Yeah, Ram Sena etc etc is what inspired this post.
So basically, people are loth to be policed. Urbane Indians, most of all. At the slightest provocation, Times of India and their related concerns jump to ask “Who are THEY to tell us what to do and what not to do?”, and the P3Ps of Bangalore lend a chorus. I’m merely being matter-of-fact here.
I do not understand how adopting western culture has come to be seen as being more sophisticated and open-minded. Perhaps in the days when American clothes and food were a novelty, it made sense to envy the guy with the faded jeans. And his knowledge of American accents and the like was some rare knowledge. and his adoption of all of that culture was really being open-minded and experimentative.
But now every Senthil Arumugasamy wears denim. Every Kunjavva wears halter-neck tops. And pizzas and burgers are not experimental food anymore. So if you are speaking in a call-center accent now, you aren’t doing anything different from the 30K other people in Koramangala. Get over it, people.
And… alcohol. People wanting to get together and celebrate with alcohol, I can understand. But when an entire city can’t pass the evening without alcohol, something seems amiss.
The same socialite who will, with disgust, say that the laborer was stinking of alcohol will think nothing of socializing with equally drunk people of her own social class. Don’t give me the crap about these people being more cultured… Madesha gets drunk on IML and beats his wife, Adnan Sami gets drunk on scotch and beats his wife; I fail to see the difference.
And… why is it assumed that only Muthalik-like men have such attitudes towards women? I have seen men from very good families adopt the same patronizing ‘oh you’re a girl, you’ll get married soon why we should invest on you’ attitude. And you’d only be fooling yourself if you think there exist men who admire promiscuous – or rather, OPEN – women for what they are. The terminology might vary, but the attitude adopted is the same, irrespective of the social class they belong to, or the education levels.
There are men who think their wives shouldn’t go out and work in the garment factory. There are men who think their wives shouldn’t go out and pursue a career on Wall Street. There are men who are supportive of their wife’s vegetable patch in the acres of family farmland. There are men who educate their daughters beyond all limits. It has nothing to do with what syllabus you are taught, or how much money you have. It’s about what sort of women you’ve grown up seeing and what sort of men you’ve been influenced by.
I don’t get one thing. If you are open-minded, why do you get so irritated about folks who prefer not to be? Shouldn’t you be open enough to accept them too as a part of the world you live in?
Sometimes I wonder if people want all this ‘openness’ only for their own selfish ends? I mean, who wouldn’t want to say yes to a world where you could have sex and didn’t need accountability? Or where their alcoholism got a streak of legitimacy? Or where their laziness to follow rite and ritual got wider recognition as ‘rebellion’? Or their selfishness was seen to be inspired by Ayn Rand? I’ve begun to feel it’s not that people find an idealogy and then adapt to it, but find one which justifies their (sometimes unjustifiable) actions.
Now that the rant has been done about the ‘Oh, look! We are so open-minded!’ hypocrites, let’s get to the real post.
When any such moral-policing issue comes up, the first reaction we get is of “Who are they to police us? They need to understand this is how society evolves’.
But thinking more about this, and generalizing this argument, I wonder if everyone adopted this ‘understanding’ attitude, how society would progress. Three years back, I remember Tuna wrote something about Unreasonable Men and how they are the ones who give society its shape. If you are faced with a situation you do not like, do you just bend and give way?
And then there are those who say ‘Maybe their motives were fine, but their methods left a lot to be desired’. Yes, they were crudely ineffective. But so was Guevara. And the violence… well, Leftism talks of Force as the Midwife of Revolution. So, well, Ram Sena maybe fancied themselves Guevaras and Marxes?
Or maybe Stallman? Maybe Muthalik found that a lot was changing around him, and not all of it he felt good about. And he felt a divine call saying that no one was in as unique a position as him to be able to foment a revolution. And hence the creation of Rama Sene, a la the Free Software Foundation?
In which case I find the media associating these guys with a Right-Conservative party very amusing. Because Conservatives believe in slow change, not violent, bloody revolutions. Conservatives prefer to start with what we have and move slowly, but surely towards what we want to have. Conservatives believe in influencing the learning process, social policies, the thought of the common man, and not bringing about these changes by force, but by change in thought.
This post is Devil’s Advocacy, and is not necessarily my opinion. I would like these arguments countered, coz I want to know what I’m missing in constructing these. I would like logical flaws pointed out. I’m also having you know that any personal attack in the comments section will be promptly deleted.
And one last piece of information I ask for: Does social acceptance of drinking make the social evil of alcoholism better or worse?