Why the Indian National Media appears Anti-Hindu

I had conceived the following post in response to a question posed by Bhagwad Jal Park in the comments section of his post - Quran Burning – A book is not a person (click).

I reproduce the pertinent portion of his question here:

"As far as the media goes, I'd like to dig a little deeper. If you say that they're biased (and I'm not sure one way or the other about this), why are they biased? Is it because (as a lot of right winger claim) there is a conspiracy between the government, media etc to put Hindus down, or is it because of sheer incompetence, or because people don't want to hear anything else, or some other reason?"

It has been my policy to carry forward these kind of discussions in my other blog - 'Freewheeling Discussions (Personal)', but as this was something I was anyway planning to blog on and also because understanding what follows would not require knowing a background context, I decide to post this here as an independent blog post.

-----

Despite being an atheist, being not at all a fan of the fuzzy concept of 'Hindutva', not finding anything wrong with Sonia Gandhi's being born in Italy, and nor being the one who would want India to 'rule the world' as a superpower, I have always felt that the national media appears to be partial towards what it terms the 'minorities' (which largely includes the Muslims, the Christians and the 'lower' castes) and has an anti-BJP bent. The latter, some people perceive as their being anti-Hindu. This partiality towards Muslims comes in form of making them look victimized more than they would otherwise be, and also trying to cover up, in the process, their harms done to the Hindus. But I have realized that this perception of media bias is seen as "right wing paranoia" by those who seem to share other beliefs (or non-beliefs) with me - atheism, finding Hindutva silly, etc. A fine specimen of use of this nomenclature could be found here - The Spectacular Achievements of Right Wing Propaganda......... (click).

Though since long I have found a palpable bias in the national media (in favor of minorities, which might make it look like anti-Hindu, but need not really be that way), I have not been able to conclude a firm driving force behind such bias.

I will lay down mere speculations for what could be the reasons (and I am sure that they would sound as silly to many as what "lot of other right-wingers say", but then anyway let me put across my points) [whatever points I make here are applicable largely to the national media, and not necessarily the local media, which have their own individual biases depending what incentives they have and their political affiliations; it should not come as a surprise that media has so much power to influence that many south Indian news channels are 'openly' owned by politicians]:

1. The essential struggle for control over media is not so much between the Hindus and other communities, but is between the Nehru-Gandhi family v/s politicians from the Congress and other parties. So, you will see that even minor good things that the two prominent members of this family do, would be highlighted, whereas any of their failures would be attributed to the respective ministries. Hence, primarily the prominent media houses work against the rivals of the Nehru Gandhi family, be it from the Congress party or some other.

Examples:

a. Sonia Gandhi has never been interviewed on occasion of any Maoist attack or other collective failures of the government (e.g., rising food prices), but her interview had been broadcast with Barkha Dutt even when the Women's reservation bill was just passed in the Rajya Sabha [it is yet to be passed as a law, so what was the celebration about?].

b. The media house that has done the greatest damage to the repute of rivals of the NG-family has as editor, Tarun Tejpal, who had this - Mrs Gandhi And Her Extra God (click) - to say. Apart from an element of fawning, there is clear indication of desire to bring in religion in matters of administration, when one would assume that politics and winning election are not about such silly things as what the attributes of certain deities are.

c. The manner in which Rahul Gandhi's trip to Mumbai in wake of Shiv Sena threat to Shahrukh Khan was covered by national news channels. One of the motives could be cheap sensationalism, but I have not noticed any other politician getting that kind of coverage when the fact is many prominent politicians keep on moving in and out of Mumbai. Even his symbolism/gimmickry (you choose) of withdrawing money from an ATM was covered with much enthusiasm. Contrast that with Narendra Modi, who, in Pune (a city in Maharashtra, largely filled with Maharashtrians) had asked as to why despite having a Maharashtrian president would the people of Maharashtra want a Maharashtrian prime minister. That was a more daring and sensible thing to say than what Rahul Gandhi had done, but hardly any TV network had covered the latter. The news had perhaps appeared in the Indian Express, but I am unable to find the link. Will update when I am able to find it.

d. The manner in which all the major news channels had floated around the news that the SIT had 'summoned' Narendra Modi in context of March 21. And then when he did not turn up at the SIT office on that day (as it was a Sunday and as basically no such summon had been issued) he was trounced by the news channels accusing him of being arrogant enough to not respect the 'summons' of a body instituted by the SC. Later it was revealed that the SIT, being a non-judicial body, did not even have the authority to issue 'summons' (which would have to be issued under some Criminal Procedures Code - CrPC, I don't remember the exact section, perhaps, 62). My understanding is that firstly no such date was determined, yet the TV crew outside the Gandhinagar SIT office had shouted into their mics that Modi had defied the SC and some had gone on to say that he was afraid, as he was guilty. And secondly it appears that, later he had been interrogated as (an expert) witness as he was the CM at the time of riots, and not as an accused - an impression which the media had given. I have two options to choose from to explain this kind of lapse by all major news channels - either it was sheer carelessness or that it was a concerted attempt to malign Modi. Considering the fact that major news channels (NDTV 24x7, TimesNOW, News X, CNN-IBN) had done the same, it is difficult that all of them would have been careless at the same time over exactly the same issue. So, to me the second option seems lot more plausible.

2. Funding from several sources. This might sound the most laughable, but again it is a mere speculation and much weaker than the above explanation. The reason I think so, is because there are innumerable news channels in India, and unlike entertainment channels which can cater to widely disparate kinds of tastes by having completely different programming, news channels show essentially the same news. So, my belief is the 'number of eye balls' must be getting significantly divided among all the news channels. In light of this fact, how attractive do the advertisers find news channels? I again assume, not much. In face of which what sustains the news channels? I am not a finances person, but I had learned that NDTV had posted losses in more than one financial quarters. Yet, the cosmetic quality of their presentation has not significantly deteriorated. I posit that keeping employed cameramen, reporters, drivers, news anchors, paying guests for appearances, and all of this in multiple cities and towns must be too expensive an affair. Other than advertising, what incentive do the owners have to keep the channels running? How do they get monetarily compensated? So, perhaps they get foreign funding to insert PoV and to distort news. Of course, this funding could be, but need not be foreign, it could come from several sources within India too. Some could be political parties, movie celebrities, industrialists, etc.

Example: Mass media: masses of money? (click)

3. Creating sensationalism. One thing the media does is to present story in a very partisan manner. It need not be because of some kind of institutional bias, but simply to make the stories sensationalist. Owing to competition, it becomes imperative that the patrons are hooked to the news. This requires that in any story, an easy-to-recognize 'good' and 'evil' are presented so that people are not bogged down by dry facts. Moreover, the advantage of this approach is that most people would like to identify with the 'good' in the story, demonizing the 'bad' in the process. It has to be remembered that news media, apart from competing with each other are also competing with entertainment channels, FM radio, networking sites, etc. If the patrons do not feel an emotional connect with the story, they would stop following news, which would further harm them financially. So by meddling with facts, the media manage to create a pure evil v/s good aspects in their story.

Examples:

a. So many inconsistencies in news reporting of "two lady doctors killing a rape victim's baby in Raigad"! (click) - a post from my blog dissecting how it is possible to dish out news shoddily and yet make majority of people fall for it (you would be amazed on counting the number of comments and reading their content on the ToI article).

b. These are not Diwali Firecrackers, please! (click) - another post from my blog, where I point out that important issues like success of Pokhran tests were discussed like gossip magazines would, without providing a shred of evidence. My suspicion is, again only to create sensationalism. To gain further clarity on the issue, please do read my responses to Stupidosaur.

c. The Nirupama Pathak case. Even before the autopsy results were announced, her mother had been implicated and made a villain in the entire saga by the media. One of the police officers of Koderma district was shown giving impressive interviews. Along with all this, her boyfriend, who had got her pregnant (of course, guessing that it was not a case of rape but consensual sex) was being shown as some kind of hero. Then, suddenly it was revealed next day that her boyfriend had also been questioned as a suspect. A few days later the news came that the pillow cover (on which saliva stains would remain as it was a suspected case of smothering) and bedsheets had not been inspected. Later it was revealed that the AIIMS, Delhi faculty had felt that the autopsy had been conducted in a very shoddy fashion. Contrast this with the fact that immediately in the aftermath of Nirupama's death, her friends and teacher had been interviewed, who had made stupid statements to the tune of "she was a strong girl, she could not have committed suicide (so must have been killed by the parents - a very grave insinuation)". I don't remember the exact details, but is seems the media had bungled up big-time. So, now there are no follow up news to the best of my knowledge on this. But the reputation of an entire family was tarnished. It was definitely unprofessional and shoddy. There might have not been a larger ulterior motive, but the attempt to spice up the story ("how could parents kill the daughter"-kind) was definitely there despite the lack of evidence to conclude the same.

4. A reason speculated (click) by Atanu Dey:

"If a journalist writing in English wants to be quoted by foreign publications, then he or she has to appeal to the biases of the foreigners and reinforce their prejudices. Otherwise, the foreign press would not touch it. The more shrill a journalist is in denouncing anything that remotely hints at Indian ethos, culture, or pride, the more likely he or she is to get invited to give talks at US universities and other goodies. The term for this phenomenon is "being a house nigger.""

Of course, I might be questioned as to "how I would be sure that the foreign media would want to hear bad things about India?", but remember, this is just one of the speculated reasons for the manner in which some of the journalists behave.

But till now I have, at best, only demonstrated that there the media resorts to sensationalism, unethical behavior and perhaps institutional bias. But I have yet not addressed why it might seem anti-Hindu.

As I pointed out in point 1 above, it caters to the Nehru-Gandhi family, for the simple reason that it has the deepest pockets of all the political entities with pan-India presence. Meaning, even some of the other South Indian politicians might also have as much or deeper pockets, but at least as of now they do not have any need to have opinion modified at a national level.

So, why would the Congress want to make seem Hindus bad?

I think the Congress does not have any incentive for making Hindus look bad. This looking bad of Hindus is merely incidental. For this the demographics and the resulting constituencies of India are to be considered. Muslims, it is said, tend to vote en bloc. To ensure this they have to be constantly fed with the idea that they are being persecuted and discriminated against (this is partly true also that certain fraction of Hindus discriminate against them, and so do people from other religions, but this discrimination is not Muslim-specific, but an outcome of bigotry that birth-related affiliations result in). But to ensure that they vote en bloc for the Congress and not some other party, the only viable option to vote for has to be demonized. That viable option happens to be the BJP. But how can a BJP government directly go and harm the Muslims? So, it has to be shown as shielding those wanting to hurt Muslims. Of course, in terms of endearing itself to the Muslim constituency, the BJP had hurt its prospects by associating with or perhaps even bringing up the Ram Temple-issue. So, in the process it also needs to be shown there exist sizable number of Hindus who are "out there to get the Muslims". This is what incidentally (and not as a matter of primary intention) makes the Hindus look 'bad'. It should not be surprising then that all the major communalist riots seem to be happening only in the BJP-ruled states (Gujarat & Kandhamal), but none seem to be happening in non-BJP ruled states (Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh, Miraj in Maharashtra). But obviously, one has to also create an impression that the BJP & some affiliated bodies, like the RSS and the VHP actively support this violence. How can this impression be created? By projecting riots between Hindus and some other community to be selective persecution of the 'minority'. This impression can again be only created by largely omitting the violence committed against the Hindus. This, I believe, is the reason that the deaths of around 200 Hindus that had occurred in post-Godhra riots in Gujarat are hardly given any coverage. Because, if once that part is also given the prominence it deserves, then people will start questioning the theory that "the BJP and Narendra Modi had organized a pogrom against Muslims", for surely, 200 Hindus would not be killed by the people who also killed Muslims.

Now, apply the same approach with regard to perceived persecution of other minorities, and the impression we are bound to get is one of BJP and associated organizations being anti-Muslim and anti-'lower caste'.

But why does the Congress instead not try to appeal to all the Hindus, instead of trying to appeal to the minorities? After all the Hindus are the 80% of the population!

Traditionally, the Congress has been perceived to be secular/pro-Muslim, and they cannot change that image overnight. Because it would be risky to lose 20% of 'sure-shot' voter share [because Muslims tend to vote en bloc]. But on the other hand, Hindus are fragmented. To make them rally around one party as one constituency is very difficult. The rivalries between various castes and sub-castes of the Hindu community are so deep that they are almost as strong as the Hindu-Muslim rivalry. The BJP had, perhaps, with some success been able to unite the Hindu constituency and that is why it came to power earlier (or perhaps, Indians could also have been frustrated with the Congress rule). Simply because Congress' formula is tried and tested, they are reluctant to try new tactics. But in the 1990's the BJP were the underdogs, they had nothing to lose by trying to unite the Hindus into one single constituency, and somehow they partly succeeded (and could form the government). Because had they tried the same Congress formula of cozying up to the 'minorities', then why would the voter instead not vote for the 'original' (Congress), instead!

Of course, my entire analysis above is like the 'Strings theory' - it might make intuitive sense, but I have no way to prove it empirically/statistically. But I continue to go by it simply, because no other single hypotheses in isolation can explain the aberrant behavior of the media in the instances I cited above.

-----

To summarize: I hope I have been able to accomplish/show the following (not necessarily to everyone's conviction):

1. Cite instances of unprofessional/biased conduct by the media.

2. Enumerate and somewhat explain the motives and incentives behind the same.

3. That the Congress benefits from current anti-BJP bent of the media (and hence, perhaps provides the much needed incentive for the media to remain thus).

4. In the process of being anti-BJP, the media ends up demonizing Hindus in the eyes of the minorities and also many Hindus themselves.

Difference?

"Burning a Book will invite terrorist attacks on Americans" | "Dressing provocatively encourages rape"

Political Correctness and Me

(of language) not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as disability.

Usage notes

...sometimes (also) extended to cover political ideology and behavior, curriculum content, and many areas affected by law, regulation, and public pressure, and is often used pejoratively.

-Wikitionary definition of 'politically correct' (PC).

Many internet users euphemize and generalize, not to avoid causing offense, but labels of "commie", "Godless" or "Internet Hindu". The critic or perceived offender is then expected to counter a volley of criticisms of the category he is boxed into. The ensuing defensiveness causes indiscretions like: "all religions teach us love and tolerance", "all religions are (equally) bad", "all politicians are (equally) useless", etc.

This approach is wrong on at least two levels:

1. PC-statements are partial truths or completely false. One can conclude all religions teach love and tolerance only on deliberately overlooking or distorting available facts. This is dishonesty. This behavior follows from the flawed idea that pot must not call kettle black. No, both pot and kettle must call the other black, if relevant, and if possible, without contempt. For, the blackness cannot be removed without showing and acknowledging it.

Moreover, this defensiveness is a tacit acceptance of guilt merely by being born in a community or supporting an ideology. I am not responsible for misdeeds of others born in same community as me. I am not answerable for deeds of the ideologue, unless his ideology I support is the cause.

2. PC causes intellectual laziness. By saying "all politicians are same", I am discrediting the better ones. Through such generalizations, I would shy away from obligation to minutely analyze the available data before infering. PC will prevent incremental improvements in politics enabled through noticing and acting upon subtle differences between politicians.

I avoid and disapprove of PC, though I use some out of fear of physical harm and violating law, and those not doing even that can certainly hold me in contempt. I greatly admire two honest and courageous (for using their real identities) persons - Atanu Dey (click) and Marvi Sirmed (click).

S.I.T. Back and Enjoy Pop-Corny NewsXXX

Indian English media gives new expansion to the acronym - S.I.T.:

Sunday Inquisition and Torture

Click, S.I.T. back and enjoy the Indian Mass Media in its naked glory - where fact and fiction blend seamlessly, as if made for each other, for the benefit of the voyeuristic viewer.

"The purveyors of untruth failed even to think that March 21, 2010 happens to be a Sunday and a public holiday.

These purveyors of lies even did not once bother to check whether the key SIT officers, who are appointed by the Supreme Court, were present in Gujarat on March 21, 2010."

- Narendra Modi in his open letter.

For those click-unhappy (on lines of "trigger-happy"), pleasure yourself with the finest act of self-despicatory stand up comedy (click):

The Hindu broke the (false) story (that Modi was summoned by the SIT on March 21) on its web site, beta.thehindu.com, at 4:45 p.m. on Thursday. The exclusive was immediately picked up by television channels, news agencies, and other websites without crediting the original source.

Cute clowns, I say. Coochi coochi coo :)

Elsewhere, NudeX(XX) asked their viewers "if questioning of Narendra Modi is a democratic process". A vast majority of democracy-bots - 75 %, felt "yes". I was heartened that at least rest of 25 % were still humans, and had retained their natural sanity not supplanted by "artificial intelligence" borne out of meticulous news programming. Which means justice has become democratic. Who should be questioned, who should be punished would depend not on evidence available, but whims of button pushing bots wielding the power of TV remote and cell phone. And this is the highest form of democracy and justice Indian media has envisaged for its citizens! Reinforcing this vigilantism and lyrical lynching, little enthusiasm was shown in reporting that SPS Rathore had offered to undergo narcoanalysis, a fact that would disturb the systematically constructed tyrannical, cabalist image of the retired police officer.

Known to few, Bareilly has attained sovereignty independent of India, a fact, respecting which major news channels determined that 13 day-curfew in face of communal violence there was not news-worthy, but garlands and honey bees were.

Spinning Yarns to Make Undies on TV

-----
1.

The author asserts that all the incidents described in what follows are completely true. There is no question of any incidental resemblance with any person alive, moribund or dead as the author himself had witnessed the events described this Sunday (February 28, 2010) on the eve of Holi (click) after consuming bhang (click), which he could not dilute sufficiently with thandai (click).

Reader discretion is strictly optional, and when exercised, in fact would be deemed by the author as an affront to his truthfulness and ability to maintain lucidity in face of information overload.

8:00 PM, 28 February, 2010
nOObs' Channel: Undie TV XXX 24x7
Program: Weed People
Debate: Which political party is best for We, the People?

Hello and welcome, friends, to yet another episode of your favorite propagandram - Weed^* People! It is Holi tonight, and I, Charkha Thug, take yet another opportunity to remind you, the people, of Undie TV's undying endeavor to provide the best opinions in the news-market to choose from.

India is the largest democracy in the World, and staying true to our democratic spirit, we keep on voting. There are all kinds of opportunities to vote - Lok Sabha elections, assembly elections, municipality elections, best TV vamp elections. No wonder, it is imperative that we all stay informed as to who to vote for.

We have noticed that despite our best efforts, the citizenry of India has not been proactive enough to assimilate the message Undie TV wants them to. Our research analysts have concluded that this sloth is an outcome of Indians' inability to follow hints. And it is even understandable - when all other channels bombard the viewers with in-your-face news, our subtle messages are lost upon the viewers' numbed sensibilities.

So today we have decided to set the record straight once and for all. We're here to tell you discuss which political party is the best to vote for. And to aid your decision making we have some eminent spitters speakers with us.

Let's kick off this debate with the eloquent spokesperson of the Con's Dress Party - Manhus Bimari.

Charkha: Mr. Manhus, could you please tell We, the People, why we must vote for you, and not for the SafeRun alliance, who is your chief political opponent?

Manhus: Charkha, I must begin with saying that our party traces its origin in wannOOby bureaucrats, who were desirous of greater role in governance. So as you could see, to govern people is the unshakable wish all our party members have always shared. Now you must juxtapose this wish with the fact that where there is a will, there is a way! We have willed that we rule, and we have had our way, more often than not. But of course, sometimes merely willing is not sufficient, and hence we are exploring new ways (click). The strongest reason I could offer to dear citizens to vote for the Con's Dress is the sense of accomplishment they will experience in voting for the party that is to win. I know, despite or alternatively, because of - both of which are debatable but acceptable views, our ruling the nation for around 50 years now, people have to struggle day in and day out. Whatever they wish for never happens. Like, people had wished that food prices come down, but they have maintained their upward trend! People had wished that there be no surprises thrown by terrorists (click), but that did not happen! People had foolishly wished that Rahul and Rakhi marry each other and STFU, but see, that too did not happen! These disappointments leave in wake a defeatist attitude. We totally understand the situation. We have over these five decades, developed an unparalleled expertise at understanding the common man's problems. And this should not come as a surprise, after all, antivirus companies know how the end user feels when his PC gets infected by the viruses they create.

The problem, as you can clearly see, is in people's wishing for things that are extremely unlikely to happen. So what we suggest to people is that they align their wishes with events keeping in view their probability of happening! There is nothing that comes closer to playing God as voting for the Con's Dress and wishing for its victory!

Charkha: Thank you Mr. Bimari. I'm sure all our viewers who are sensible must have understood by now that they must vote for you. But being the responsible mouthorganpiece of media, I must give fair chance to our guest from the SafeRun alliance. So I would like to ask Mr. SingeJoy Rout of the Shy Sena to tell us why we must vote for them. I must remind our viewers that the Shy Sena is the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con. Let's see if Mr. SingeJoy is able to tell us why we must vote for the TeleBunny party that he represents and not for their rival, the Con's Dress Party, which clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular...

SingeJoy: I object. How do you call us TeleBunny and call the Con's Dress secular? Don't you remember what these people had done in 1984...

Charkha: I'm afraid Mr. SingeJoy, you're raking up a very sensitive issue for which our viewers are not fully prepared. So we take a very short break at this point. See you back after some time. mouth fart[smile] :).

Charkha: Welcome back! So we were discussing how the Shy Sena is the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con.

SingeJoy: This is ridiculous! How many times will you repeat the same rubbish? Anyway, I was telling that the Con's Dress Party is not as secular as you are making them out to be. In 1984...

Charkha: Mr. SingeJoy, I'm afraid your time is up! We have to let all our participants speak. I'll return to you later. So well, people as you could see the Shy Sena has no defense for its abominable actions. Because, they are the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con. Whereas, Con's Dress is the party, which clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular. Well, no debate on any subject under the Sun, and especially beyond it, can remain complete without the involvement of the Left Out. Let's take some views of the very illuminating Prakash Current as to whether we must vote for the SafeRun alliance or the Con's Dress.

Prakash: Charkha, being media's responsible mouth organ, you must not sing paeans to the Con's Dress. You should give us a chance, too. We have been pro-poor since our inception. Saffron is just a form of adulterate red, but we are the pure red!

Charkha: Mr. Prakash, I thought being the Third-Front, you can only go back and FourthForth between the treasury and the opposition benches. Anyway, We, the People, will try to take you people more seriously. But what seems to concern the whole nation is the impression that you are tacit supporters of the Meowists. Would you like to clarify anything on this issue?

Prakash: There is nothing to clarify on this. Our stance is very clear. We support the Meowists because they are the Jungle cats! What is difficult to understand in this? What is wrong? Aren't the jungle-dwellers the poorest and closest to the mother nature. Aren't jungle cats indigenous animals? Don't you know our love for everything indigenous, especially, that originating and thriving in jungles? We are pro-poor. And we are pro-Meowists. We will never let any of the two get extinct.

Charkha: Viewers, this is unbelievable! I just can't believe I'm so awesome! I made Mr. Prakash confess that the Left Out sides with the Meowists - something that TheRuin TechPal of Tadka.com had been attempting to do since their alliance with the Con's Dress. What hidden camera could not achieve, I achieved with my pure awesomeness. Here to celebrate, let me take another break. [Giggle].

Charkha: So we are back. I must remind the viewers the subject of our discussion is which party to vote for. Of course, very early in today's show, we had reached this unanimous conclusion that it has to be The Con's Dress. Because Shy Sena is the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con. Whereas, it's Con's Dress Party, which clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular. And also because I don't like Mr. Prakash's deo.

Now we will take the opinions of our studio audience. Umm... yes, that sweet lady in the third row. The one in the saffron burqa! I must tell you in my 35 years of journalistic career, I have never seen such a spectacle! Yippeeee!

SingeJoy: Charkha, you are misguiding the citizens of our country. How come 35 years? You mean...

Charkha: Yes of course, I've been making up stories since I was three! Winners begin early, don't you agree? Anyway, Mr. SingeJoy, your time is up. I was telling the viewers how I have never seen such a spectacle! This, the saffron burqa is the epitome of Hindu-Muslim sister*hood* and customizable feminism and love for one's religion. What is your name sweet lady?

Lady: Ahem, ahem! [Squeaky manly voice] Well, you see, I am not exactly a lady. You see, my name is Bubbly Duhling.

Charkha: Oh, then I must add, apart from espousing the causes of Hindu-Muslim sisterhood, customizable feminism, religionophilia, you are also the champion of transgender rights! You're one hell of an activist. By the way, did you do your bit for Save the tiger? There are only 1411 left! And are you running for Grin-at-thorn? But I must repeat, you're one hell of an activist. If I deserve the Padmachhee, you definitely deserve Bharat Rant. Could you tell our viewers who you will vote for, and why?

Bubbly: Of course, I will vote for the Con's Dress Party! That's what I had rehearsed before the sho...

Charkha (stomping her feet and snatching away the mic): Shh... Due to some technical difficulties, we'll have to take a not-so-short break. We'll return next Sunday. Till then, goodbye and wish you a happy Holi! :)

8:00 PM, 7 March, 2010
nOObs' Channel: Undie TV XXX 24x7
Program: Weed People
Debate: Which political party is best for We, the People?

Charkha: Welcome friends. As you must remember last week we had to cut short our propagandram because of technical difficulties. We have replaced the defective equipment, so tonight we have with us Bubbly Duhling's, umm... how to explain... we have with us Bubbly's brister - Babely Duhling! You were telling us last week why would you like to vote for the Con's Dress.

Babely: Of course, I will vote for the Con's Dress Party! That's what I had rehea...

Charkha: Take this mouth gag! Huh! Okay, now take a deeeeep breath. Now are you feeling alright? Don't you remember, Con's Dress Party is the one which had clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular?

Babely: Of course, of course! I will vote for the Con's Dress Party because I just looooooove Rahowl! He's cho chweet, he's cho cuuutee! He's the man, you see. I juss feel like smearing his bare chest with my li...

Charkha: Uh, oh! We understand your sentiments. I guess, Rahowl is a portmanteau of either Ra+howl or Rah+owl. But isn't "Rahowl" a strange way to pronounce the name of our future Prime Emperor, Rahullu?

Babely: Whatevah! Emperor or not, he's the Quing of my heart! Don't you know how like a true tiger from among the cubs of the soil he had entered the Tyrannosaurus' (click) den and withdrawn money? How like a true tiger he had walked bare-footedpawed and made a grown up Baagh to carry his footpaw wear? More Pawarpower to him!

Charkha: I'm not sure if his party would want any more pawar, but what I am sure is, by now not just the intelligent among We, the people, but even those utterly dumb must have understood that they must vote for the Con's Dress. We have left little time on our hands, and let me make one final attempt to see if Mr. SingeJoy speaks what we wanted him to speak. Mr. SingeJoy, what do you say about the recognition bestowed upon Shy Sena of "Paper tigers"?

SingeJoy: Our party has never felt more delighted than when the media understood the true motto of our party and started calling us by pay per tiger! You see, each and ever member of our party is a tiger. And we don't do our job for free. Each tiger comes for a price. Now that only 1411 are left, and moreover, with rising kerosene prices, it has become difficult to indulge in arson. Plus, our party apart from being saffron also takes on shades of green.

Charkha: What! Is this history in making, again? Shy Sena and green?

SingeJoy: No, you're misunderstanding. I meant, Mother Nature's green. Just like how paper bags are eco-friendly, so are paper tigers! Anyway, as I was telling you with ever-rising inflation rates, it is no longer possible for us to take bulk orders. We now have a strict policy of pay-per-tiger in place! If you want to market any movie, or any event, you know who to approach... [wink, wink].

Charkha: Not here before the camera, Mr. SingeJoy! Before we wrap up, I would like to take the views of Mr. Rage from Bombay, oops, Mumbai. Mr. Rage, welcome to the show! Could you please advise our viewers on why they should vote for the Con's Dress Party?

Rage: Why do you people always quote us incompletely? We do talk about sons of the soil, but that is because Mumbai's infrastructure is severely strained, and any further influx of immigrants cannot be sustained. If the governments of north Indian states would support adequate urbanization, this problem can be solved sensibly...

Charkha: [God, why's he sounding so sensible all of a sudden! This is not good for our TRPs. The sound editor must've slept off; the bugger didn't delete the inappropriate words!] We're extremely sorry, friends. We've lost our link with Mr. Rage. But as you could hear, Mr. Rage was telling emphatically that Mumbai was gifted to him on his b'day by his dad, and that they will allow only tiger cubs to play in their nursery.

Well, this brings us to the end of our show. As must be amply clear to you all, we had reached a consensus here for the first time, that We, the people must vote for the Con's Dress Party. See, you next week; same time, same channel. B'bye.

Charkha (click) was the brain (legitimate) child of Mahatma Gandhi (click) and The Quirky Indian (click).

-----
2.

In an occurrence more than a year old, which had got nothing to do with any of the characters described above, the Padma Shri (click) award winner, journalist, Barkha Dutt (click) had threatened a blogger with a law suit (click), for largely writing the truth. Needless to say, this is not becoming of someone who is supposedly very bothered of freedom of speech, for instance, of Maqbool Fida Hussain (click).

-----
3.

Again, totally unrelated to anything described in the first part, two days back I was watching NDTV 24x7 (click), and I was appalled by the sequence of news flash in their headlines. Here is the sequence that I vaguely remember:

1. M. F. Hussain says, he loves India, but India does not love him.
Immediate consequence: Hardly any.
Remotest possible consequence: Might set a tone for how much freedom could artists enjoy in the future.

2. A fighter jet crashes in Hyderabad, killing two pilots.
Immediate consequence: Two pilots died. A few onlookers killed.
Remotest possible consequence: Might serve as an indicator of the security that the Indian Navy is capable of providing to our country.

3. Government firm on Oil price.
Immediate consequence: Every single Indian would have to buy every single thing at a higher price.
Remotest possible consequence: More farmer suicides. Civil unrest.

4. Hollbroke says, blasts in Kabul not specifically targeting Indians.
Immediate consequence: Taliban would be taken less seriously by the US.
Remotest possible consequence: More Indians might die in Afghanistan as a part of India's attempts at continued presence there. Continuity of oil supply from Iran might be affected furthering India's oil shortage related problems. Taliban would gain stronger foothold and launch offensives against India.

5. "Dipak" - Maoist chief's Kishenji's right hand man arrested. Kishenji requests his release.
Immediate consequence: Might result in kidnappings/threats of violence by Maoists to coerce the government into releasing Dipak.
Remotest possible consequence: Might serve as a precedent as to whether the state machinery can tackle high pressure situations and escape out of arm-twisting tactics of Maoists and Naxals without loss of civilian lives, or will our republic just go even more "bananas".

Related posts:

1. Media Campaign for My Name is Khan: Free Speech or Free Market? (click)

2. The Hindu: Advertising, Bollywood, Corporate power (click) by P. Sainath (click).

Error of Judgment and Judgment of Errors

-1-

The "prototypical" Bindass dude!
Image taken from: 'What I am': UTV Bindass' new campaign speaks through voice of youth (click) at Campaign India Online.

Can you see the disordered person?

The dude trying to pass off as a doctor? No?

Oh, and before it so happens that the dude actually happens to be a doctor and not some wannabe punk, which it seems could be the case, and I have to suffer the blushes, let me tell I have no issue with how a doctor is being portrayed. What is funny, though about the entire photo is that, our prototypical dude seems to be trying too hard to appear bindass making him hardly look interested in treatment of the patient in the background, but ironically, the very same patient has played her part too well in looking moribund! So much so that she might die in a flash. Flash, as in, camera's flash!

Full video at YouTube

Anyway, the disorder I am talking of is "conformism". Yes! Our dude suffers from it. It is a form of conformism - not even disguised well enough. In the video, his attitude reeks of "in your face"-confrontation (when there is no apparent need), and what his actual responsibility is, i.e., taking care of the patient hardly seems to be on his mind. This is that attitude that makes people conform to the image of a nonconformist (click). What an irony! Nonconformists also have prototypes!

Well, it is not a case that I have come across these portrayals of nonconformists for the first time. I came across the above photo and video after some "research"! I happened to travel in BEST buses in Mumbai after quite some time. And there was this hoarding that I had happened to see:

Just because I'm bindass doesn't mean I do drugs
Image taken from: UTV Bindass - great new ads! (click) at mumbaikar.com.

My first response was a zero decibel "Yeeeeeks"! I mean what is our dude even trying to prove? Oh, as the video dismisses the very idea of "trying to prove" something, it follows that I am asking the wrong question. My train of thought went thus:

If someone can undergo a whole lot of pain to get extensively tattooed and intensively pierced only taking after some other certified "bindass" celebrity, which I don't know they do to what end, then certainly their threshold to experiment with drugs must be low. The thing about narcotic drugs is not that they are illegal, but they can result in self-harm. If someone could be a rebel without a cause to only not conform, the same impetus lies behind trying narcotic drugs and other substances that are not approved of by the society, like alcohol and nicotine. Likewise, an impetus exists to indulge in acts that are perceived to be despicable. So, though such a prototypical dude may not necessarily end up doing all of those things, the impetus to conform to an image of nonconformist, exists. So well, the proportion of such prototypical dudes who take to narcotic drugs or to smoking or excessive drinking must be higher than in those who do not try to conform to the image of a rebel. Is this supported by statistics?...

As I was thinking on these lines, trying to play out both sides of the argument in my mind, I saw another hoarding...

Just because I'm bindass doesn't mean I sleep around
Image taken from: UTV Bindass - great new ads! (click) at mumbaikar.com.

Okay, point taken! But which made me think how have the makers of the ad assumed to "sleep around" to be inherently immoral or reprehensible? Are they not rather reinforcing a taboo? No! I am not trying to argue out which is better - fidelity or sleeping around, but still, I expect better sense of ethical propriety off people pushing at the boundaries of contemporary societal standards!

By the way, the video I had linked above has this girl shaking away seductively, either: to her own ignorance that her dance is seductive, or maybe her dance is, you know as they say, *a celebration of life emanating from deep within*, something I am incapable of understanding. And I have no problems with it. However, attempting to seduce is again a kind of conformation! It involves doing exactly those things that the one you want to seduce wants you to do! But what is surprising is that the basic idea being conveyed is that - it is alright to be seductive, but not alright to have sex. What an exercise in redundancy! The real expression of freedom would have been, had the girl said - "I'm not interested in you, dude 'cuz... (fill in with some "bindass" reason)! But no what she ultimately manages to say is just that I have a right to seduce you and not have sex, 'cuz having sex is bad! And who decided "sleeping around is bad"? Of course, not the society but our bindass gang. And then I saw yet another board...

Just because I'm bindass doesn't mean I don't believe in God
Image taken from: UTV Bindass - great new ads! (click) at mumbaikar.com.

I was just praying (to the nonexistent God), when the hell would these ads stop coming at every corner the bus turns? I can tell you, there are just too, too, toooooooo many of these ads. They just don't cease peeping from one hoarding or the other. Yes, my mistake that I happened to look at them, and think about them, and now, that I happen to be bugging you reader blogging about them, but please try to understand: these ads are bright, gaudy and BIG! And well, I realized the reason is this (click):

The channel is spending Rs 3 crore on the campaign, spread across TV, outdoor, print and below-the-line (BTL) activities. It is concentrating on outdoor sites in cities including Mumbai, Delhi, Pune and Bengaluru. It has also taken up space in dailies such as The Times of India for print ads.

But, but, but...

Can we look at those ads, again? Please!

= =

Or in other words:

I do drugs = I sleep around = I don't believe in God

This is so not acceptable! This is the worst form of religious discrimination possible. In India, every form of courtesy and reverse discrimination is reserved for the minority. Smaller the community, weaker it is; more vulnerable it is to bullying by larger communities. We, atheists are the undisputed champs at being the vulnerable. Now do not ask me what religion do I follow to be considered a "religious" minority! Just like how "zero" is a number (a fact invented by Indians), we atheists worship "No God". And our God is bigger than yours, and mind you, it's "all naturals" - without using any pills for enhancement! :P Unlike your God, it has two words instead of just one. But now that I have established how proud I am of my religion let us get back to the point. Can you imagine the degree of discrimination used against us by the government! So much so that, everyone has to have a religion! Have you noticed, there are no options like "atheist" or "nontheist" in official forms? Basically, to not believe in the existence of a God is legally not possible in India (click)! Unless and until one converts to a specific religion, the religion of parents is automatically stuck to the child. And it remains stuck throughout life, and even thereafter because even their child will contract the same religion!

Anyway, was I too disturbed to see it splashed in a huge media campaign that atheists are (immoral) like those doing drugs or sleeping around?

Actually, no. I know this kind of prejudice against atheists does exist, not just in India, but even elsewhere. And I have even tried to refute the validity of this preconceived notion that fear in a deity prevents one from indulging in unethical acts. Here (click)

It is no wonder that believers do not believe something to be moral because God commands it to be moral, but rather they make their God command what they already consider to be moral! Read this interesting abstract from a scientific study (click), which derives its data partly from neuroimaging:

People often reason egocentrically about others' beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1-4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.

More about related ideas and arguments can be read here - My Imaginary Friend (click).

But then, if anyway I have been clubbed together with "immoral" people, why not use this license to be licentious! ;) Ummm... drugs and sleeping around sounds fun. Prick-ing around is allowed, but no piercing around, okay? This is no immoral indoctrination, just a note to the self. :P

Well, that was my 2 pence-worth angst at 3 crore (30 million)-rupee-worth ad campaign. I am so happy to be not bindass, and this conformist with broken sense of morality, but at least intact skin! :P

-----
-2-

And then I had seen another hoarding, and the only thing that caught my attention in it was:

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

The Architecture of the Indian Constituency

My first (zero decibel, again) response was - "What the fuck...", which of course amounts to nothing! "...How could someone with so bad an English design a hoarding meant for promotion to be read by so many people!". Then a conspiracy theory occurred to me, and I sincerely wish the theory to be true, which being: that it was a clever ploy to convince the "majority" that the Dalits have been so marginalized, that they cannot draft a single simple proper sentence in English! They need education. And they need it fast! Truly, reams of written word could not convince me about the need for reservations in educational institutes in India (click) the way that one sentence on the hoarding did. I do not know, which party's politicians' woeful condition of English the hoarding was attempting to advertise, but I suspect, it was the guy with the power of "ONE" (LS seat)! You know, that certain Republican Party of Certain Republic?

-----
-3-

Anyway to end this post, I leave you with an excellent piece of original research, telepathy or clairvoyance [Hey, I don't know more difficult English words than these :( ] or whatever you may call it (click) by a senior "journalist" Kuldip Nayyar (click):

The murder of police officer Hemant Karkare, who was probing the Malegaon blasts, was the doing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or Bajrang Dal.

And no, this statement does not appear on Wikipedia (which I have actually found to be quite reliable in being balanced), but the noted reliable and verifiable source, that is, Dawn (click), "Pakistan's oldest and most widely-read English-language newspaper".

Enough reasons to sigh in days to come. *Sigh*

Related blog post by G Saimukundhan: Guide to Dudehood (click).

Is Man-Boy Love a Beautiful Thing?

Man-boy love could be a beautiful thing (click) was an article written by Dr. Ashley Tellis, who is an assistant professor at the Department of Liberal Arts of Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad (click).

I urge the readers to go through his article published in The Indian Express linked above, as it will form the basis for my arguments here.

I had come to know of this issue reading a post - Why am I paying for Ashley Tellis’ salary? (click). Dr. Tellis had responded on the post informing the author(s) of Offstumped that he was considering “filing cases of criminal offense and slander against offstumped and Ot(hers)” largely owing to the tone and nature of comments that had ensued on the post.

In a subsequent post - IIT undergrads and Age of Consent (click) - published by Offstumped, the following issues were raised:

• "Is it ok to advocate a debate on the issue of consensual Paedophile sex between a Man and a Boy ?"
• "Can someone who advocates such a debate be employed at an educational institution ?"
• "Is it ok for such an advocate employed at educational institution to come in contact with children who are under the legal age of consent ?"
• "Can such contact potentially influence the behavior of the underage child making him vulnerable to sexual abuse by a same sex Adult"

Of course, other issues were also raised. Plus, the readers’ responses on the Indian Express web site were hysterical (and colorful, to say the least!).

I personally think a more comprehensive view of the entire occurrence needs to be taken to reach the most rational conclusion. Of course, whether that conclusion could be legally actionable is a different matter. Here, I will try to examine various arguments put forth by people including Dr. Tellis.

In the initial portions of his article, he has demonstrated that many people confuse pedophiles with homosexuals, and this creates more hatred towards pedophiles (than would be warranted). He has (rightly) pointed out that majority of pedophiles are actually heterosexuals.

”…they will not accept that this practice is at the heart of the heterosexual complex, that most ‘offenders’ are indeed heterosexual men and the ‘victims’ are young girls, often daughters, nieces and cousins’ children, most often within the context of incest, another unexamined taboo. So, one of the first ways to answer this charge from the homosexual point of view is to point out that most paedophiles are actually heterosexuals.”

In his next argument, he has termed any stipulation set by the judiciary (Delhi High Court, for instance in its much publicized ruling on section 377 of the Indian Penal Code [click]) as to the minimum age at which a person (child) becomes capable of giving informed and valid consent as “rather arbitrary”. In India the minimum age at which a person could consent for homosexual contact is 18 years, whereas for heterosexual contact it is 16 years for unmarried girls, 15 years for married girls and (from my memory) 17 years for boys. In the state of Manipur the minimum age for girls is 14 years.

”The second is to say that homosexuals are two adult consenting individuals and paedophiles are abusers of children, two distinct conceptual categories. While this is stated clearly (the Delhi High Court judgment on 377, for example, states clearly that adult consensual sex is all it is talking about) in legal language, there is no examination of the rather arbitrary category of the ‘adult.’ The linear language of the law is not capable of that examination.”

To summarize what he says in the aforementioned and subsequent paragraphs:

1. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. In fact, most cases of pedophilia are of heterosexual nature.

2. All children do not become adults at the same time, and that the transformation process is gradual, rather than occurring suddenly (say, on their 18th birthday).

3. That child marriage practiced (but illegal in India) is also a form of institutionalized pedophilia. (Thus, most rampant form of pedophilia is rather heterosexual, and not homosexual).

4. That viewing children as incapable of complicity/willingness in sexual encounters robs them of all agency "in the business of the negotiation of sexuality”.

5. Child has a sexuality and sexual drives. ["Do we, over a hundred years after Freud, still deny the fact that a child has a sexuality and sexual drives?”]

6. "Everybody’s initiation into sexuality is traumatic … that most sexual encounters, even with willing consenting adults are part coercion and part consent”.

7. "Power is part of all sexuality”.

8. In a significant fraction of pedophilia cases, the perpetuators are actually females.

9. Netherlands is quite progressive about sexuality, and that there is an active pedophiles’ rights’ group.

10. Arbitrariness of age of consent for having sex is further proved by the fact that it varies from 9 to 18 years in various parts of the World.

11. Issue of consent v/s abuse. In this context he cites the case of one William Heum (click), who had been arrested in November, 2009 in Chennai, for having sex with minors, uploading the videos on the internet and distributing them. He disapproves of his acts because no consent was taken from the concerned children.

12. What a man “does” to a boy, and woman to a girl could be "beautiful thing.” This is the most ambiguous part of his article. I suppose he was not talking of something socially acceptable as a hand shake or a peck on the cheek. Because had he been, then he would not have used words  like ‘love’. And of course, he would not have projected his ideas as inciting radical reactions. So, at the very least he might have meant hugging, or kissing on the lips (kissing on the forehead is very much acceptable in the Indian society), or in the most extreme case, penetrative sex, i.e., anal or vaginal penetration. The last speculation of his using “man-boy love” to mean anal penetration is supported by the following words in the first paragraph:

"pederasty, or the practice of man-boy love".

Pederasty means:

Anal intercourse with a boy usually of age 11 to 19 years as the passive partner.

References are many.

Okay, so now I will deal with each of the points made by Dr. Tellis. Of course, he has made a few valid points. I will try to reason out why I disagree with a few specific points. Where I agree, or am not skeptical of the point, I will merely indicate my agreement. I will deal with the points in the order which will make things most clear, and not necessarily in which Dr. Tellis has dealt with them. Right at the outset I will enlist those points that I agree with, but I will add my remarks:

1. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. In fact, most cases of pedophilia are of heterosexual nature.

3. That child marriage practiced (but illegal in India) is also a form of institutionalized pedophilia. (Thus, most rampant form of pedophilia is rather heterosexual, and not homosexual).

5. Child has a sexuality and sexual drives. However, it is to be remembered that the very same Freud who had identified existence of sexuality did so by studying adults (largely, females) who suffered from 'hysteria' (conversion disorder [click]), and he had found the cause to be sexual abuse in the childhood.

"Patients with conversion disorder reported a higher incidence of physical/sexual abuse, a larger number of different types of physical abuse, sexual abuse of longer duration, and incestuous experiences more often than comparison patients."

- Am J Psychiatry 159:1908-1913, November 2002 (click).

7. Power is part of all sexuality.

8. In a significant fraction of pedophilia cases, the perpetrators are actually females. - Possibly. It may or may not be true, but it does not influence the ongoing discussion much.

9. The Netherlands is quite progressive about sexuality, and that there are active pedophiles’ rights’ groups. - Could be true. Ascertaining does not serve any significant purpose. One of the respondents to his article in Indian Express had clearly stated that pederasty is illegal in the Netherlands. We do not have to take the respondent on trust. You can go through this chart - Worldwide ages of consent (click). So, in Netherlands, the age of consent is 16 years, which is the same for both the sexes, as well as for hetero- and homosexual relations. So, it is not a case that to have sex with those below the age of consent is legal in the Netherlands. However, we do not have to reach a conclusion only because of some trend over there. We should ideally reach decisions, on the basis of what seems most rational to do, after taking a most balanced view possible. In fact, of all the countries to call the Netherlands most progressive and to imply that as worthy of emulation itself is a rather arbitrary choice, just like the fixed age of consent. Moreover, just because a rights' group exists, does not make meeting their demands reasonable.

11. Yes, Heum was wrong - because he did not take consent of the concerned children. This is something I agree with. But if that is the only reason he was wrong is yet undecided, and in fact forms the core of the whole debate.

Now coming to the points I disagree with and the reasons behind them.

First of all, I urge the readers to go through Wikipedia’s article on child sexual abuse (click). While, Wikipedia is not to be considered the most reliable source of information, it is important to note the highly reliable sources used to back up the assertions contained in the article.

Point discussed - 4: That viewing children as incapable of complicity/willingness in sexual encounters robs them of all agency "in the business of the negotiation of sexuality”.

First issue to be discussed is the complicity of child. I am quoting relevant portion from pages 3 and 4 of the book - Childhood sexual abuse: a reference handbook (click) by Karen L. Kinnear:

Children are not capable of consenting to sexual activities with an adult; just because the child participates in this abuse does not mean that the child has consented. Another condition is exploitation. Children are manipulated or coerced into sexual behavior by adults who are stronger, more resourceful, and more knowledgeable. They may buy the child gifts, persuade the child that all fathers teach their daughters about sex, threaten the child with punishment or with the death of the other parent (“if your mother ever finds out, she’ll probably die of a heart attack”), or provide attention to the child in other ways.

Ambivalence is also a characteristic in child sexual abuse. Children often feel ambivalent about what is happening to them; they do not like or understand the sexual part of the experience, but they may enjoy the attention they are receiving, as well as any rewards or special privileges they may receive because of the abuse. Some children may be confused because some of the physical sensations they experience are enjoyable; these sensations make them feel good. However, they know that the behavior is wrong, and although they want the abuse to stop, they do not want to stop receiving the gifts, privileges, or attention they gain by remaining silent.

Point discussed - 12: What a man “does” to a boy, and woman to a girl could be "beautiful thing.”

It is important to understand the harms that could be caused by child sexual abuse including the heterosexual kind, non-penetrative kind, or even the seemingly consensual kind.

Following is an excerpt from a statement (click) issued by the American Psychological Association:

Those who are reporting that the study says that childhood sexual contact with adults is not harmful to children are misreporting the findings. The facts are that the majority of the psychological literature reveals that childhood sexual abuse has serious negative effects on its victims. The question raised by the study is an important one Does sexual abuse cause varying degrees of harm to children? In other words, can the child's age, resiliency, and/or family environment ever mitigate the ill effects of the abuse? If such mitigating factors can be shown through this and further research child abuse prevention and treatment programs could put that knowledge to work helping both children and families. Such knowledge would, however, in no way excuse any form of abuse. All abuse is wrong, but all abuse may not be equally harmful.

The Wikipedia article in its section on effects of child sexual abuse (click) enlists the following major harms:

• Depression
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Anxiety
• Anxiety-spectrum disorders (phobias, panic disorder, etc.) - examples have not been mentioned but adding from my knowledge.
• Dissociative disorders (complete loss of memory or loss of memory with history of travel to remote places - dissociative fugue).
• Somatization (roughly put, psychologic stress manifesting as physical complaints like blindness, or pain)
• Chronic pain
• Sexualized behavior
• Substance abuse (significantly, odds of abusing substance as an adult are increased by 37 to 300 per cent).
• Learning problems
• Criminality
• Infections
• Actual structural damage to the brain if the abuse is severe, which leads to aberrant development. This included development of seizure disorders ("fits"), actual shrinking of corpus callosum (information carrying fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain) and reduced volume of hippocampus (involved in long-term memory).

It is significant to note that many of the above problems continue into the adulthood.

Also significantly, statistics have made allowance for other confounding factors like discord between parents and the use of force by the abuser. Of course, if abuse is against the will and/or without consent, harm done is greater, but even after putting in place controls, it had been found that even sexual abuse of a  so-called "consenting" child led to long-term harm. The amount of data and the meticulousness of methodology used is pretty well established as the one to arrive at conclusions. For instance, that smoking is hazardous to health is a conclusion reached through similar clinical research.

Point discussed - 2: All children do not become adults at the same time, and that the transformation process is gradual, rather than occurring suddenly (say, on their 18th birthday). I will club it with point number 10 - Arbitrariness of age of consent for having sex is further proved by the fact that it varies from 9 to 18 years in various parts of the World |10: Arbitrariness of age of consent for having sex is further proved by the fact that it varies from 9 to 18 years in various parts of the World.

What Dr. Tellis has mostly meant is that emotional growth is a gradual process and that it begins and "ends" at different ages in different people, and moreover, that it could occur at different rates. Of course he is correct in stating that. But, since we are talking of legal issues, a definite criterion needs to be in place. Because for every single case of abuse, we cannot call in experts to determine what level of emotional maturity was attained by the child in question. Also these kind of limitations are put wherever we use specific numbers. For instance, how does a student suddenly become "passing-worthy" in exams by getting 35% instead of 34%? But because of some unfairness, it does not become legitimate suggestion to remove all kind of numerical limits wherever they exist.

Also, in the list (click) of ages of consent, most of the countries' ages have tended to range from 16 to 18 years, with mean being 16 years. And at least on a cursory glance I could not find the minimum age to be 9, as had been claimed by Dr. Tellis in the article. The list has 13 years as the minimum age.

But are there other indicators to determine what could be the appropriate range of age to term someone as adult? I will give two specific examples, which suggest that 16 to 18 years is indeed the most appropriate age.

First is the Weschler adult intelligence scale (click) for measurement of intelligence quotient (IQ). The age from which it becomes valid is 16 years. Historically, another test called the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale was also based on the assumption that maximum growth of cognitive intelligence takes place by 15 years. It should not be surprising that maximum emotional intelligence and maturity would take a bit longer to develop.

Also, a broad group of psychiatric disorders known as personality disorders (click, and see under the heading "Age") are diagnosed only after the age of 18 years.

"Personality disorders generally should not be diagnosed in children and adolescents because personality development is not complete and symptomatic traits may not persist into adulthood. Therefore, the rule of thumb is that personality diagnosis cannot be made until the person is at least 18 years of age."

Basically, both the IQ-tests had been developed decades ago and have been updated using new information from time to time. The diagnostic criteria for personality disorders have been developed after years of research and observation of countless patients, and yet, 16 to 18 years appears to be the age at which children mature into adults.

So, if Dr. Tellis would have recommended lowering of age of consent by two years to 16 years in India, it would have seemed a rational assertion. But to suggest that all ages and age-ranges are rather arbitrary is clearly going against decades of observation of child psychology. It would be worthy of noting that in the medical science, "normal" is defined as the population that falls between 2 standard deviations from the mean, usually 95.5% of population. Which implies that at least 95.5% of population takes 16 to 18 years to mature into adults according to psychiatrists and psychologists.

Also, one very important point to note here is that if majority of children world over feel "infantilized" or discriminated against for having sex with adults being considered illegal, and that they actually feel quite grown up (say, to take example given by Dr. Tellis, at age 10 years), why have we heard only of pedophiles' rights group and not something like "children wanting to have sex with adults rights group"?

Points discussed - 6: Everybody’s initiation into sexuality is traumatic … that most sexual encounters, even with willing consenting adults are part coercion and part consent | 7: Power is part of all sexuality

I would not agree that eveyone's initiation into sexuality is traumatic. And even if it is, so there is something like intensity of trauma, and whether that trauma is caused suddenly or the person eases into it. Moreover, adults are better prepared to handle traumatic events. Such events are significantly less likely to cause long term psychological harms to adults.

Power is a part of all sexuality, but at least in case of adults, the power could shift from one partner to the other in both hetero- and homosexual relations. Whereas, it is unlikely that children would take the initiative and be the dominant partner in this power relation.

Children are highly impressionable, and they tend to hold those older than them in high esteem and tend to feel overawed by them. I can personally recall being greatly impressed and awed by those 3 to 4 years older than me. It had been very tempting to emulate them. Children view adults as a separate class of people.

Also, how a 10 year old kid views a 15 year old one is very different from, say how a 25 year old person views a 30 year old one despite the fact that age difference in both cases is only 5 years.

It is keeping in mind these facts, the legal concept of "close-in-age" has been applied in Canada (click) and the USA (click)

It can be deduced from these provisions that it is not per se having sex under the age of consent that is detrimental to children, but their doing so with someone significantly older than them (adult) is.

-----

Taking these facts into consideration raises many questions. All stem from the most significant question:

Why did Dr. Tellis not discuss or consider these issues in his article?

In particular, two mutually exclusive assumptions can be made. I will not go into guessing which is the more likely of the two.

1. He was unaware of these facts. In which case to writing an article in such an authoritarian tone, challenging a whole lot of legal and ethical considerations, and psychological and psychiatric knowledge in context of an issue, which by his own admission is considered very sensitive by the society totally baffles me. What was the intention? He did not bother to verify if his ideas were in line with the vast (and reliable) academic material available on the internet, despite knowing if his judgment went wrong some people's physical/psychological health could suffer permanent damage.

2. He deliberately withheld the facts. On the IIT, Hyderabad staff he serves as as an expert on gender studies and in particular LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender) studies. Considering the area of his expertise, if he did in fact have an idea of the known harms of child sexual abuse, what was the point in withholding this information? Is one not supposed to reach conclusions, and furthermore disseminate them after taking a most balanced possible views factoring in all the available data?

Now, to answer the issues raised on Off-stumped:

1. Is it ok to advocate a debate on the issue of consensual Paedophile sex between a Man and a Boy?

To simply disagree is not called debate. Debating involves facts and well-reasoned arguments. After going through the well substantiated information available, Dr. Tellis hardly seems to have done that. The strength of evidence of what one argues for should be proportionate to the severity of its consequences and also the amount of data available that supports the originally held (mis)concept.

So a debate gets justified only when substantial new information to base our opinion on becomes available. Has Dr. Tellis provided us with any such substantial information.

Instead, he has omitted relevant facts, invented a few facts, and distorted logic in advocating something that is decidedly harmful for children. This is certainly not a "debate".

2.Can someone who advocates such a debate be employed at an educational institution?

This is difficult for me to comment on. But since, the article he has written was on public platform and what he has recommended was with an authoritative tone (as an "expert" on the matter), it is reasonable to believe that his intention was to alter public perception on the issue. But this he had attempted through presenting inadequate and/or distorted data. Also, his line of reasoning was not rational. Hardly anything in his article led us to this conclusion that "man-boy or woman-girl love could be a beautiful thing". His reasoning suffers from a logical fallacy analogous to saying - New Delhi is the capital of India and London is the capital of UK, hence the Earth is flat". Meaning, by presenting a few true facts, and making a few valid arguments, he has reached a totally unrelated (and flawed) conclusion that child sexual abuse could be a beautiful thing. For instance, only because majority of pedophilia is heterosexual (and wrong), does not in any way make man-on-boy love beautiful. Likewise, only because pedophilia rights groups exist, it in no way leads to the conclusion that their demand and the consequence of meeting them would be "beautiful".

And despite availability of scientific data, which is starkly opposite to his ideas, he has held on to them without any sound reasoning or evidence to counter the ideas widely held by the scientific community. This behavior is extremely stubborn, and does not lend itself favorably to Dr. Tellis role as a teacher. And most important, it should make one sensitive to the possibility of a conflict of interest in holding views which have been proved wrong.

3. Is it ok for such an advocate employed at educational institution to come in contact with children who are under the legal age of consent?

The foremost reason I would consider him dangerous for the institute that currently employs him is the manner in which he has executed his role as a disseminator of information. If he employs the same techniques of distorting and withholding significant information to buttress his unpopular opinions, then it is bound to be detrimental in ways more than one to the institute and the students who he teaches. One more thing that Offstumped has not considered is that a whole generation of students who study under him would end up with this idea - "Man-boy or woman-girl love is a beautiful thing". It needs to be considered if they would themselves become more likely to indulge in child sexual abuse owing to their considering it alright, or rather "beautiful". Though students are expected to verify what they are told by the teachers and not take their opinions merely on faith, it should also be remembered that students many times do not find time for this and that a teacher not just doles out dry facts, but also leaves a mark on students' psyche, least of which a few beliefs may get passed on. And why have a teacher who is likely to take students away from learning facts rather than facilitate the process?

4. Can such contact potentially influence the behavior of the underage child making him vulnerable to sexual abuse by a same sex Adult?

The answer is definitely not "no". Remember, just like "could be" in Dr. Tellis' article, we are talking here of possibilities. Nothing should be ruled out of the domain of debate. And as I pointed out, such obdurate holding of an opinion in face of substantial data to the contrary betrays a possible conflict of interest.

But personally for me, whether students become more likely to be victimized by Dr. Tellis is an independent concern, but his unreliable method of dispensing information and logic about sensitive issues is definitely worth a very close scrutiny.

The last thing I want to point is, unlike what some people (in particular, John Rebus on Offstumped) have suggested, this issue is not merely of "personal opinions", but one of building them based on balanced and evidence-based logic. It is not a matter of mere "personal opinion" whether smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. Scientific evidence is that yes, it does. It is a different issue that someone here is trying to call lung cancer as "beautiful", and probably it is within his rights to do so. But let such an opinion come from those who are desirous of smoking and suffering from lung cancer and not from those who manufacture cigarettes!

"Don't know, yet" is the first step to gaining further knowledge

Possibly, the simplest-worded summary of how traditional religions and naturalism have treated mysteries and new knowledge differently - in particular, to be found in the last paragraph. It is a very short post and will take only around 5 min to read.

Search Judaism - A Critique: Part Two (II) - (Click)

God's orders on how to keep children s(p)ick-and-span(k)!

"Salvati, 44, who owns a home remodeling business and sends free wooden paddles to parents across the country, said he's just doing what God asked him to do four years ago."

Now, believers of divine revelations, buy (click) that shit. Oops, I mean buy that paddle! ;) 'Cuz, God said so. :)

By the way, it is not Uncyclopedia that I am linking to. Can't really help it if God's sense of humor is, well, funny!

Missing Marble's Mystery

A box labeled - "MARBLE THE GREAT INSIDE" is examined. There was no sound on shaking it. It was opened - no marble could be seen.

......
1.

1.1. That the box exists attests to the fact that Marble created it, so there must be Marble inside as declared by the label.

1.2. Ears are not reliable. There must be Marble inside.

1.3. Eyes are not reliable. There must be Marble inside.

1.4. Why would someone lie about Marble? I might find it, if I search "properly". There must be Marble inside.

1.5. If I don't say Marble is great or eat chocolates now, Marble might eat me after killing me. Why take chance?

1.6. If I say, Marble is great, it might give me chocolates after killing me. Why not take chance?

1.7. Marble is Great!

...This was Marbleism.

......
2.

2.1. There is no sound on shaking the box. There is no marble inside.

2.2. I couldn't see a marble on opening the box. There is no marble inside.

2.3. It's possible to write anything on the label. If I want, I can erase and write "SPOON THE GREAT INSIDE". It doesn't mean there has to be a spoon inside.

2.4. What's written on the label is false.

2.5. I'll try to grow chocolates and eat them to my heart's content before I die.

2.6. To find anything, I use exactly the same method to as I used to find the marble.

2.7. While it is possible for a marble, or for that matter even a spoon to be inside a box, there is no marble in the box given to me.

...This was Amarbleism.

......
3.

3.1. Absence of sound on shaking the box doesn't totally rule out the possibility that there could be Marble inside.

3.2. Not being able to see the Marble despite being able to see the box doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be Marble inside.

3.3. People can write things on a label - they can either be true or false.

3.4. Had the label talked of a spoon inside the box, I wouldn't have taken any time to conclude that it was false. But Marble is to be accorded special status.

3.5. I'm not sure if there is Marble inside or not.

3.6. Not sure if Marble will get angry if I grow and eat chocolates while alive. :(

...This was Agnosticism.

Jokers are Mortal; Jokes, Eternal. But Jokers can reincarnate! ;)

LOL @ Rangnath Commission recommends 10% quota for Muslims (click)

ROFL @ "It added that in case of non-availability of Muslims to fill the 10% earmarked seats, these may be made available to other minorities but in "no case" shall any seat within the recommended 15% shall be given to anybody from the majority community."

An exclusive bout of laughter specially @ "majority community". Wow! How lovely and loving the whole thing sounds!! I'm simply mesmerized by the love flowing for me, in the hearts of those running this nation.

ROFLMAO @ "Unity in diversity"

I wish our secular and guardian-of-equality government did not come up with these kind of jokes that make me laugh so uncontrollably. You know, so much laughing can hurt sometimes.

Ouch! I forgot, these are 'practical' jokes, and not meant for laughing. But then, WTF! LOL!

These are not Diwali Firecrackers, please!

What are these people even trying to do?!!

Click and Click.

It's both puzzling and unnerving.

Even if it is assumed that whatever Sathnam says is indeed true, then what does it imply? Just that whatever decision the government will reach regarding CTBT will be for personal gains of those running it, as they would be paid (bribes) by the private firms wishing to sell their products/expertise to India by further ending India's nuclear isolation. That's all! And that's an accepted package in democracy!!

But what do we mean by "further ending"? India's nuclear isolation is already ended. The US has already entered into deals. Russia has just recently so, and France was (if media reports are to be believed) wooing India last year to sign deals!

But most important point is: nuclear tests are not firecrackers to discuss their fizzle v/s bang in public!

One of the purposes of possessing nuclear weapons is not exactly to threaten others: "we will kill you", but to let the hostile neighbors with proven track record of disturbing our peace, unprovoked, know that "be careful before messing around with us".

What is Sathnam doing? Why disturb the enemies' restraint earned owing to India's image of a formidable target?

What is Sathnam trying to do by calling into question the success of those tests?

Kilotons of TNT is huge amount of destructive energy - capable of killing lakhs of people. 45 or 25 of it doesn't make much difference for an enemy to fear it!! Plus, the fission-based tests were totally successful!

More important, why are India's nuclear secrets being discussed so openly?

Why is Sathnam being given so much media-coverage?

But of course, all this comes into play only if we are to ASSUME what Sathnam says is true. We'll have to still take it on that flimsy thing called 'trust'. And how do we establish that? My suggestion is: the leading dailies coming out with a 'Pokhran-special', reporting in detail, EVERYTHING. Then we'll have a truly 'open' democracy.

This is another clear case of irresponsible, misguiding, sensationalist and propagandist approach of the Indian media.

Ebullient rhetoric is NOT journalism!!!

_pseudo|^secularism