Fire Alarm

The recent furore (for lack of better word for the acts of hooliganism)
of the Shiv Sainiks over the movie 'Fire' by Deepa Mehta makes me think.
Not about the sorry state of affairs in my country, because what's new?
But what if ...
What if the movie touched upon male homosexuality instead. What if the
director was not a woman. What if the female protagonists in the movie
did not defy male authority in making choices in their lives. What if it
did not drive home the message of 'wifely duty' being an over-rated
concept ... Would the protests be still as fiery?

The director repeatedly stated that the movie is not about lesbianism;
it is about lack of choices for women in our society. And if it is indeed
the 'adult' theme of the film, theme, mind you, not content, as it doesn't
have any scenes that substantiate the charges of obscenity brought against
it, why not attack bollywood's masaala offerings pandering to the basest of
the basic instincts of the (primarily) male viewers? Is it because the whole
politician/mafia/bollywood nexus prevents such things from occuring? Or is
it the big money that does the talking, or (most likely) because it does not
offend the male psyche, the dominant psyche in our society?

Lesser said about the moral/ethical twist given to this whole affair by
the politicians the better. Add to the list the clowns who defend the act
and criticize the critics of the incident with statements such as why they
did not condemn, for example, attacks on the director of the film 'Bombay'
that showed inter-sectarian marriage. The statement, apart from being
incorrect, implies that just because the Muslim fundamentalists did
something deplorable, it is OK for the Hindu counterparts to do the same,
more so if the former was not chastised for it. Talk of vicious cycle!

But I digress ... Back to this whole woman thing. The recent incident
only confirmed my belief that in a theocracy, women are the worst losers,
and, in many cases, even willing victims depending on the extent of
conditioning. Case in hand? The Shiv Sena actually employed its 'Women's
Wing' to launch the protest. The leader of the wing was quoted as saying
'No, I haven't seen the movie. But it is morally degrading' and so and so
forth.

Not that we are a theocracy, no, not yet, and of course the Shiv Sainiks
were smart enough not to directly mention religion and simply made vague
references to ethic, morality and culture instead. But we are increasingly
mixing religion with politics, not because of our religous beliefs. Not
because of our political beliefs either (do we have any?), but because of
the all consuming lure of power, to capitalize on the insecurity, ignorance
and helplessness of the masses, masses which should not have been either
insecure or ignorant or helpless after the much hyped fifty years of
independence, if not for these same self seeking politicians. But that's
not my peeve of the day. My peeve, and my fear today is: what next for
women?