Monday, August 29, 2016

இன்று_ஒன்று_நன்று

“சோறும், நீரும் விற்பனைக்கல்ல என்று வாழ்ந்த சமூகத்திலே.. அது விற்கப்படும் போது அந்த சமூகத்தின் பண்பாடும் , அதன் வேரும் அழிகின்றது என்பது தான் பொருள்..”

“அனைத்து உயிர்களும் வாழ்வதற்கான சம உரிமை என்பது ஒரு செல் உயிரி முதல் மனிதன் வரை சமமாக பார்க்க வேண்டும். அப்போதுதான் இந்த உலகம் இயங்கும் ”

“இயற்கைக்கு எதிரானதாக மனித இனம் மாறிக்கொண்டிருக்கிறது. இது மாற வேண்டும். இல்லையென்றால் மனிதனை இயற்கை புறக்கணித்துவிடும்”





10 Quotes From a Sioux Indian Chief That Will Make You Question Everything About “Modern” Culture

Luther Standing Bear was an Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Chief who, among a few rare others such as Charles Eastman, Black Elkand Gertrude Bonnin occupied the rift between the way of life of the Indigenous people of the Great Plains before, and during, the arrival and subsequent spread of the European pioneers. Raised in the traditions of his people until the age of eleven, he was then educated at the Carlisle Indian Industrial Boarding School of Pennsylvania, where he learned the english language and way of life. (Though a National Historical Landmark, Carlisle remains a place of controversy in Native circles.)

Like his above mentioned contemporaries, however, his native roots were deep, leaving him in the unique position of being a conduit between cultures. Though his movement through the white man’s world was not without “success” — he had numerous movie roles in Hollywood — his enduring legacy was the protection of the way of life of his people. By the time of his death he had published 4 Books and had become a leader at the forefront of the progressive movement aimed at preserving Native American heritage and sovereignty, coming to be known as a strong voice in the education of the white man as to the Native American way of life. Here, then, are 10 quotes from the great Sioux Indian Chief known as Standing Bearthat will be sure to disturb much of what you think you know about “modern” culture.

Praise, flattery, exaggerated manners and fine, high-sounding words were no part of Lakota politeness. Excessive manners were put down as insincere, and the constant talker was considered rude and thoughtless. Conversation was never begun at once, or in a hurried manner.

Children were taught that true politeness was to be defined in actions rather than in words. They were never allowed to pass between the fire and the older person or a visitor, to speak while others were speaking, or to make fun of a crippled or disfigured person. If a child thoughtlessly tried to do so, a parent, in a quiet voice, immediately set him right.Silence was meaningful with the Lakota, and his granting a space of silence before talking was done in the practice of true politeness and regardful of the rule that ‘thought comes before speech.’…and in the midst of sorrow, sickness, death or misfortune of any kind, and in the presence of the notable and great, silence was the mark of respect… strict observance of this tenet of good behavior was the reason, no doubt, for his being given the false characterization by the white man of being a stoic. He has been judged to be dumb, stupid, indifferent, and unfeeling.We did not think of the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills, the winding streams with tangled growth, as ‘wild’. Only to the white man was nature a ‘wilderness’ and only to him was it ‘infested’ with ‘wild’ animals and ‘savage’ people. To us it was tame. Earth was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great Mystery.Kinship with all creatures of the earth, sky and water was a real and active principle. In the animal and bird world there existed a brotherly feeling that kept the Lakota safe among them. And so close did some of the Lakotas come to their feathered and furred friends that in true brotherhood they spoke a common tongue.This concept of life and its relations was humanizing and gave to the Lakota an abiding love. It filled his being with the joy and mystery of living; it gave him reverence for all life; it made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal importance to all.It was good for the skin to touch the earth, and the old people liked to remove their moccasins and walk with bare feet on the sacred earth… the old Indian still sits upon the earth instead of propping himself up and away from its life giving forces. For him, to sit or lie upon the ground is to be able to think more deeply and to feel more keenly. He can see more clearly into the mysteries of life and come closer in kinship to other lives about him.Everything was possessed of personality, only differing from us in form. Knowledge was inherent in all things. The world was a library and its books were the stones, leaves, grass, brooks, and the birds and animals that shared, alike with us, the storms and blessings of earth. We learned to do what only the student of nature learns, and that was to feel beauty. We never railed at the storms, the furious winds, and the biting frosts and snows. To do so intensified human futility, so whatever came we adjusted ourselves, by more effort and energy if necessary, but without complaint.…the old Lakota was wise. He knew that a man’s heart, away from nature, becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to lack of respect for humans, too. So he kept his children close to nature’s softening influence.Civilization has been thrust upon me… and it has not added one whit to my love for truth, honesty, and generosity.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

நா.முத்துக்குமார் தனது மகன் ஆதவன் நாகராஜனுக்கு எழுதிய கடிதம்

நா.முத்துக்குமார் தனது மகன் ஆதவன் நாகராஜனுக்கு எழுதிய கடிதம்

“அன்புள்ள மகனுக்கு அப்பா எழுதுவது இது நான் உனக்கு எழுதும்முதல் கடிதம்.

இதைப்படித்துப்புரிந்து கொள்ளும் வயதில் நீ இல்லை. மொழியின் விரல் பிடித்து நடக்கப்பழகிக்கொண்டு இருக்கிறாய்....

வயதின் பேராற்றாங்கரை உன்னையும் வாலிபத்தில் நிறுத்தும். சிறகு முளைத்த தேவதைகள் உன் கனவுகளை ஆசீ்ர்வாதிப்பார்கள்.

பெண் உடல் புதிராகும். என்தகப்பன் என்னிடமிருந்து ஒளித்து வைத்த ரகசியங்கள் அடங்கிய பெட்டியின் சாவியை நான் தேட முற்பட்டதைபோல நீயும் தேடத் தொடங்குவாய்.

பத்திரமாகவும் பக்குவமாகவும் இருக்க வேண்டிய பருவம் அது. உனக்கு த் தெரியாதது இல்லை. பார்த்து நடந்து கொள்.

நிறைய பயணப்படு. பயணங்களின் ஜன்னல்களே முதுகுக்கு ப்பின்னாலும் இரண்டு கண்களைத்திறக்கின்றன.

புத்தகங்களை நேசி.ஒரு புத்தகததை தொடுகிறபோது நீ ஓர் அனுபவத்தைத் தொடவாய்.

உன் பாட்டனும் தகப்பனும் புத்தகங்களின் காட்டில் தொலைந்தவர்கள்.

உன் உதிரத்திலும் அந்த காகித நதி ஓடிக்கொண்டே இருக்கட்டும்.

கிடைத்த வேலையை விட பிடித்த வேலையைச்செய். இனிய இல்லறம் தொடங்கு. யாராவது கேட்டால்இல்லை எனினும் கடன் வாங்கியாவது உதவி செய்.

அதில் கிடைக்கும் ஆனந்தம் அலாதியானது. உறவுகளிடம் நெருங்கியும் இரு.விலகியும் இரு.

இந்த உலகில் எல்லா உறவுகளையும்விட மேன்மையானது நட்பு மட்டுமே.நல்ல நண்பர்களை ச்சேர்த்துக்கொள். உன் வாழ்க்கை நேராகும்.

இவையெல்லாம் என் தகப்பன் எனக்கு சொல்லாமல் சொன்னவை. நான் உனக்கு சொல்ல நினைத்து ச்சொல்பவை.

என் சந்தோஷமே நீ பிறந்த பிறகுதான் என் தகப்பனின் அன்பையும் அருமையையும் நான் அடிக்கடி உணர்கிறேன்.

நாளை உனக்கொரு மகன் பிறக்கையில் என் அன்பையும் அருமையையும் நீ உணர்வாய்.

நாளைக்கும் நாளை நீ உன் பேரன் பேத்திகளுடன் ஏதோ ஒரு ஊரில் கொஞ்சி ப்பேசி விளையாடிக்கொண்டு இருக்கையில் என் ஞாபகம் வந்தால்,இந்தக் கடிதத்தை எடுத்துப்படித்துப்பார்.

உன் கண்களில்இருந்து உதிரும் கண்ணீர் த்துளியில் வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருப்பேன் நான்.

இப்படிக்கு,
உன் அப்பா

நா.முத்துக்குமார்.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

GST Bill is aimed at achieving corporate control over democratic mechanisms

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced recently that almost all states except Tamil Nadu are on board on the draft GST bill that aims, among other things, to take away most autonomous taxation powers from the state governments. From being opposed by then-Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, to now being furiously pursued by the Union Government of India, led by its Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Goods and Services Tax bill has come a long way indeed. And although its has come a long way, and it has picked up converts to its cause along the way like the incumbent Prime Minister, the GST idea has not changed fundamentally. The GST still represents, as originally conceived, as the greatest assault of the Union government on state rights and autonomy in general and revenue collection rights of states in particular.
While most other parties, including some erstwhile opposers of the GST, are now on board due to reasons best known to them, none have been able to explain why they have come around to support such a grave attack on state rights and hence on the federal structure of the Indian Union. One party that does not need to do such explaining happens to be the 3rd largest party in the present Lok Sabha — AIADMK. The ruling party of Tamil Nadu has remained steadfast in its opposition to the GST at a time when “negotiations” have pretty much ensured the passage of the GST and its implementation, sooner or not too later. The unfortunate pro-centre nature of constitutional amendments is that even on matters that directly affect rights of the state, laws to be can be imposed on Tamil Nadu. Thus, Tamil Nadu's taxation rights can be taken away even when Tamil Nadu might oppose such infringement. The opposition by the AIADMK has more symbolic value than an actual threat to GST. But, in terms of optics, it looks bad if the consent of one of the most advanced large-scale industrial manufacturing states is not gained as part of the GST bill passage rites — in the form of a constitutional amendment.
Representational image. Reuters
Representational image. Reuters
In the committee report on the 122nd constitutional amendment bill that will snatch most taxation rights of the state, the AIADMK presented a dissent note. What does that say? Firstly, it points out that an unelected GST council “impinges on the legislative sovereignty of both Parliament and the State Legislatures”. AIADMK opposes such an unelected GST council's sweeping powers on such a fundamental matter such as taxation. Secondly, it calls out the conspiracy against federalism embedded in the GST council by stating clearly that the council “completely jeopardises the autonomy of the States in fiscal matters”. In terms of decision making rule and voting weightage in proposed council, “they give the Government of India an effective veto in the GST Council and no distinction is sought to be made amongst the States in weightage”. It exposes the Union government's design of controlling GST council by giving it one-third of total vote in the council.
Basically, then an Union government and a small minority of ruling party led state governments can force any decision or the majority of states. Thus, AIADMK demands, “if at all a Council is formed, the weightage of the vote of the Central Government should be reduced to one- fourth of the total votes cast and that of the States should be increased to three-fourths of the total votes cast. Further, the weightage of each State's vote should be in proportion to the representation of each State in the Council of the States. This is important as the changeover to GST has different implications for different States based on their size and reliance on own tax revenues”. The existing arrangement for deciding on VAT related issues is an Empowered Committee of State Ministers. GST council proposal brings in the Centre with huge voting powers. AIADMK has argued that the existing Empowered Committee of State Ministers is adequate for GST also. Why is it inadequate and why does the Centre needs to hog so much power if it actually cares for federalism and not bull-doze the voices of the states, is a question that Arun Jaitley has never answered or has chosen to ignore. That should be a good indicator of the sharpness of AIADMK's intervention and its readings into the real intent of the Centre.
Most importantly, the AIADMK dissent note marks out the most important aspects of the GST bill, which might explain why big corporates and corporate funded Delhi think-tanks and media are clamouring in its support. AIADMK states, “Some provisions of the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty Second Amendment) Bill i.e. Goods and Services Tax Bill are likely to adversely impact the federal structure of the country. There is a need for decentralisation of powers and devolution of the taxes in favour of the States and further to the Local bodies. Fiscal Federalism and protection of the powers of the states is important”. And finally nails it by saying, “The clauses are designed in a way that the Centre will have absolute powers in deciding tax proposals. This is likely to harm the concept of Union and States. It will be turning into a structure of Union alone...GST should not be in the interest of big corporate houses, who want a free flow of goods and services with the technology promoted and owned by them. With the Centre having an absolute say over the decision making process on the GST, the States will lose its financial independence in the long run and corporate will dictate the policies of even the local Govemments”. GST bill is aimed at corporate control of one of the most important democratic mechanisms of people's control over revenue and resources.
Select committee dissent notes are typically along partisan lines. This one is an exception that sees the Congress and BJP together. AIADMK traditionally has had good parliamentary co-ordination with the BJP. Hence, AIADMK's dissent matters - since it has broken with the government and the opposition, its its steadfast and principled opposition to GST. Hence, even if its eventual defeat, the dissent by Tamil Nadu is important to take stock of the other narrative, about why many people, in Tamil Nadu and outside Tamil Nadu, not belonging to big business, business media and think-tank business, oppose the GST. Thus, the AIADMK viewpoint is not a Tamil viewpoint but the viewpoint of a federalist party that other parties often opportunistically shouting for federalism have ignored, probably due to illiteracy of its MPs as well as rank and file on the implications of GST. Its important that we listen to what the AIADMK is trying to say. It is probably one of the most important decisions that will be taken in the lifetime of the Indian Union. And at present, there is no consensus.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Indian Women Are Never Taught How To Be Alone, And That’s A Problem

In January of 2012, I woke up alone. For a host of reasons involving children in higher education, looming eldercare, and an uncertain job market, my husband now worked in a different country. He would visit every few months. This arrangement was supposed to last a year. Owing to a series of unforeseen circumstances, as I write this it’s been nearly four.
I learned that I wasn’t alone in my aloneness.
After a brief period of adjustment, I learned that I wasn’t alone in my aloneness. Never before have there been so many “single” women in India, unmarried, divorced, widowed, separated or in long distance relationships. A recent survey showed that there are now 71 million single women in India, a 39 % increase over the past decade.
And yet nothing about our culture, or the way we live, teaches us to be alone. Bollywood’s heroines rarely have characters or conversations beyond their relationships with men – Bechdel test super fails. They so seldom have professional ambition that when they do, it’s considered subversive. Queen was revolutionary for having a female protagonist who embraced being alone. TV ads show us men purchasing insurance and cars and homes, while women are marketed oils for their husband’s health, detergents for their kids’ clothes, and chai for the family. Everywhere, domestic couplehood is emphasised as the happy way for women to live. Indeed, the only way to live.
I had to find a different way.
I didn’t have to look far for role models. I come from a line of women who lived well into their late nineties, outliving husbands by decades. My mother was 64 when my father passed away six years ago. She is contemplating, very possibly, 30 years on her own.
She fills her days to the brim with gardening, music, family, charity and, recently, the internet. Every few months, she travels across India, often with other single women, to remote places like Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. She took a tragedy and turned it into an opportunity. I know there are days she misses my father deeply. I also know that this is what it means to seize life by its throat, with or without a companion.
This, then, was what I wanted to do.
The initial stages of being alone were much like the stages of grief. 
The initial stages of being alone were much like the stages of grief. First, there was denial. I simply refused to accept my dependencies, refused to learn the household tasks that had fallen in my husband’s domain. Then there was anger. Why do I have to go to a goddamn PTA meet on my own? Then bargaining. If the job market looks up, I will donate thousands to charity. Then Bridget Jones-style sadness, singing “All By Myself” with a bottle of wine. And finally, painfully, acceptance: I am alone, and you know what, there are worse things.
First, I had to concede that I was far less independent than I’d imagined. I knew nothing about car insurance, was baffled by printer cartridges, and had no idea which TV service man to call. There was a whole list of chores I had dismissed as “computer stuff” and never bothered to learn.
For a year, I was distressed. “Nothing works!” my children shrieked. By the second year, I had begun to accept that there would always be something in my house that needed fixing – a leaky tap, a defunct printer, a loose TV connection – but I was learning. “Deal with it,” I told the kids. They did.
Around me, I saw several women struggling with the effects of having gone straight from their father’s homes to their husband’s. My elderly neighbour had to borrow money from me when her husband was away; having spent 40 years taking money from her husband’s wallet, she didn’t know how to get cash from a bank. Another friend confessed that she had never travelled alone. “First my father, then my husband won’t let me,” she said. At the bank, a young student away from her family asked me how to fill out a cheque deposit form. “Usually my father does it,” she said. I came to realise that men and women are taught select skills, bound into codependence with shackles called “love” and “family” and “culture”.
I saw other women struggling with the effects of having gone straight from their father’s homes to their husband’s
In your forties, friends your age have less time for you. It’s nothing personal. People are hemmed in by PTA meetings, jobs, elderly parents, traffic, doctor’s appointments, weekend brunches. You can feel resentful about this, or you can learn to enjoy your time with yourself.
Still, even when I learned to be alone, it seemed to disconcert other people. Relatives began to drop worried hints about how married couples should be together. “Separating the family is not good… Not a good idea at all.”
There were whole weeks I would go without talking to an adult.
Bank managers were most bemused. “Madam, you have husband?” they’d ask, and look horrified when I responded that I do, but I handle my own finances. What sort of man leaves his wife to manage the finances? It has taken me four years to get them to email me, and not just my husband, on important financial communications.
There were whole weeks I would go without talking to an adult. Three is not company when two of those are sulky teens. I discovered Twitter. Here were my people: wise-cracking, cynical, sarcastic, so different from the sugary sentimentality of Facebook. After a brief dalliance with outraged political Twitter, I found folks who tweet on books, music, food, travel – the solaces of singlehood.
Now, I enjoy solo-eating. Initially, I would put up with being seated at a noisy table near the kitchen. Now I don’t. I demand a decent table, and stare down waiters who stare at me. Rather than try to bolt down my food as quickly as possible and leave, I make an occasion out of it. When you think about it, a lovely, languorous afternoon meal is a luxury. I discovered the pleasure of cheap mid-morning movies in completely empty theatres. No screaming kids, no rustling packets of popcorn.
Of course, there were times when I would really, really, have liked company. When staying in a budget Delhi hotel (mistake), I was alarmed by the leering manager’s constant enquiries. “You are alone, madam?” He looked like he might turn up in the middle of the night. It was too late to find another hotel, so I dragged a chair across the door and spent a fitful night with one eye open. Nothing happened, of course. But I now travel with pepper spray and a padlock.
You can do all this, of course, and still have the long evenings to fill with the children fast asleep.
At other times, solo travel opened me up to huge discoveries. Travelling alone in Sri Lanka, I decided at the last minute to strike out for hill country on my own. In my former life, I would have waited until the man in my life was free. Or at least consulted him about itineraries. Now, there was no man and I began to find that freeing. I did things my husband would probably have not enjoyed, exploring back streets, visiting temples, eating dubious and grimy food from street vendors.
You can do all this, of course, and still have the long evenings to fill with the children fast asleep. It frightened me. Was there enough trashy TV and wine to fill them all? It took a while for me to realise that time and silence were gifts to cherish.
I read more than ever. I finished nearly 120 books last year.
December, 2015: I wrote a non-fiction book (with a co-author) in six months. When it was published, I began a novel. For years I had been telling myself I had no time to write one. Now I was tired of that lame excuse. Thinking about what my protagonists would do or say felt like having other people in the room. I finished my novel in a little over 18 months. Through it all, I read more than ever. I finished nearly 120 books last year.
I expect my long-distance marriage to end next year. I will be glad to be with my husband again, but I am also grateful to have had an opportunity to learn how to be alone – to overcome it, to love it. I know these lessons will stand me in good stead. When the children leave, when friends move away, if – the great unmentionable – my husband passes on. Then I shall be alone again, as we all must. I don’t imagine it’ll be easy. But at least I know I’ll be fine.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

If she says ‘no’, then leave her alone

Whenever we hear of a murder of a woman by a man, there are some among us who think ‘Kadhalichu Emathirupra’ (She would have cheated him after loving him) or ‘Love pannitu vera yarado vathu poi iruppa’ (She must have left him for someone else).

This is not restricted to just social media. Those who post such remarks on social media are also among our friends, colleagues and relatives in real life.

One such argument I have heard from people in my own social circle is: ‘Pathu siripalam, ketta love illanu solluvalam’ (She would smile at you but would say it’s not love).

There are three common scenarios which could possibly lead to ‘crimes of passion’ against women

1) Girl would have been in love with a guy but would have later changed her mind about it.

2) The girl would have been friendly, would have said ‘hi’ here and there, asked him about his health and smiled casually as she went around doing her work. If you have been brainwashed by the movies (‘pathu siricha love dan’ – if she smiles at you then it’s love), then immediately these are all signs of everlasting love and she is the woman of your dreams.

The guy would have misinterpreted this friendliness as signs of eternal love and when she says no, the guy would have got angry.

3) Girl would have committed for marriage, would have promised to stand by him throughout his life but later would have had second thoughts or found someone better.

In all these three scenarios, there is a tendency to blame the woman for leaving the man or for not accepting his love. This is where many men and even some women tend to think ‘Oh Kadhalichu Emathita’ (she cheated him after loving him)

‘Kadhalichu Emathita’ sentiment has two aspects:

-> Kadhlichu: She could have loved him genuinely or he would think so (or she didn’t even know someone like you existed.)

-> Emathita: She ‘cheated’.

Now, saying no to a love proposal is not cheating. Changing our mind about someone at a later stage is not cheating. Re-thinking decisions on commitment or marriage and choosing someone else is not cheating.

If you look at the proponents of ‘kadhalichu emathirupa’ sentiment, they argue that one girl should love only one guy throughout her lifetime. They don’t highlight the man who did the crime but rather the ‘character’ of the woman who is killed or attacked. It projects the silent message of approval of violence against women who say ‘no’.

We cannot expect a woman to love us just because we love her. It is not our ‘right’, no matter how divine, eternal or genuine we think of our love as.

What we need to understand is that women (or members of any gender, for that matter) have the right to say ‘no’ and say ‘yes’ and change their mind later.

Rejected lovers have thrown acid on the faces of women who refused their advances. Rejected lovers have released personal images of women who have said ‘no’, women have been killed for making a choice.

Male members of any civilised society would take ‘no’ for an answer and would leave the woman. As men of our society, what makes us respond in a violent way? The problem largely lies with the cinema culture and movie scenes that has brainwashed us since our childhood and made us believe that as men we have the right to look at any woman and decide that she is to be our lover and wife. If she refuses, all that it takes is a couple of love songs, action scenes and a little bit of harassment here and there and she is yours. Our cinema has made us believe that love is the universal goal of every man and we can do anything in our power and imagination to attain it, even if the girl says ‘no’.

A girl I loved also changed her mind about me. I couldn’t marry her but she is still my best friend. We should learn to let go and forget the ways of our cinema heroes. In case you didn’t notice, many of our cinema heroes didn’t marry out of love in their real lives. It’s their personal choice, but again understand that they didn’t follow what they show on the reel. I cried when she said ‘no’ and pleaded with her. But later I slowly learned to see that she didn’t hate me. She just couldn’t see me as a potential life partner, for which she couldn’t be blamed even though the fault is not mine.

The C-word we are using whenever such crimes against women happen is installation of CCTV cameras. The right C-word is ‘consent’. CCTV cameras can only catch the criminal. Educating the society about consent and the right to choose and leave will prevent the crime from happening in the first place.

We should have modern value-based education that would teach our kids about respecting the rights of women, the value of consent and the right to choose based on one’s personal preference. Our children need to be educated that the right to change one’s mind is also a part of right to choose.

This is what I want to say to everyone who has a cinematic view of love: Oru ponnu no-nu sollita vittudunga, Ava pinadi povathinga. If a girl says no to you, let her go and don’t go behind her.

Our heroes don’t show self-respect on screen. At least we can show it in our real lives.

Glorifying stalking and violence, when will Kollywood end this Kolaveri?

The police has, after an intense manhunt that lasted for a week, arrested the prime suspect in the techie murder case that sent shockwaves across Chennai. Swathi, a 24-year-old woman, was hacked to death by a man (now identified as P.Ramkumar) at the Nungambakkam railway station at 6.45 am on the 24th of June. There are conflicting reports about what happened and why, with an eye-witness even claiming that Swathi was slapped by another man a few days prior to the murder. From what the police has said so far, it appears that the suspect was in love with Swathi but that he couldn’t take it when she did not reciprocate. He, therefore, decided to end her life. And they say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Sounds cinematic? Because it certainly is. The storyline is the wet dream of any Tamil film-maker who is looking for a soul-stirring tragic love story, the sort that will have at least one song with the drunken hero and his bros abusing women for being such bitches or sluts or innocent heart-breakers. The drunken men are fondly called ‘soup boys’, a term popularized by Dhanush in ‘Why this Kolaveri di?’, the gaana that broke the internet five years ago. Wait, what was the song about? A white-skinned woman with a black heart who rejected our man and ruined his life. Right.

 In a society where there are so many rules for falling in love (No.1 being that you don’t), it is not surprising that our ideas about love are so warped. Good girls and good boys don’t talk to each other. They are strictly heterosexual and marry the person of their parents’ choice, carefully selected after matching caste, class, education, complexion, height, salary, and horoscope. In the movies, romance is the selective disruption of these factors. The hero is an aspirational figure, the go-getter who overcomes any number of obstacles to ‘win’ the girl. And many a time, the obstacle on his path is the girl herself who calls him a ‘porukki’ or tells him in no uncertain terms not to follow her around. By the end of the movie, however, all her nays magically turn into a coy yes and everyone goes home happy. True love has won, consent be damned.

It is amazing to take a cursory look at Tamil cinema and discover the sheer variety of ways in which stalking is celebrated as romance and violence against women is openly encouraged. By now, everyone agrees that songs like ‘Adidaa avala’ (Mayakkam Enna) are a bit much but the plot of the average Tamil movie is reluctant to move away from misogyny. In fact, in “Paayum Puli”, Vishal plays the role of a cop who stalks and threatens a woman (Kajal Aggarwal) to fall in love with him and never for a moment are we supposed to think that this is anything but romantic. Or unlawful. “Nanbenda”, starring Udhayanidhi Stalin, is yet another stalker-lover movie which, as an added bonus, also teaches the audience how to find out if a woman checking into a hotel with a man is his wife or a sex worker. And oh, this film is U-rated. In “24”, Suriya plays the role of a typical gas-lighter, playing games with the heroine’s mind, dressing her up to suit his tastes without her knowledge and so on. So cute ya.

But it’s not just this new crop of films that have done this. In “Sethu”, a critically acclaimed film that made Vikram’s career, the hero is a college goon of sorts who falls in love with a meek girl. When she rejects his advances, he kidnaps her and threatens to smash her head with a rock if she doesn’t accept his ‘love’. The hero’s long speech in this truly appalling scene is everything that is wrong with how romance is celebrated in celluloid. And of course, the template isn’t particularly original. Remember Kamal Haasan in “Guna”? His deranged ‘Abirami-Abirami’ chants ought to chill our spine but instead, we weep into our popcorn and hum ‘Kanmani anbodu kadhalan’ to our loved one with great emotion even now.

Actors like Dhanush and Silambarasan have turned stalking into an art – the loser boy who has nothing in life going for him but can still aspire for the fair-skinned girl. Who wouldn’t want to be like him, eh? But if you thought the problem was with only these men who play ‘low-class’ characters in their films, you’d be wrong. In “Vaaranam Aayiram”, Suriya follows his love, Sameera Reddy, all the way to the US! After she has said no. With his father’s blessings. Apparently, this isn’t in the least creepy…it’s romantic, bro! In “Minnale”, Madhavan goes one step further and impersonates another man altogether to win the heroine’s heart. Phew.

In a society like ours where a woman’s sexuality is tightly controlled, everyone’s consent but her own matters. This notion is repeatedly reiterated and magnified in cinema. I’ve lost count of the number of times a hero has proudly declared onscreen that his sister is not ‘that type’ and that she will marry anyone he asks her to. And if a woman is to express her desire openly, why, she becomes a Neelambari whose only way out is death! Or, of course, she may do an item number and gracefully disappear.

It is simplistic to blame everything on cinema but one cannot deny that movies transmit cultural codes and behaviours. For instance, right after Swathi’s murder, a Facebook user, who belongs  to a  star’s fan club posted a comment saying women like Swathi deserved to die – ‘…pasanga lyf ah spoil pandra girl evala irundhalum matta pannanum’. Any girl who ‘spoils’ a boy’s life by rejecting him deserves to die, is this noble man’s thought. In a land where romance is so fraught with difficulty and moral policing is routine, we often take our cues about how to make the next move from our favourite people onscreen. The college boy who lusts after the girl-next-door does not see himself as the lecherous villain who is assaulting her…he sees himself as the righteous hero who is giving her what she deserves. He has learnt it from the men we cheer for in the darkness of a cinema hall, with the background music manipulating our minds and telling us exactly how we’re supposed to feel about what’s happening.

Misogyny is not exclusive to Tamil cinema certainly. A while ago, a woman named Annapurna Sunkara had made a Youtube video about how women are portrayed in poor light in Telugu films. The backlash and abuse she faced from movie stars and their fans was unbelievable to say the least. So no, misogyny is not limited to Kollywood but I honestly cannot remember the last Tamil film I watched in which women were not called ‘figure’ repeatedly. This objectification and reduction of women to their bodies is so normalized that it doesn’t even make us uncomfortable any more. We sit passively in our seats, with our kids, watching the hero and his machans take a piss on the women in their lives and laugh at the comedy that this is supposed to be. But enough is enough, boys. It’s time we had this conversation. You may not be guilty of this particular crime but you are guilty of perpetuating a culture that condones it. We all are.

How, then, does one make a good romance movie, you ask? I’m not convinced alcohol would help but start by seeing women as real people with minds and opinions of their own. And I’m sure you will ‘figure’ it out. 

Also read:

If she says 'no', then leave her alone: Chennai boy's emotional blog