Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby

The latest verdict from the Madras High Court which recognized a couple’s live-in relationship as marriage has led to a predictable barrage of opinions in India. In a country where it is forbidden to talk freely about sex lest someone overhears or, worse, notices the population explosion, we sure love to jump at the first public mention of the word.

One would imagine that a verdict that says couples who have been living together and have what the court calls “established sexual relationships” are entitled to the same legal rights as married couples would be a sign of progress in a society still grappling with ancient mores and Victorian values.

Given that the verdict was for a case where an unmarried couple with two children were in court after separation because the woman claimed that her children were entitled to maintenance expenses, it is heartening to see that we are finally acknowledging civil unions.

But the nature of the verdict is such that several problems present themselves. For instance, it is not clear what it would take for couples living together, but without children, to prove that they in fact have established sexual relationships.

Of course, of vital significance is that fact that Indians are morally superior to the rest of the word and therefore the upholders of the law in our blessed country must exceed their call of duty. And so the judge has helpfully ruled that if any unmarried couple of the right legal age indulge in sexual gratification, this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed husband and wife.

And just like that we crawl back into the hole. This constant need for everyone – right from the government, to the courts, to our parents and even our teachers – to play holier-than-thou is a large part of the problem and is grossly overlooked.

In a way, the verdict signifies remarkable cunning. At once, the courts are addressing a social issue while also imposing what they think ought to be the ethos of our nation. After all, sex for pleasure is so base an action that one should grab the opportunity to “elevate” it to a more meaningful status under the right circumstances.

But I digress. Annoying as these details are, they were not what struck me first. What I want to know in all earnestness is this: Why is the legal age for marriage 21 years for men and 18 years for women in India, while clearly the age for consensual sex is 18 for both? What does this mean in view of the verdict in question?

Let’s assume a couple starts living together at 18 and decides to separate at 20. They do not have children but may have shared responsibilities and related disagreements that take them to court. Although I shudder at the debauchery of people living together out of wedlock at 18, I’m desperate to know if the courts will recognize their union a valid marriage when resolving the case.

As a side note, in country where men significantly outnumber women – 1,000 men for 919 women – why the need to have different ages for marriage? My biggest gripe is the tacit assumption that men need more time to find employment and earn a living, whereas 18 years is plenty for women to learn how to keep a house.

Another equally troublesome issue is that most people who have voiced their support for the verdict say that it is particularly helpful in avoiding situations where a man and woman live with each other, have kids and then the man “dumps” her and shuns all responsibility towards the children, as was the case presented before the High Court. All noble thoughts, but I’m amazed that more people are not taking offense at the underlying premise, which basically is man = bad/dog and woman = aw, poor thing/victim. 

How can we have a real debate about progress in our society if we so comfortably accept these stale stereotypes? Is it so outrageous to believe that a woman too can also choose to walk away from a family or even just her partner and that she is not Sita or Devi who needs to have a higher moral authority than a man?

I’m painfully aware of the fact that Indian women are light years away from emancipation and that the majority do not have the luxury of harbouring my urban “equal gender rights” views. This makes it all the more necessary to ensure that the language used in a legal ruling is not biased, whatever the facts of the case in point may be.

Judges are duty-bound to do the most basic of things: Promise justice to all the citizens of a country even if it means stuffing their own moral penchant in their closets. If they simply must embody moral authority in doing their jobs, then I sincerely hope that it is led by the spirit of equality.    

Politics and Gumption

I didn’t think it was possible to be inspired by a dialogue from a feel-good, happily-ever-after movie to comment on politics, but well… stranger things have happened.

When Eli Wallach explains the virtue and importance of “gumption” to Kate Winslet in the 2006 movie “The Holiday,” I’m certain the “most powerful” men of modern day politics were not paying attention.

They should have.

Perhaps it would have helped prevent this wave of gumption-less decisions that are being made by politicians across the world.

Let me start with my motherland. (Happy Independence month, by the way).

The hot potato in our government’s hands right now is Anna Hazare. Yes, it’s the same potato the government has dropped, squashed and tumbled over in the past few, actually several, days.

Without getting into specifics, here’s the crux of this mess –

Mr. Hazare, a veteran in the fight against corruption, has been criticizing the current Congress-led government that’s been basking in a swamp of corruption. He wants to put together a bill that he believes will do much to curb corruption.

And his mode of protest to ensure that he is being taken seriously is the old Gandhian way of going on a hunger strike. He has been on hunger strikes before and he threatened to go on a new one from yesterday, Aug. 16.

This return to Gandhian ways as opposed to barking and yelling into the microphone or being responsible for violent protests has struck a chord with many Indians. No, there is no Indian spring in the offing, but people took notice of his efforts and nodded in agreement from a distance.

So far so good. Harmless protests - just another day in the life of a democratic country.

Except, the government, adding to its list of jobs well done, decided to arrest him before he went on his latest hunger strike.

And that’s where it made a big boo boo.

Much uproar ensued and the government came under fire from several different corners and realized its blunder. (And when I say blunder, I’m not referring to such comments from Congress leaders as – The police is not under any political influence. They are working independently.)

And what could very well have been just another incident that most urban Indians discuss and dismiss over coffee, has turned into social media and phone/SMS crusades against the government and in strong support for Anna.

Nothing wrong there, but from a political perspective, the government could not have handled this any worse. And, of course, buckling under sudden pressure, the government decided to release Anna from custody. (Anna, on his part, has scoffed at this and is still in a room in the prison where he began his fast yesterday).

And this brings me to this post’s theme – Gumption.

Where is it?

One cannot help but wonder why the government cannot 1) make a wise and tactical move in response to a crisis and 2) stick to its decision once it has made one.

I’m certainly not saying that Anna should have remained in custody. No. I’m wondering why the government did not even try to explain its thought process. Surely there was one? (I’m ignoring “It was Delhi Police’s idea” and PC’s talk on refusal to obey prohibitory order etc. for obvious reasons.)

By jumping up and down like a petrified and possibly electrified rodent, the government is simply giving more weight to the opinion that there was in fact NO thought process. That by jailing a protester, the idea was that the protest would die and no one would notice.

To be fair, I want to give the Congress party more credit. They are stupid yes, but this stupid?

But look at the other global stalwarts. Mr. Manmohan Singh is not the only one hearing the word spineless ever so often these days.

Mr. Barack Obama certainly knows it all too well. I even hear he believes he deserves to patent it. He’s willing to give up rights to the word “change” in exchange.

The debt crisis and the healthcare bill were too jarring to dismiss as the president having a few bad days.

Mr. David Cameron too could use some reminders. He seems to have lost focus… what with all the schmoozing with Murdoch and his cronies. Riots? What, pray tell, is that?

And look who is on the other end of the spectrum.

China would do well by doing what they did to the US credit rating – take it down a couple of notches. Let the trouble begin before taking action. What fun is to clampdown before things get even close to exciting?

Libya – Mr. Gaddafi, are you there? Please don’t be.

I spent some time trying to come up with a masculine and political equivalent to the genius that is the following sentence. But words fail me. Suggestions?

Eli Wallach to Kate Winslet – “In the movies, we have leading ladies and we have the best friend. You, I can tell, are a leading lady, but for some reason you are behaving like the best friend.”

PS: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, I meant to use the above as a metaphor. Please don’t take these lines seriously.