Kaya Eldridge, a graduate of the London School of Economics, has made a formal complaint to the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court after a defence lawyer asked her a series of “irrelevant questions designed to question my character”. In front of a packed court of jeering men, the 23-year-old was asked whether she drank alcohol, socialised with men and even how often she took a shower. All the while, the man she had accused of assaulting her sat just feet away.

Related Posts:

• The Survivors' View on Domestic Violence
• Join the Gay Pride Parades!
• The name, the small battle, the dressing immodestly
• Left, Right, Centre, Pseudo-Secular: The Mangalore Pub Incident
• Gaysi-for Gay Desis

Bloggers and journalists on the right of the political spectrum are protesting that Muthalik’s and the Ram Sene’s actions should not be conflated with either Hinduism or Hindutva and are objecting to the term “Hindu Taliban.” These writers are also distancing themselves from Yeduryappa’s statements. I make a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, as I do between the terms Islamic and Islamist, and I think it is a moot point about whether such incidents can be attributed to the rise of Hindutva, but that is not the point of this post.

As someone with “liberal left” leanings, I object to my opinions being lumped with those of NDTV and other big media houses. I object to the term Talibanisation, because in it’s very sensationalism it distracts from the all too frequent horrors of being a woman in India, which should be the main issue here. We get nowhere, comparing ourselves to the lowest common denominator. There are other reasons we should object:

Whenever there is an incident in India that involves women (and that receives attention), it becomes an argument about which religion is the more “fundamentalist,” who said what and when, in protest at which incident, often argued by men from different communities, of the geriatric politician/cleric/self-appointed moral custodian variety, from Shah Bano to Mangalore, rather than about the rights of the woman herself. A lot of us women get co-opted into this process, allowing it to become a question of protecting our religious identities.

It is now being argued that the government kept quiet when Taslima Nasreen was attacked, that the “secular” media was complicit in this. But there were a range of voices from across the “liberal left” who might otherwise disagree with each other, who protested at the way she was being treated, more than once, with damning criticisms of the CPM government in Bengal. I have only linked to a couple here. None of these “liberal lefties” have much love for the actions of the media or the government. To lump everyone with views that are “liberal left” into one category and apply the one size fits all sticker of “pseudo-secular” is as disingenuous as characterising all those with right wing political opinions as Ram Sainiks.

The “left” is a vast category, with lefts, rights, centres, liberals and illiberals of its own. There are huge disagreements amongst people on the “left.” One has to look no further than the issue of Nandigram.

Furthermore, the various “lefts” have a running battle with the media. There are leftist blogs dedicated to dissecting what the media comes up with, and they do not reserve their criticism for papers that support the right like the Pioneer, but take issue with most big media houses from the Hindustan Times, to the Indian Express to NDTV. To therefore think, that all on the “left” or all “liberals” or all those who believe in secularism are in accordance with the ill-thought out reports of our major newspapers and channels, or even consider them secular, is incorrect.

And here I am, wasting time writing about the right, the liberal left and the media, instead of what can be done to make India a safer place for women. For ever shall we be stuck, in our polarised views of the world, instead of changing it.

Related Posts:

• Gautam Bhan on what "sexuality" means in India
• Join the Gay Pride Parades!
• Toilet OCDs
• Gaysi-for Gay Desis
• Bishop Robinson in London

The question arises, time and again, “why do women put up with it?”

There was a very telling and angry comment from someone as a response to someone else (who said women in abusive relationships are “attracted” to violence), on the Potable Poison post. The comment in response, apart from the justified anger at the remark that women are “attracted” to violence, reflects quite accurately what my friends and quite a few women fighting their husbands in court say (the latter I observed in those horrible days when I was a practising lawyer)about why it took them so long to come out of these relationships:

Anon – Wow are you really saying women are attracted to domestic violence! Lol. Lets ignore the fact that it cant be easy for her to walk out of a marriage, life as a single woman is probably not easy let alone safe in certain parts and in certain socities of India. Lets forget the social stigma attached to a divorced woman in India. Lets ignore the fact that most women are brain washed even as kids to be submissive. Lets forget the culture of ‘kallaanalum purushan, etc etc’. Lets forget the fact that the woman concerned might think that she took vows to stay with him for life. Lets forget the intimidation involved. Lets forget the family pressure. Lets forget the manipulation by the abuser who might cry their eyes out and promise never to do it again. Lets forget all this and blame it on the woman being attracted to violence.

What an uphill battle.

Related Posts:

• British woman tells of humiliation by Indian court
• Left, Right, Centre, Pseudo-Secular: The Mangalore Pub Incident
• Join the Gay Pride Parades!
• The name, the small battle, the dressing immodestly
• Responding to Violence

Related Posts:

• Yes, animals of the same sex do have sex with each other!
• Gautam Bhan on what "sexuality" means in India
• Join the Gay Pride Parades!
• The name, the small battle, the dressing immodestly
• Left, Right, Centre, Pseudo-Secular: The Mangalore Pub Incident

Updated to add:

V. Gene Robinson[1] (born May 29, 1947 in Fayette County, Kentucky) is the ninth bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.[2][3] Robinson was elected bishop in 2003 and entered office in March 2004. Before becoming bishop, he served as assistant to the retiring New Hampshire bishop.
Robinson is widely known for being the first openly gay, non-celibate priest to be ordained a bishop in a major Christian denomination believing in the historic episcopate.[note 1] His sexual orientation was privately acknowledged in the 1970s, when he studied in seminary, was ordained, married, and started a family. He went public with his sexual identity and divorced in the 1980s. When delegates to the Episcopal convention were voting on the ratification of his election, it became an issue of controversy. His election was ratified 62 to 45. After his election, some theologically conservative parishes have aligned themselves with bishops outside the Episcopal Church in the United States, a process called the Anglican realignment. His story has appeared in print and film.
In 2009 he was honored by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) with the Stephen F. Kolzak Media Award.

link.

Related Posts:

• Yes, animals of the same sex do have sex with each other!
• Gautam Bhan on what "sexuality" means in India
• The name, the small battle, the dressing immodestly
• Left, Right, Centre, Pseudo-Secular: The Mangalore Pub Incident
• Gaysi-for Gay Desis