This ad set my blood boiling!

Have you seen the most recent MTS ad? I just saw it this morning and I couldn't find it online so it must be really new.

For those of you who haven't seen it, here is how it goes: It shows a creepy young guy stalking another (supposedly handsome) guy and saying something along the lines of "can I have just one date with your sister?"

What????

I thought I'd heard wrong. Can I have one date with your sister???

The macho brother is a little irritated because this creep is catching him everywhere: as he is waking up, when he's parking his car, while he's at the movies and going about minding his own business. Nope, he's not irritated because some random sleazeball is after his sister, but because this guy is just in his way all the damn time!

So the creep keeps showing up at random places, saying "one date?"..."just one date....?" Till one day he (well, believe it or not) runs out of talk time! And has to shut up... lucky for the harassed brother, non?

But as luck would actually have it, the creep gets on to MTS and suddenly he's back with his demand to have just one date with the sister.

And the most shocking bit of the ad is yet to come. It ends with the brother getting really annoyed and saying "just go, yaar, just take her!".

By this time I am so in shock, I am not even sure if I've actually seen this during a commercial break in the morning news.

And what worries me more than the absolute trash I've just seen (and I don't mean just the news) is that many, if not most, people would see this as just another ad. Some would find it funny. And there would be others who see nothing wrong with what's being shown. It's just an ad, right?

First of all, this happening in the real world would be harassment! And no, not of the brother! Women in India (especially in a city like Delhi) are cornered by men like this everyday for their phone numbers or because they want to make some "fraandship". Creeps are Never funny for a woman. And a creep, asking your brother if he can have you for a date is not funny at all.

An ad like this really shows deep rooted perceptions towards women in our country. As if the fact that a brother being asked permission for dating the sister is not bad enough, what is most infuriating is the idea that people think it is enough for a brother to give his consent. Whatever happened to this sister we hear about? Does she even know that there's a creep lusting after her and her pimp of a brother has just given his green signal to "just take her".

That's sick.

And what exactly does the brother think this creep wants to do to his sister on this one date? No prizes for guessing! It is quite apparent from the way the creep looks and acts that he's not meant to be attractive and if he would actually ask the sister out, she'd probably say no.

Is it, then, a mere coincidence that the brother eventually says "Just take her!".

So what MTS is essentially trying to say is: if you stalk or harass someone enough, they will surely give in to you. Better still, if you irritate the man who owns the woman you desire for long enough, it won't be long before you can "just take her".

Isn't that just a great message to send to the men of our country!!

This is, of course, not the only ad that is completely inappropriate. Seen the Airtel 3G Facebook ad? The one in which a grandson and grandfather use Facebook on their Airtel phones to hunt down a really old woman and sexually harass her in public? This because years ago her husband had kissed the grandfather's wife without permission.



Women's bodies have always been the public sphere that is used for men to play out their revenge dramas. And the absolute casualness that's being used in these ads is what is really scary. By accepting these ads or even by simply dismissing them, we are essentially making it ok for women's bodies to be the object of abuse, ownership and trade on television. Can it be any clearer that we as a society do actually believe that this is what women are for?

For those of you who say "chill, it's just an ad", you may need to think about what ads are for. Unlike films (esp Bollywood films that are often way beyond most Indians' realities), most ads these days are about the Indian middle class and what they give value to. Ads show you who you can be and who you should want to be.

This MTS ad shows a young, upper-middle class, modern man. But what we also get to see is this man's perception of his sister. In real life, he probably does not want to pimp her off to the first creep that comes along but he does think that she needs to seek his permission for all such matters and that she adhere to his rules. After all, he is her protector till she can be passed on to another man through marriage for safe keeping.

Let's flip the situation for a minute. Suppose the sister chose to date some random guy (or even the creep) the brother didn't' approve of? Would he respect her decision? Would a girl who has a crush on the brother need to seek the sister's permission to date him?

Similarly, in the Airtel ad, the old woman who gets kissed forcefully in public is paying the price for her husband's misdemeanors in his younger days. The message here is once again clear: men will be men and they have urges. And they can impose themselves on any woman as and when they please - be it for pleasure, revenge or anything else they bloody well fancy.

The brand names and contexts change but the bottom line remains the same: women belong to the men in their lives and their life choices, sexuality and bodies are controlled by these men who have the power to restrict and ravage them as they please.

Those who think these ads are just ads definitely are unaware of or are in denial of the power dynamics that are constantly playing out between male egos and female bodies all the time. At the risk of sounding dramatic, any routine activity outside of the house is sprinkled with various shades of harassment: be it going for a morning walk, buying groceries at your local shop, making casual eye contact with the guy in a car next to your auto or wearing what you damn well want to wear.

Unfortunately, there are no quick fix solutions. But I think as "educated" people we need to make an effort to engage with these issues. For starters, we need to stop distancing from them by treating them as unreal elements of our society and our lives. The minute we think "it's just an ad", we start trivializing the uncomfortable, the unfair, and oftentimes, the horrific realities of most Indian women.

this ain't a love song

today am thinking about nationalism. rather have been for a while now, especially about two months ago with elections et al. I think its a rather taken for granted emotion and it could be quite a fiery one, sometimes flaring up at "wrong" times.

Two or three things have got me really thinking about nationalism. and what it really means to be part of a country. and if you are living in a country that is yours, can you still refuse to acknowledge it because of the things you think it stands for? i guess we might think that it is easier to take a stance when you are a citizen of a "rogue nation" (whatever that might be). But once in a while there comes a time when you have to question what you stand for when you are considered part of a group.

So there have been unfinished and not completely convincing conversations about nationalism and patriotism. however (and maybe I say this because i really don't understand the emotion) there seems to be an imbalance in that thought. for example, what does nationalism even mean in a country like ours? India is a so vast and diverse that each indian has his or her own individual little india. So then what does the Entire construct of India, in the political/geographical sense actually mean? or perhaps that's just it: each person - when it comes to any nation - should just hold on to what their idea of their country might be. if it works for them, they are a nationalist and if it doesn't they are one of those complainers who say "i hate this country". of course there's a spectrum of other stages in between these two extremes.

so yes there are some things that really disturb me about India and i don't mean potholes and powercut. yes, those are problems too but of an entirely different nature. what disturbs me most right now are individuals' own unwillingness to accept or overwillingness to reject people who are different from them.

It was great that Article 377 (a law that criminalizes homosexuality in India) got overturned by the high court (02/07/09). Much too late of course... but better late than never. but immediately there are a hundred people jumping up and saying this is against our culture. sure... it may be if you are stubbornly going to choose to look at it that way but in a country whose religious and cultural traditions have been built from listening to stories about characters like amba (the transgender in mahabharat who eventually helps kill bhishm), mohini (vishu in female form; rumored to be very beautiful and if i remember right he/she has fathered/mothered a chlld). and lets not forget the few years when Arjun was in hiding, dressed as a woman. so clearly the cultural argument really doesn't work here.

but beyond that, these people who are so quick to jump to the defense of indian culture never seem to do that where it matters. As far as I know ragging is not Indian culture but no one seems care about that. Torturing youngsters who want an education, am sure, was not part our gurukuls. The same goes for raping children and women in war zones - or anywhere. how come talk of culture comes up only when the argument is hollow? why does the entire country have to carry the weight of being narrow-minded because those in power can't think beyond themselves?

So here's my anxiety about nationalism: When I call myself Indian, am i supporting all this? Am i supporting all these unspeakable crimes against human rights? if India is one "thing" then whatever the country does, we all are part of and have to take responsibility for.

I don't want to part of these things that I can't relate to or understand - and thank God for that.

I remember the exact moment when my sense of "nationalism" crumpled. It was after hearing the news about two women who were raped in Kashmir by a whole army camp. It was not the first such instance but somehow hearing it from someone I know, instead of on the news, really shot a hole through me (no pun intended). But what shocked me more is that the nation only wants to talk about militants and bombs. but where does 'truth' in all of this go? Doesn't it matter what happens to people in our own country? And if it doesn't, then what is this great civilization that we are talking about?

Some might say I am taking this too seriously (but I know I am not)and that every country has these problems. Sure, why not? But that isn't an excuse.

My question is if my country Also stands for atrocities and injustice, how can I label myself an Indian without saying that I agree and am part of this?

Which brings me back to the concept of a scattered India. An individual India. A developing or enriching or shining India. Each one of us in our cozy corners can choose what we want to believe about here and anywhere else. It might be a convenient escape rather than facing the demons out there. But there has to be some compromise. And this one seems to be the best way out.

Having said that though, separate from the concept of nationhood (in fact a step Ahead of nationhood), some things are wrong no matter where it happens and who it happens to. So the injustices here and everywhere else, as a human being, I can't wash my hands off by saying "this is not my problem".