourish is indisputable evidence of “contempt and mistrust of government” and ‘lack of trust” in the magical power of the said law. This simple measure will help curb if not crimes against women, it will surely bring a radical decline in the number of women who will walk into police stations to report and register crimes.

After all, a woman who does not feel strengthened by the sheer ferocity of draconian provisions written into law made especially for her protection, needs “consciousness raising” by duly certified feminist NGOs. For this purpose, the Government should allocate a corpus fund of 50,000 crores with 10% additional yearly increase to provide handsome grants in perpetuity to feminists of the correct political persuasion to conduct legal literacy classes, psychiatric counseling and the art of waving laws with speed and flourish whenever they feel endangered. Grants emanating from this may be used for going on global tours to hold workshops, prepare training modules, audio visual material, films and explore all manners of new consciousness raising techniques with the help of best international experts on the subject.

Once government makes high voltage feminists become “partners in woman’s empowerment” they will be able to protect it from disgruntled citizens far better than the government knows how to.

If this too does not work, let us please request the British to come back for a specified period and update all our laws to sit the requirements of a 21st century democracy in India, since we have failed to do the job on our own steam.

Published in Dainik Bhaskar, March 2013