[Reader-list] ignore pub attack

[Joshua Soans]

I agree with much of what Bipin says. I wrote a paper for a course in my
college that is is concerned with the way the media and the public debated
the issue. I attach it for your consideration. Also do check out this
article in The Hoot, "Making a Muthalik of a Molehill" (
http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3664&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=22&valid=true
)

My paper follows:

*The discussion in the public sphere that followed the Amnesia pub incident
in Mangalore, particularly in the discussions in the popular media, leaves
much to be desired. Images of the hapless girls being physically assaulted
no doubt should leave us all indignant. Nevertheless, it is a matter of
concern of how the media and others in the public sphere, in an attempt to
champion progressive, liberal ideals, resorted to condemning the attack
largely in cultural terms, completely side-stepping the issue of what the
Constitution and the law had to say on the matter. In doing so, two grievous
errors were committed. *

*Firstly, the entire incident was trivialized into a question of what
constitutes ‘Indian’ culture and who had the right to enforce it.  As it is,
(and as I will show) this was not merely a matter of culture; there were
other factors at play. But most importantly, this allowed the Sena and their
sympathizers to side-step question of the criminality of their act and
instead turn it into a debate about the definition of culture, a matter so
woolly and problematic, it is best left alone.*

*Secondly, the rabidly liberal media did all it could to portray the
cultural conservatives as nut-cases. This agenda was palpable in the Big
Fight talk show on NDTV. It also becomes obvious when politicians throw
around phrases like ‘Talibanization of Mangalore’[1] <#_ftn1>. Everyone with
culturally conservative views was equated with hoodlums who would beat up
women in the name of culture without a qualm. This stance of the media
quickly isolated the conservatives who now have no reason to engage in a
discourse via the popular media. An interesting manifestation of this
sentiment is that under every pro-liberal reporting of the incident online,
the comments pages are usually filled with anti-liberal sloganeering.*

*In light of this incident, I will explore in the following essay, the
importance of a layered, multidimensional approach to a discussion that
follows. I will also re-examine the emphasis that Sen places on the role of
Reason in public debates and his implicit stress on the synthesis of
outcomes in a dialogue.*

***

The violence at the Amnesia pub in Mangalore on the 24th of January presents
a lot of fodder for discussion on a number of themes such as culture,
identity and discursive practices. There is however yet another aspect to
the incident which, although to my understanding should have been at the
forefront of the discussion was either entirely absent or merely given a
passing mention. This is the question of what the constitution and the law
has to say on the matter.

There are several layers of understanding to the incident and the subsequent
verbal jousting that took place in civil society and it is important to
carefully pry apart each layer and not confuse one with the other.

At the most immediate level is the violation of personal rights and
liberties, embodied in the brutal physical assault on the women and those
men who tried to offer them protection. At this level it is inconsequential
whether or not the women’s actions were outside the bounds of Indian
culture. It is inconsequential whether women offered men *soma* in some
ancient Hindu texts. Even the matter of women’s rights should be set aside
for it is very easy for such arguments to degenerate into arguments about
women’s roles and proper place in Indian culture and society. What is
important here is that basic human freedoms and rights guaranteed by the
Constitution under article 21 were violated. The law of the land was
violated and regardless of the broader implications, this violation must
first be addressed.

To assess whether or not this fundamental issue was addressed one simply
need ask whether the discourse would have been any different had the victims
been male or juvenile or had the incident occurred in another setting with
other motives. If the answer to that is ‘yes’, then quite clearly the
question of *fundamental* rights has been side-stepped. By definition, a *
fundamental* right would apply to *any* context without any change in its
force or relevance.

That is not to say questions of culture or women’s empowerment are any less
relevant. However one must be clear not to confuse one with the other. There
might be many definitions of culture or of the role of women in society and
each just as valid as the next. However there can be no negotiation on the
matter of one’s fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, for any
concession in this regard would mean a breakdown of the very basis of our
civil and public spheres of existence.

It was quite disturbing then to see how most new reports and analysis of the
incident spoke about matters of Indian culture and fundamental rights in the
same sentence. To quote Arvind Narrain of the Alternate Law Forum in an
article published in the Indian Express: “Indirectly, the Amnesia pub
incident challenges the legacy of the women’s movement in India, which has
fought for women’s right to autonomy of decision making.” In the same
article he says: “When women choose to go a pub, they challenge a
patriarchal heritage which says that public spaces are by definition male,
and when women wear noodle straps and tight jeans they are saying that their
body is nobody’s business but their own, a flat contradiction of the
conservative code.”[2] <#_ftn2>

Nowhere in the article does he make a definitive argument against the
perpetrators on the basis of personal liberties and civil rights except to
refer to it in passing. One might have expected differently of someone so
closely associated with a law think-tank. The rest of the article is largely
in defence of women’s right to express themselves vis-a-vis attire and
behaviour. One gets the uneasy feeling that he goes too far to defend
feminist identities. When a group of girls dress up in the latest fashion
and go to a pub to party, it is usually with the intention of enjoying
themselves rather than trying to make a statement that “their body is no
nobody’s business but their own.” What if they weren’t saying that? What if
they went out with the explicit intention of snubbing cultural sentiments to
no greater end? Does that make their right to personal liberties as
guaranteed by the Constitution any less legitimate?

To some, separating out issues of women’s rights and the right to one’s own
definition of culture from the issue of personal liberties might seem an
exercise in triviality. Quite the contrary, this is of utmost importance to
the case in question. To illustrate, it is like debating the rules of the
game and debating the skills of the players. The latter is a matter of
personal opinion, the former a defining feature of the game itself. If a
team plays badly it is a matter of shame for the supporting side, if it
breaks the rules it incurs a penalty.

The fact that a large section of the polity and civil society see it fit for
women to confine themselves to domestic roles is a matter of shame but when
that section takes it into their hands to enforce those beliefs it is a
breach of law. True, the two are not mutually exclusive and it is the
prevailing beliefs of the majority that gets written into law. But law, once
written, stands on its own merit until further debate decides it must be
changed.

*What Went Wrong in Mangalore?*

To fully appreciate the importance of the need to separate out issues one
must go into a little history of non-tolerance in the picturesque town of
Mangalore. Non-tolerance, particularly in its ugly religious form is not new
to Mangalore. In recent years it has been spurred by growing cadre of the
religious right. The presence of a BJP government at the helm in Bangalore
(the first to install a BJP CM in a South Indian state), has emboldened
right wing groups many of whom view this as an opportunity to get back for
seeming ill-treatment under previous Congress governments. “On a single
telephone call from Muslim ministers, people accused of murder were released
in the past,” alleges a Sangh member[3] <#_ftn3>.

In September 2008, 18 churches were attacked allegedly by Bajrang Dal cadre
[4] <#_ftn4>. Clashes between Hindu and Muslim communities keep erupting
sporadically and moral policing in general has been on the rise.

Yet, Mangalore remains very cosmopolitan owing in good measure to its high
NRI population levels. All three communities, namely Hindus, Muslims and
Christians each constitute a sizeable share of the population. Median
incomes are of the populace are generally amongst the highest in Karnataka
and it is interesting that there is near total absence of permanent slums in
the city (although in recent times their number has been growing)[5]<#_ftn5>.
The uniqueness of the city stems from the coexistence of modernity and
tradition, visually exemplified in the side-by-side space shared by high
rises and early twentieth and late nineteenth century bungalows. Traditional
Udipi restaurants are as popular Pizza Hut and Subway. Very recently the
city boasted of its first multiplex-cum-shopping centre. Big business too
has found a home here from Infosys to the 21,000 crore ONGC refinery,
bringing with it workers from all over India.

This influx of the outside world into the Mangalore social space in recent
times has lead to a growing assertion of modern and post-modern identities.
The Yakshagana is still a popular source of entertainment but so are the
growing number of pubs and discotheques. Most of the schools and colleges in
the city still remain all-boys or all-girls (most of them run by the
Catholic Church) but hang-outs for mixed groups are increasing. Most of the
older theatres have lost out to the newer ones screening the latest
Hollywood movies.

The social space is in a heightened state of flux and tensions are,
understandably high. Many of the older generation see the infiltration of
‘western’ culture with its accompanying themes of equality of the sexes,
youth liberation and a general questioning of inconvenient social mores as
threatening to rip apart the established social fabric. A childhood friend
of my father who still lives in Mangalore and has a son about my age
recently remarked how when he was growing up, a man only purchased alcohol
on his own money whereas today children who were still in high school had
taken to drinking because of the easy availability of money and access bars
and pubs. He went on to lament how ‘this whole boyfriend-girlfriend
business’ had made him feel uncomfortable to allow his daughter too much
free time outside the house. This, in spite of him being well-educated and a
highly affluent hotelier in the city.

These sentiments of resentment have quickly been seized upon by the
political right to strengthen their influence in the city. Pramod Mutalik
and his horde of Ram Sainiks, who were literally unknown till the pub
incident, are today a household name. The amount of political mileage that
the Ram Sena has been able to extract out of the incident, thanks in no
small amount to the way it was reported by the media, is simply phenomenal.
It was a calculated move on the part of the Ram Sena, who had informed local
news agencies about the impending attack.

The Sri Ram Sena has largely remained a fringe organization shunned even by
the RSS and the rest of the Sangh Parivar. Their attempts at gaining an
electoral victory in Karnataka have failed miserably as have their forays
into neighbouring Andhra Pradesh[6] <#_ftn6>. Today however, many
conservative middle class families exhibit a not-too-subtle admiration for
the Sena, who for them has become a guardian of Hindu culture. The
horrifying personal rights and liberties violations of the Sena are quickly
brushed under the carpet. One is tempted to ask whether these individuals
would be equally approving if some organization, more hardliner than the
Sena, violated their personal freedoms in the name of [perhaps a more
Manu-esque] Hindu culture.

But the roots of the current conflict run a lot more deeper. The initiation
of land reforms by the Congress government in 1974 quickly isolated the
powerful land-holding Bunt community in Mangalore. Then during the
Emergency, differences were further entrenched as a result of Congress
politics, which sought to divide the polity along caste lines by propping up
backward caste communities and minorities. The demolition of the Babri
Masjid in 1992 was the final straw.

Another source of conflict is the growing levels inequality in the closely
knit community. Although it might seem like pop sociology at its best, it is
impossible to dismiss the resentment it creates especially among youth of
the same age. From there, it is a rather simple matter of connecting wealthy
members of the community with decadent lifestyles which can then be targeted
on the pretext of ‘defending Indian culture’.  Ironically, at higher levels
the perpetrators are themselves extremely well-to-do individuals who
nevertheless exploit the sentiments of the lower income youth.

Thus we see that the causes for conflict in Mangalore society are myriad and
often run much below the surface of their manifestations in everyday life.
To simply attribute the conflict to one set of individuals or one set of
beliefs or a section of the polity is to act with unpardonable naiveté. By
indiscriminately lambasting Mutalik and his honchos and by proclaiming the
obvious superiority of a liberal social paradigm, civil society might have
lost its most important battle yet.

The key problematic lies in the failure to separate the issue of personal
rights violations from the issue of what constitutes ‘[pub] culture’ in the
Mangalore pub incident. As a result a potentially powerful condemnation the
former has been reduced to a debate on the latter. This has dangerous
implications. To base the personal safety and security of citizens on the
question of what constitutes ‘Indian culture’ is bound to be an uneasy
security.

Worse, it is playing right into the hands of the Sena. Notice how Mutalik,
in an interview, did exactly the same thing. He said, and I quote:

"The way has been wrong. I apologise for this. The way should not be like
that. But it is our right to save our mothers and daughters. Pub-culture is
not our culture...Media should highlight and show the aim behind our act to
the society,"[7] <#_ftn7>

Thus, a matter of ‘Constitution’ is diluted into a matter of ‘culture’.

What then are the appropriate fora for a discussion on culture? Are such
discussions relevant at all? Here I turn to Sen for a little illumination
and critically examine his writings on the subject.

*Debating Culture*

Debating the idea of ‘culture’ and ‘identity’, when carried out in
appropriate fora is as important as any discourse. The simple reason for
this is that in a democracy, it is the dominant position in public discourse
that gets written into law. Law directs the way we live. Public reasoning
empowers the citizens to influence public choice.[8] <#_ftn8>

Most importantly when there is an atmosphere conducive to fair and free
discussion, social change, as is inevitable, will take place in an inclusive
manner that respects everyone’s voice so that those sections of society that
might stand to lose do not feel threatened. Change is inevitable – values
change, customs and traditions change, religions change and so on. Change is
inevitable. Yet *how* we allow this change to take place is largely
dependent on the institutions we put in place, particularly the institution
of public discourse.

Sen’s *Argumentative Indian* makes much of the importance of debate – free
and fair – for a just and stable society. Moreover public discussion must be
guided by reason – a leitmotif he borrows from John Rawls. However, the
problem with such and other rational choice theories is that they
overestimate the value that citizens might place on reason, even in advanced
societies.

To take the case of Mangalore once again, many conservative agendas are
bellied by their surface manifestations of aiming to preserve Indian
culture. Often these are merely facades for unseen agendas such as
controlling political power and maintaining the status quo in class
relations. In such cases, it does not matter if ones wins the ‘culture’ war,
because culture is merely a facade for deeper agendas.

In such cases debate and discussion will only be fruitful if it is
accompanied by simultaneous efforts to educate the citizenry about their
rights. Inequalities by way of differences of class, caste religion, race
etc must be counterbalanced through constitutional mechanisms that gives
equal voice to all.

Most of the world’s religions, particularly the Semitic ones, stress the
virtue of [blind] *belief* over reason. For example in the Gospels, Thomas
who refused to believe in Christ’s resurrection until he *actually* saw the
Christ was castigated for being a doubter. Modern day religious arguments
for placing belief over reason (here I am referring to Christianity) include
the argument that ‘God’s ways are not man’s ways’ and so he should not
question religion or ‘God works in mysterious ways’ so that one need not
always believe solely on the basis of proof and reason.

Many arguments for preserving culture begin and end with “this is how we
have been living for generations and hence there is no need to change it”.
Such arguments are very difficult to engage with and most often end up being
exercises in futility.

This brings us to a very important question: does the lack of all-round
acceptance of *reason* as the guiding force behind public discourse preclude
the relevance/legitimacy of such discourse?

My answer to this is “No!” Dialogue in itself is a cornerstone of a
democracy regardless of whether or not some higher outcome is achieved.
Coming back to Mangalore, the dismissive attitude of civil society to
Conservative concerns exemplified by the *Pink Chaddi Campaign*, cannot but
lead to an isolation of the Conservatives, something that could have
disastrous consequences in the long run. Many of those who see themselves as
forward, liberal intellectuals are quick to dismiss the claims of tradition
as irrational and not meriting engagement with.

This, perhaps, is also a criticism that one might make against Amartya Sen.
For Sen, argumentation *must* be guided by Reason and lead to a synthesis of
different views into a new understanding mutually acceptable by all. Sen
fails to stress the importance of argument for argument’s sake. Yet Indian
society is filled with argumentation and dialogue between diverse sections
of the society on a variety of often inane topics that might not lead to any
greater outcome, *but serves to keep people together* and, more importantly,
keep the lines of communication open.

*Conclusion*

Dialogue, debate, discussion, argumentation et al are the cornerstones of a
democracy. Yet, in a dialogue one must be careful how one deals with matters
that are *constitutional* to our shared social existence – the ‘rules of the
game’ – and matters that are of a less fundamental nature.

Also, argumentation involving *all* sections of society is desirable
regardless of whether such argumentation is guided by Reason, and regardless
of the outcomes of such argumentation.

------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> Comment made by women and child development minister Renuka
Chowdhury. Reported in the TOI, 21st February, 2009

[2] <#_ftnref2> “Taliban in Saffron”, *Indian Express*, February 7, 2009.

[3] <#_ftnref3> *Indian Express*, February 3, 2009.

[4] <#_ftnref4> ANI, September 25, 2008.

[5] <#_ftnref5> *The Hindu*, Karnataka ed., January 21, 2006

[6] <#_ftnref6> K.R. Sudhakar Rao, *The Hoot*, ‘Making a Mutalik out of a
Mole Hill’, February 17th, 2009

[7] <#_ftnref7> Zeenews Bureau, January 27, 2009.

[8] <#_ftnref8> *The Argumentative Indian,* pp 14


On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:25 PM, bipin <aliens at dataone.in> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Regarding Manglore pub attack, don't you think we are giving too much hype
> and that way giving un-necessary publicity to irrelevant organization like
> ram sena? By this way, we are giving too much publicity and that is what
> they want. Such incident are always condemnable, but such incident does
> happens (may be some other way and not particular pub attack) in many parts
> of India as routine, but since there is no organizations are involved in it
> (particularly Hindu organization) doesn't come in the lime light. By
> boycotting the things from Karnataka is not the solution. This way you are
> increasing unemployment in this economical crisis. Please note that
> Karnataka govt. is elected democratically with about 45% vote share and you
> are not respecting verdict by this way.
>
>
>
> As a Banglorian spirit, it is surprising that you get disturbed with such
> an incidence of pub attack and unnecessary wasting your prestigious time in
> discussing it. Best way to tackle such incidence is just to ignore it and I
> am sure you will not find any repetition of it. By ignoring there moral will
> get down. No doubt, according to law the culprit must be punished and this
> case is going on that way. But, you know how slow court cases going on in
> India.
>
>
>
> Since so many days I have been noticing the heavy discussion going on for
> this, so I gave my opinion. By the way I am not belonging to any political
> party.
>
>
>
> thanks
>
> Bipin Trivedi
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>