The Hindu Business Line : The many definitions of ‘culture’

Watching the debate on the Mangalore pub attack unfold over the last few days, it was amusing to see the kind of spin being put on this shameful event, depending on the speaker’s ideology and political compulsions.

Women activists, among others across the country, have been outraged by this act of goondaism.

Rasheeda Bhagat

The attack on the Mangalore pub by the activists of Sri Ram Sene, self-appointed guardians of Indian culture, has sent alarm bells ringing across the country. Relentless relaying of footage on the attack, in which two young women are assaulted, kicked, pushed and sent sprawling on the floor, has outraged the nation’s sensibilities. The cacophony created by our round-the-clock TV channels, which simply love “breaking news” of this nature, has sent all the normal suspects and “defenders” of Indian culture scurrying for cover.

Watching the debate over this attack unfold in the last few days, it was amusing to see the kind of spin being put on this extremely unfortunate event, depending on the speaker’s ideology and political compulsions.

First, the Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr B. S. Yediyurappa, came down heavily on “pub culture” and was at pains to point out how this was not Indian culture. The State’s Home Minister, Mr V. S. Acharya, also made similar noises, but quickly added that the attack was engineered by “those who are opposed to the BJP government in Karnataka.” How the “Sri Ram Sene” was opposed to BJP rule was not explained.

Of course he also took a swipe at the media, saying: “It’s all media hype. A small, trivial incident has been blown out of proportion. The media has devalued itself.”

Indeed! He looks upon this as a “small, trivial incident” but his Ministry has a lot more to answer for. Karnataka was one of the States where Christian churches were desecrated following the violence triggered by the assassination of Swami Lakshmananda Saraswati in Orissa.

After some humming and hawing, the Mangalore pub attackers, including the organisation’s chief Pramod Muthalik, were arrested. The latter did a quick flip-flop; at first, he justified the attack and lauded the work of his members, but later backtracked and apologised, and was released on bail.

Significantly, in his earlier avatar, he was the convenor of the Bajrang Dal in Mangalore but finding that outfit “not proactive” enough in taking up fiery issues, moved on. Defending his “boys,” he said prior to his own arrest: “The ways employed by our boys may be debatable but their objective was absolutely right and justified.

In the last one year, there have been eight cases of suicide in Mangalore. By protesting against a culture of drugs and drinking, the boys were only helping the women there come out of this vicious circle. We will continue to fight against asatya and adharma and this (arrest) is a small price to pay for a larger cause.”

‘Mall culture’

Elsewhere, in another State ruled by another political party — Rajasthan — the Congress Chief Minister, Mr Ashok Gehlot, mounted a scathing attack on “mall culture,” squarely blaming his political rival and former Chief Minister, Ms Vasundara Raje, for promoting “mall culture” in the State.

This gentleman promised that very soon he would put an end to such a culture, “where boys and girls walk hand-in-hand in malls; this is not Indian culture”.

Later, of course, a Congress spokesperson, even while attacking the BJP government in Karnataka for allowing “hoodlums” to attack women, in the Mangalore pub incident, glossed over Mr Gehlot’s comments using the convenient ‘he-was-quoted-out-of context’ line.

But the BJP’s national leadership was quick to condemn the Mangalore incidents. Women activists all over the country have been outraged by this act of goondaism and, clearly, no political party would want to take on the wrath of one half of the electorate on the eve of any elections.

Strange response from NCW

But the most unbelievable response to the attack came from some members of the National Commission for Women, following which the UPA Ministry for Women and Child Affairs moved into the picture. Last week, an NCW member, Ms Nirmala Venkatesh, who visited the pub named Amnesia Lounge Bar, launched a different kind of investigation, pointed out the “illegal activities” of the pub and blamed “pub culture” for the incident.

For instance, she discovered that though the pub had a licence to serve food and alcohol only to lodgers, “they were serving food and alcohol to outsiders. I did not find these people’s names in the register”. She blamed the pub owner for having lax security and recommended that his licence be cancelled for violating “rules and regulations”.

She went ahead to say that the very fact that the girls who were assaulted and their parents had not come forward to lodge complaints “indicated” that they were doing something wrong. “If not, why are they afraid to come forward and give a statement,” she thundered. Worse, she told a TV channel: “From some sources we heard that there was a live band also and some girls were also participating, or whatever it is...”

So a live band, dancing and consumption of alcohol by women is a crime! Some blogs have reported that the Sri Ram Sene members thrashed the girls “because they were interacting with Muslim boys”.

Now that everybody, cutting across the political spectrum, has condemned the attack on the pub, let’s come to the different nuances in which the debate is conducted.

Appearing on a TV channel Ms Smriti Irani, the charismatic BJP leader of the saas-bahu serial fame, after saying the right things about nobody having the right to take the law into their own hands, etc., went ahead to say that, as a parent, she would strongly disapprove of her daughter or son consuming alcohol.

One is happy that she did not flinch from saying so, even as the anchor of the show kept thundering, “Are you against the right of an Indian woman to drink?” and “Do Indian women have the right to drink?”

The debate

One can see the clear shift in the debate. From a law and order and moral policing issue, the whole thing had been reduced to Indian women having the right to drink.

The design was clear; the anchor was trying to corner a Mr Politician or Ms Activist into endorsing an Indian woman’s right to drink! As he tried to score a brownie point by narrowing down the whole condemnable episode, one had to switch off the television.

As this debate continues to hog media headlines, it is a shame that the manner in which the entire discussion is being conducted in the media is so skewed. The bluster, the body language and the threatening stance, not to mention the sneers and innuendos, all proclaim one thing. The guests are expected, or intimidated, into doing two things. They have to not only condemn the attack on Amnesia Lounge, they have to also appear liberal and modern, and endorse the “Indian woman’s right to drink”!

If they even try to record their anxiety about the growing tendency in the urban youth to go on alcohol binges, which might trigger irresponsible and dangerous behaviour, like drunken driving that endangers the lives of other road-users, they are dismissed as “orthodox” and unwitting accomplices of the “moral police” or “Indian Taliban” such as Muthalik and his friends.

This has got to stop. There are millions of Indians who do not consume alcohol and they shudder at the thought of their children hitting the bottle. That doesn’t make them old-fashioned zombies unworthy of gracing TV debates.

Just as those who frequent pubs or discos have the right to do so, as long as they don’t break any law and certainly do not take the wheel after consuming alcohol, those who are not enamoured of the bottle or disapprove of their daughters wearing skimpy clothes, have the right to say so, without being humiliated by upstart or oh-so-smart-and-hep journalists.

The problem is that the nation is being subjected to a double assault — one from the Taliban-like zealots who will define and enforce their definition of Indian culture down our throats. The second is from those who unfortunately use such terrible incidents to trumpet the arrival of a modern and liberal India, not realising that their definition of ‘modern’ and ‘liberal’ is all mixed up.

Teetotallers who prefer lassi to single-malts, and foodies who plump for thayir saadam (curd rice) rather than exotic Mediterranean cuisine, as well as those who care a tuppence about designer-wear, can also be modern and liberal. Just challenge their grey cells and you might be in for a surprise!

(Response maybe sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Politics | Lifestyle | Gender | Rasheeda Bhagat

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
The froth drains

The many definitions of ‘culture’

How ‘rational’ behaviour begets recession

Window-dressed boards

Time to act, not just react

Audit rotation

Auto LPG