Desicritics Category: Politics: Censorship

Shiv Sena vs An Actor

Priyank Chandra — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:34:25 EST

Shah Rukh Khan, a Bollywood actor spoke his mind, and a political party went berserk. A movie, My Name is Khan (MNIK) got a lot of attention and the media decided that unity in India had reached the brink of a complete breakdown at the hands of some goons.

While I certainly do not condone the actions of the Shiv Sainiks, I do believe that this controversy has more sides to it than the media has attempted to stuff down our throats.

When two countries are in conflict but not yet at war, the first step that most countries take is to impose a trade embargo. It is a natural step to take because the countries need to make a stand and hurt the other country in the only peaceful way possible.

In this context, not allowing Pakistani cricketers into our country to play a sports tournament is simply an embargo on the export of human labor. A trade embargo which is meant to prove a point. And this is really what Shiv Sena is demanding albeit in a rather disruptive manner. And it does make sense in a twisted sort of way.

Of course we had not 'not allowed' them. They were just not picked by teams who strategized keeping in mind a lot of factors other than brutal nationalism. A lot of business reasons culminated in an auction where the Pakistanis were not picked. It was basic economics at work, without the need for hyperbole or fervent hatred for a country that is our neighbour and the home of these talented cricketers.

The Pakistanis felt insulted, like the cool kids in school who weren't invited to the most happening party in town. Some people attempted to assuage the hurt because they felt bad that the cool kids felt bad. Now the cool kids came from a family that had a few murderers as distant relatives. So the defenders of morality and identity decided that the nice kid had to be punished, because you should not be nice to people who belong to a family that has criminals in it. And amidst all these analogies, let me remind you that all of this was about the game of cricket.

Sports holds a place in our hearts unlike any other source of entertainment. We place it on a pedestal where we search in it all the attributes we wish to exist in our society. We sometimes treat it as war, the players as gladiators who shall fight until there is conquest and defeat and sometimes as means to a greater end, an agent of hope and change, often over-exaggerated. We have complicated a meaningless form of entertainment by imbuing it with the idealistic notions of war and peace.

But in this controversy we have one other important point. Who are these Pakistani cricketers representing in this lucrative tournament? Certainly not Pakistan, but colorful clubs who are but abstract, and rather fuzzy identities that anyone could identify with. If the Pakistanis were not here as a representation of their glorious nation Pakistan, then who could deny them the moral right to play as long as the laws were not broken. It is like banning bearded men from boarding aircrafts because Osama Bin Laden has a long beard. Or almost like some Indians not allowing Australians into the country because some random Australian attacked an Indian. Oh wait! All of this is already happening.

Let me try to bring about the absurdity of generalization with another example. It is like believing that all Maharashtrians are liberal, intelligent philosophers who bring about social change because B. R. Ambedkar was a Marathi. And this has certainly been disproved by the MNS and Shiv Sena.

And my point is made. Shiv Sena had one good idea - trade embargo but they applied it in the wrong context using the wrong methods. The Bollywood star won this round by default, just muttering meaningless statements about how being nice does not make him unpatriotic, while the political parties screamed itself sore in an act of patriotism.

Indian society is a metaphor for the complexities that surround the concept of identity, and the future holds a lot more battles of this sort for us.

China - Censored Growth

sufferingsocrates — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:20:46 EST

I am extremely proud and happy to be in India. India could have multiple issues, both regional and religious. But that speaks volumes about the strong emotional bonding that India has enjoyed all through the 62 years of Independence. Notwithstanding hostile neighborhoods, India has continued to be peace loving, and sometimes even too docile for its own good. There is honestly no comparison of India with either Pakistan or China. While Pakistan has been the rogue nation, owing to a politically mismanaged nation and a nation with radicals lurking in every corner, China has been the nation trying to bully around, not only its own citizens, but other Asian nations as well.

Thomas Friedman noted in an article that China is at cross roads of whether to adopt a new age China, or get subdued under the Communist rule. He goes onto mention how China is grappling to come to terms with an increasing knowledge consuming world, which would force the nation to embrace and gain knowledge through multiple channels for its own development. What this would do is inhibit the stringent measures of the Chinese rule, because the exchange of knowledge information needs vast amount of transnational interactions. Human rights violation has been a long discussed issue in China, with executions for crimes being very common, and no freedom for citizens.

Not surprisingly, this is the very reason the Chinese officials are wary of the Web 2.0 revolution and want to monitor human rights activists' actions. One wonders what insecurities should the Chinese have, when it is in the cusp of becoming the second largest economy in the world. The Chinese government is increasingly insecure of uprisings which could arise out of their strict policies. Why else would it raise a cyber army just to track down, hack computers across the world and steal vital information ? Google is threatening to pull the plug from China for this very issue of China hacking into accounts of human rights activists. What China is not realising is, more the restrictions, more are the chances of uprisings and revolts.

In another very disturbing move, China is going to scan text messages to filter out unhealthy or ill-content in mobile phones. What this means is, a Chinese citizen, who may share some passionate messages with his/her spouse over mobile phone could well be jailed and may even be executed ! It is truly unfortunate that China is imposing restrictions in citizens' private lives as well. Already, the rule of a single child in China is coming back to haunt the Chinese. It is resulting in a rapidly aging population in several important cities in China, forcing Chinese to rethink the single child rule. If the single child policy wasn't interference enough in private lives of citizens, scanning text messages is outright intrusive.

For precisely such restrictions and rules that the Chinese employ, it is hard to understand if there will be any emotion or sentiment left in a Chinese citizen. Being patriotic is great, but who would want to be patriotic for a nation which does not allow freedom, even in personal lives ? Who would want to be patriotic to a nation which is always monitoring every single step of any and every citizen ? Which citizen would like to continue in a country, where they live more in fear than for the love of the land ? Consequently, it is not difficult to understand why, any Chinese trained individual would be more robotic than human. Devoid of any emotion or sentiments, be it sportsmen or the army, would automatically tend to be more machine like. Without true love for the nation.

Now think of India. A nation highlighted as being poor, winning Oscars for its slum dwellers. But what India has is, freedom of speech and expression. Sometimes, a little too much of it one would say. But India has stayed on for 62 years with an incredibly diverse populace, and also embracing liberalization along the way. Corruption maybe rampant in India. But pray, where is corruption not seen ? The Indian growth story has been quite remarkable, and more and more honchos in businesses are from India. The world has confidence in an increasingly globalised India, in spite of its infrastructure woes and red tapism. The simple reason is the freedom and the confidence that businesses can flourish in, and that India has the brain power as well as the manpower.

Unlike a Pakistan, India has continued to vote democratically. Though there have been fragile governments, no Indian citizen can complain about the freedom (s)he enjoys.Pakistan is struggling against foes they themselves fostered over the years. India has been the victim of terrorism from Pakistan, and is increasingly under threat from an insecure China. China's insecurity is understandable, with India's increased presence both economically and diplomatically. China is certainly miles ahead economically and militarily, but India and Indians have their hearts in place.

The World Awakens to China

jay — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:26:45 EST

As China's economic engine continues to hum and scale newer and newer heights, it is interesting to see a number of commentators especially in the western world begin to get worried. Worried they are, as China overtakes them in metric after economic metric. China is now the biggest market for passenger cars in the world surpassing the US. It is the largest exporter in the world surpassing Germany. Of course, it is also the holder of more than $2 trillion dollars of American debt. With a billion-plus population China is only just beginning. Clarion calls have been sounded around the world in the past few weeks, some merely cautioning to some advising economic sanctions and tariffs. While much of this may be simply nervousness in having to share the bed with an upstart, the fire behind all that smoke is quite revealing.

The fact of the matter is that in 2009 China has realized that it is the foremost economic engine in the world. This acknowledgment by the world has given the Chinese the confidence to junk Deng Xiaoping's advice to "Keep a cool head and maintain a low profile". It now thinks that it has achieved the aim of proving to the world what China can do. It appears to have decided that it is no longer necessary to keep its ambitions and aims close to its chest but to further it as openly as necessary. This appears to be a strategic change to the direction in which the country had been going so far. Several recent events give credence to this fact.

1. China continues to peg its yuan to the dollar at devalued rates to further its exports to the rest of the world defiantly telling the world that it will adjust the rate only when it thinks fit. In another era of lopsided power equations, perhaps China could not have been so belligerent.
2. China has kept the border issue with India on the front burner in recent months while professing Asian unity just to keep India second-guessing and to remind her of who is more powerful if there was a need for a backyard brawl.
3. China's relentless pursuit of natural resources including oil, minerals, farm produce etc especially in African countries often by arming and supporting tin-pot dictators has been brazenly upheld despite international criticism. It has decided that it will seek what it needs, international obligations be damned. A lot of people in African countries who signed up for such largess are beginning to realize the negative effects but can't do a thing about it.
4. China has openly indicated that it does not need a Google to operate within its borders, if it does not comply with its draconian rules about dissent and openness. In an earlier era, China may have compromised (it may still reach a negotiated settlement with concessions from both sides) but the new resurgent country wants things done on its own terms.
5. There are several indications on the ground too where some have reported how business proposals have been shot down or supported according to the new rules even though none exist on the statute.
6. The Copenhagen summit was deftly steered into a do-nothing conclave at China's behest because it was not ready to commit to any numbers on paper.

These seem to point to a new belligerent attitude of the Chinese who are ready to flex their muscles to indicate that they have arrived on the global stage, and will run their business the way they like it. At this stage it does appear that it is going to descend into a fight between a wounded Bald Eagle and a "fresh-from-slumber" Dragon. China is well aware that the Americans have studied their Great Depression books well and understand that tariffs and sanctions are what did them in during the 1930s. The Americans are dead against protectionism for now and so China will play the brinkmanship game for some time to come.

It is instructive to remember the words of the late French hero Napolean who once said "Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world". If his words turn out to be prophetic, the shake is not going to be very comforting. Definitely not for India who may have a lot more to lose than just parts of its territory.

China - No More Gimmicks

Madhan Karthikeyan — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 04:39:05 EST

When a Company grows very rapidly outpacing its competitors and produces a balance sheet which is less transparent, an obvious suspicion will revolve around the company. The doubt arises as there is very less data to support the growth of such company and all that you can see is glowing number in the quarterly/Annual reports. This was the exact case of Enron, the biggest bankruptcy in the history of US. Now, replicate the same analogy for a country in the current economic scenario, which grows very rapidly at a time when other countries even hesitate to say that they are out of recession. This is China for you!

In recent days, a lot of voices are being heard warning about the Chinese Bubble. This started with the Hedge fund Investor James S. Chanos who predicts that China is headed for a crash, contrary to the popular belief that the country is growing at a faster pace. He is the person who predicted the fall of Enron and similar other Bankruptcies. So, nobody is daring to ignore him. After all, that is his job and he has an impressive track record for years. Chanos, a hedge fund Investor simply bets against a Company/Country, as he believes that it will go down in few months. If his prediction is right, it results in an insane amount of money. (Especially, when they bet against the popular opinion). Classic example is George Soros, whose betting against 'Bank of England' earned him $1b in a single night. This was in 1992.

Coming back to China, Chanos suspects that "Beijing is cooking its books, faking, among other things, its eye-popping growth rates of more than 8 percent". He is planning to give a detailed speech about this at the Oxford University by end of Jan'10.

Here are a few factors which raise questions about China:

The Chinese economy is largely based on Exports to US and European countries, which means the Chinese currency 'Yuan' has to appreciate less against the dollar or Euros to continue the impressive GDP growth. China being a growing economy leads to appreciation of their currency, but the Chinese central bank has prevented the appreciation and has kept the exchange rate between dollar and Yuan almost the same for past few years. This largely helped them to maintain low prices for their goods in the foreign market and thus accumulating billions of foreign reserves. Now, you may think that it's plays to the advantage of Chinese economy. But, the economy at such a mass scale doesn't work this way.

When a country has huge amount of money among its people (in a manipulated market, the Chinese central bank prints loads of Yuans equivalent to the dollars), the value of the currency itself decreases. This triggers an increase in inflation, as the price of the domestic goods increases over the period of time. So, to prevent inflation the Chinese government should at least stop the surplous flow of Yuan. This can be broadly achieved by two ways:

1. Increasing the interest of the money that is been lent by the Chinese Central bank
2. Preventing the Consumer banks from lending out more money. This can be achieved by instructing the banks to increase the limit of cash reserves.

However, during the time of recession, the Chinese government infused a stimulus package of around $600 billion dollars into the economy to prevent any huge recession impact. So, this stimulus money along with the existing flows triggered a real estate boom in China, where the prices of lands/home rapidly increased every month and thus creating a 'Real estate Boom'. Now, the government is highly worried by this boom as they have just witnessed on how the US hosing market turned into bubble and got burst.

This is clearly evident from the fact that the government has just announced that they are backing off the stimulus package and have also announced few strict measures to bank on the lending policy.

Now, the Chinese have to control the interest rates, imports and exchange rate similar to adjusting the volume equalizer in a music player. They have keep adjusting the numbers as and when the other value changes.Since the market is in a bubble stage, a small miscalculation can result in disaster.

Moreover, there is more pressure on China from world countries to stop manipulating the Yuan against foreign currencies. Recently, when China surpassed Germany as the world's second largest exporter, Germany had put lot of political pressure against China to stop the currency manipulation. Apart from Germany, other countries are applying similar pressure, as the cheaper Chinese goods are flooding their markets which eventually slows down the growth of in-house industrial houses. Also, there are also threats from other countries that they will stop buying Chinese goods.

All one can conclude is, China will not grow at the same rate as earlier. If it continues to do so, it will not last long for even a few months before which the real-estate boom market will turn into a bubble. For sure, China can expect heavy backlashes from world countries for its continued currency manipulation.

Freedom of Speech or Responsibility to Do No Harm?

Cee Kay — Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:47:59 EST

I watched the Tuesday, January 5 episode “Infamy” of the series The Good Wife and it had a case about a young mom who committed suicide after her little girl was kidnapped and a TV show commentator made life hell for her by attacking her, saying she killed her little girl (who turned up alive at the end of the episode, by the way). He was shown leveling various charges on the mom, including that she killed her own daughter and that she had tried to get a late (third trimester) abortion (the latter charge proven to be false by the prosecution team). The husband of the deceased sued the commentator for wrongful death because it was his attacks that led the woman to take her own life. The prosecution team proved that the anchorman knew his claims were false but still attacked the woman on his show. The jury came back with a verdict against the defendant but the judge overturned it saying much as he found the actions of the defendant abhorrent, he (the defendant) was just exercising his right to freedom of speech. The defendant got off. This set me thinking.

What is more important - our right to freedom of speech or our responsibility to cause no harm? I am no lawyer, but to my non-lawyer mind it seems that another approach could have been tried for the case (I know I am too much invested in a show that was only someone's figment of imagination! Silly me) Maybe a stronger case could be made by showing that the TV show anchor's reckless, unsubstantiated claims about the kidnapped girl's mother drove her to take her own life? Isn't THAT is why he was responsible for her death? One can be held responsible for a death if they were the prime reason behind it, even if it wasn't their hand that killed. Now, some lawyer-brain please tell me if that kind of prosecution strategy is possible.

That brings me back to my question. Is one's right to be able to speak freely, above and beyond their responsibility to make sure their speech doesn't hurt someone else? They do have the right to "life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness", given to them by the constitution. Can someone else's right to free speech infringe upon this inalienable right granted to them? It can be argued that it was not the speech that killed the said person. But isn't it true that the speech definitely drove the person to take their own life? Do you know the power of words? They can hurt, sear, scathe and pierce like nothing else can. While it is true that "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me", a mother who has just lost her child must already be in such a fragile state of mind that even the slightest unkind word might drive her to the brink of insanity. Should all this be taken into account before passing a judgment?

Is this whole discussion useless because it was just a fictional episode in a fictional series? I have seen this kind of relentless pursuit of parents by the media in Jonbenet Ramsey case, though the wrongful death scenario doesn’t fit there. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Should the media (or public) be allowed to take matters in their own hands and pursue the people they imagine to be guilty?

Again - DOES my right to freedom of speech trump someone else's right to live (and pursue happiness)?

Shashi Tharoor's Unfettered Tweets

sufferingsocrates — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:14:44 EST

Shashi Tharoor is in news again for his tweeting antics. This time around he has tweeted on the strict VISA regulations following the Headley findings. Tharoor has aired his concerns on Twitter, and this has not gone down well with SM Krishna. He has been pulled up, but Tharoor has once again tweeted on how he missed the whole brouhaha. Tharoor had earlier tweeted into the headlines for his cattle class remarks following the Congress' much publicized austerity drive.

Is Tharoor trying to woo an online audience which is supportive of his tweets? Or is he being too naive and not being sensitive about the reason for the strict VISA regulations. Tharoor might be the tech savvy politician that India may have never had. But his online support will only remain online. Only his offline support can win him elections. So, even if media channels showcase his tweet supports on twitter, ground reality will be totally different. The online audience in India is sadly one which remains online and will seldom wield its voting powers.

Tharoor, with all due credit probably knows what he is doing. It could well be a gimmick to garner media attention and stay in the news. But what is disturbing about this instance of objections to VISA regulations is the matter of national security. Tharoor needn't be explained to, about the circumstances surrounding the need for the strict VISA norms. If Headley can sneak into India multiple times, and questionably as a US agent who went rogue, then India has to be more cautious on VISA restrictions. If U.S. can do racial profiling, then India too can impose stricter VISA regulations atleast. I don't see there being anything to be objected to.

The earlier instance was merely a remark on the austerity drive by Congress, calling politicians cattle class. It could have been a personal opinion and could have been pardoned. Is Tharoor so naive about Indian polity to believe that tweeting will win him support? Or is he being just a citizen and expressing his voice on an open platform? It certainly is arguable that, every politician is indeed a citizen too. So, why not air one's own opinions? The only caveat for a politician to take note of though is, that with great power comes great responsibility. Tharoor this time around has been anything but responsible.

Voice Of Dissent

Shaik Zakeer Hussain — Mon, 1 Jun 2009 08:11:49 EDT

Why should I walk this line, that you have set for me?

Why should I follow a person, whom you have elected for me?

Why should I not say something, when the world is in storm?

Why should I close my eyes, when there is a bomb planted in front of me?

Why should I not protest, when women are beating their chest?

Why do you think I should not raise my voice of dissent?

Why should I not say 'no,' to someone who says not to say, 'no'?

Why should I close my self in this four walled cell?

Why should I be thrown out of my house, from these vitamin sucking onion louse?

Why should I bow down to a corrupt authority, where justice is the last priority?

Why should I not raise my head, when they are trying to spread my death bed?

Why should I run from all these why's, when I still don't have an answer for this where, when or what?

The Pirate Bay Founders Sentenced in Landmark Copyright Infringement Case

Aaman Lamba — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:14:19 EDT

The founders of the torrent tracker, the Pirate Bay, were sentenced to a year of prison time and hefty fines by a Swedish court on 'aiding copyright infringement' under a new law, even as they vowed to appeal the verdict, calling it

Peter Sunde, Carl Lundström, Frederik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg had jointly run the site, originally set up by anti-copyright organization, Piratbyrån in 2003. They had steadfastly maintained their defense as more of the technology rather than illegal file-sharing. The trial had drawn much attention and a carnival-esque atmosphere around and even in the courtroom.

While this verdict will likely not affect file-sharing in any significant way, it will have two pernicious effects - the further metastasizing of the peer-to-peer sharing mechanisms into harder to control architectures, and worse, the chilling effects on the general populace.

A note posted on the Pirate Bay site, termed Press Conference Here, expressed mirth at the verdict, saying,

So, the dice courts judgement is here. It was lol to read and hear, crazy verdict.

But as in all good movies, the heroes lose in the beginning but have an epic victory in the end anyhow. That's the only thing hollywood ever taught us.

Technorati Tags: Pirate Bay, news, Torrents

To Censor Or Not: Bloggers' Duties and Liabilities

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:52:50 EST

Recently a young blogger from Kerala named Ajith got into some serious trouble after having started an anti-Shiv Sena community on Orkut. Anonymous commentators posted nasty and vile comments on Ajith’s ‘I Hate Shiv Sena’ community website. The Shiv Sena’s youth wing filed a complaint with the Thane (a city on the outskirts of Mumbai) police station against Ajith following which charges were brought against Ajith under sections Sections 295A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

Fearing arrest, the young blogger approach the Kerala High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. Later, Ajith approached the Supreme Court for an order quashing the criminal complaint filed against him. The Supreme Court ruled against Ajith and directed him to travel to Thane and face the charges filed against him.

My initial reaction on hearing of this was on the same lines as my friend Jo who has written an article on this issue here:

However, on reflection, I have come to conclusion that the Supreme Court of India was absolutely right in its ruling.

My reasons are as follows:

Section 295A of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 506 of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: -And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Though Sections 295A and 506 sound reasonable, they can be (and are) interpreted to cover a wide variety of sins. It is interesting to note that the Indian Penal code of 1860 was created by the British Parliament for its Jewel in the Crown which had mutinied in an unprecedented manner just three years ago (in 1857).

Over sixty years after independence, the IPC has not seen many amendments. As we all know very well, it is not the Supreme Court’s job to make the law. It only interprets the laws that are made by the representatives of the people in the legislature.

Let’s assume that Ajith were a journalist who writes a regular column in a newspaper. Also, let’s substitute the Shiv Sena for an individual Mr. X who is mild and meek and has difficulty melting cheese in his mouth. What would be your reaction if Ajith were to write an article in the newspaper saying that he hates Mr. X, who is the scum of the earth and should ideally be lynched. Would Mr. X have a cause of action against Ajith? You bet he would! Ajith would be liable for both criminal intimidation and defamation.

One of the fundamental principles of law is that every one is equal before the law. Though the intention behind such a principle is to ensure that the weak and the meek do not lose out to the strong and the dominant, the law cannot discriminate against the strong and the powerful either. This would mean that even a nasty piece of work such as the Shiv Sena should have equal protection of the law from criminal intimidation and defamation. If Ajith were to write a newspaper article against the Shiv Sena defaming it and criminally intimidating it, he would be liable under the IPC. The publisher of the newspaper would also be liable.

In this instant case, it was not Ajith who wrote those nasty comments, but some anonymous individual. However, Ajith is in the position of the publisher of a newspaper who is responsible for whatever is written in his newspaper. It is true that the internet is a free medium where everyone has the freedom to express himself or herself. However, there is no reason to take the view that rules regarding defamation or intimidation shouldn’t apply to the internet.

Bloggers and website owners should ensure that no one publish comments on their blogs or websites unless the blog-owner or website owner has approved the comment. Even DesiCritics should, in my opinion, follow this approach, rather than edit comments after they are made.

Finally, let me add this. It seems unbelievable that the Shiv Sena, a party that has specialised in intimidating and harassing minorities in Mumbai should file a complaint against a teenager in a faraway state merely on the basis of comments published on his Orkut community website. I’m sure that the Shiv Sena has not been intimidated by Ajith’s orkut community. It has surely been defamed, but one of the defences to a charge of defamation is that the alleged statement or writing that caused the defamation is ‘true’.

I’m sure that there will be hundreds of lawyers in Mumbai who are happy to defend Blogger Ajith (now a cause celebré). However, travel to Thane Ajith must, as directed by the Supreme Court of India, and answer those ridiculous charges.

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:55:37 EST

Let me cut right to the chase here. This is unacceptable. Let me say it again for emphasis. It is not just bothersome or even upsetting. It is unacceptable. In the 21st century, in a democratic, secular nation, what has been going on, festering like a recurrent lesion, sprouting in every part of India, is just, simply unacceptable and will not do.

In case you are wondering who it is that's going to stand up to it: we are. We will not allow our freedom to be violated and we will make sure we protect the independence we fought long and hard to get the first time around. We have come a long way. We have seen the change and been the change. So who better than our pioneering, hot-blooded breed to stand up to the revolting and shockingly regressive acts of a few who feel threatened by progress.

They are just acting out of fear. It is obvious, isn't it? They attack in packs, afraid to be the lone ones incriminated. They target women and assault safely from behind the vague curtains of culture. But we all know that it isn't their culture that is in grave danger. Their position, their power and the extent of their bullying is in great peril. The places where they once ruled the roost are now turning into big, bustling cities making them feel like small, insignificant fish in a big sea.

Institutions and companies have transported the educated, smart crowd into the vacuum in which these bullies once enjoyed unfettered omnipotence. Now, in place of the void, there is a young, vivacious bunch of professionals, men and women who work hard and party hard and do so shoulder to shoulder. These people are harder to manipulate. This crowd has not just taken over, they threaten to pull into their growing ilk, the younger ones too. Business are bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of this new species and everything that once belonged to the bullies is now up for grabs. So they are retaliating. They are like petulant little children who couldn't have all that they demanded, hated sharing and so now are acting up. Therefore it is up to us, the educated class to teach these spoiled little brats to grow up and stop reacting so bizarrely to change. We must do it in a manner that is as different from theirs as is humanly possible.

So now comes the big question: how do we do it? How do we make our presence known? The answer may seem too simplistic because it sits smack in front of our faces. Think about it: we travel through these cities like one stream of blood, flowing steadily, keeping the city alive, stuffed in trains, piled into buses, walking along the teeming streets. Even partying and a trip to the movie theater is all the more fun with a group. We work in teams and are all the more effective for that. We discuss films, fashion, clothes, the economy, the job market and even our health problems. Yet this fear of walking out on the streets of a free country seems like a personal problem, like we were alone in that walk, like when a bully arrived with his little gang and punched us in the face, we would be all by ourselves and the world around us would just suddenly go blind. What we forget is that in this lonely fear too, we are still together. In this anger against the unfairness of the situation, we are together. We can if we decided, be together in the one resolute determination of not letting a handful of insecure men undo all that we have put into making our cities. So the answer is simple. Whatever it is we do, we do it together.

We celebrated Valentine's Day battling fear and took the threats in our stride defanging the demons with the pink disarming humor of our proud underwear. With the International Women's Day approaching, it is time to get serious. In our busy, routine lives we have underestimated the power of silent, non-violent protests. All it takes is for people to stand at a side-walk with banners to get word around. Some major struggles were won with this strategy and somewhere along the line we just shrugged and rolled our eyes at the quiet potential of public demonstrations and satyagrahas. Maybe we started taking our precious freedom for granted and needed to be reminded that we simply cannot. We have to earn it and when someone tries to snatch it, we fight for it.

It is important, I feel, in today's world to use media smartly. Instead of constantly criticizing media's inadequacies, we could use it as a tool. Find a niche and throw yourself into the swift current of this ever growing medium. Find a female leader in your area who is looking to make an arrival on the political scene. Do a little research. If one political party is making your life difficult for wearing jeans and celebrating Valentine's Day and there damn well must be another party that will fight for your votes, or can be persuaded to do so.

Find a celebrity who is willing to make your cause their own or give your movement their support and voice. Find a television network, a newspaper or a magazine that will run your story and provide your opinions with a voice. Find an artist who will put your thoughts into a slogan or a creative, riveting poster. Write to your city officials, your ministers and drown their offices in letters of your indignant protest. Just remember that one or two voices are easy to be ignored. If you are fuming over a coffee mug at your kitchen table, take that rage to a medium that will express it in the most noticeable manner possible.

Haven't we whined about a dysfunctional system for too long? When has this "system" ever worked? Maybe we just don't realize that we are one of the appendages of this faulty system. If the system is not working, we, as a group could propel in into motion. What will it take for us to get off our bums and make a placard with a strong message on it? This is not a women's liberation movement at all. Genders cannot be fighting alone in a battle such as this one. It could be your sister wearing jeans, coming home from work. It could be your teenage daughter walking back from school or college, the neighborhood aunty who brought you food when you were sick, a dear friend or your colleague. Most importantly, it is them today and it could be you next.

Let us review what the odds are of your being targeted next. You have a very high chance of being next on the hit-list if you answer 'Yes' for any of the following questions. Are you considered an "outsider" in Bangalore or a non-Maharashtrian in Maharashtra? Do you party? Do you meet up with friends at pubs? Do you wear jeans or clothing that may not be considered "Indian"? Do you eat pizza or meat? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Does your religious persuasion always match that of the political party currently raging a mini-war in the nation you know of as secular? Do you send children to convent or English medium schools? Do you have a spouse of a different religious persuasion than yours? Do you have friends of the opposite sex? Are you married to the girl you are driving home from work or who you happen to be having dinner with? Are you non-conversant in Marathi in Mumbai or in Kannada in Bangalore? Are you a blogger or a journalist who expresses their opinions about politics, culture, media and religion? In spite of your qualifications and the six figure salary, do you have no clout with the local law enforcement or political activists? Before you fall asleep at night you should take a moment to wonder which one of these labels will be tagged onto your identity and turned into a vice or a disqualification; which one of these labels will plant nagging fear into your routine as you go about working to make a living, partying to rid your stress and walking on the streets of a country whose freedom you celebrate once a year on a public holiday. India did fight a freedom struggle years ago and it is high time that yet another quest for independence begins.

As a civilized society, we must remember that curbed freedom is a disease, an epidemic that does not spare a gender or a certain religion. It has uprooted saplings of modern, free thinking from Afghanistan and left it barren under the regime of the Taliban school of thought. This disease feeds on your fear and on the social inertia that has settled over our generation. An active, proud and independent public cannot let this inertia set in. Let it be known that this disease feeds most of all on the little disabling voice in your head which tells you that this is not your struggle, that it isn't your battle to fight. Sadly, this malady spreads, swallowing in its wake our hard-earned progress, until the feeble voice in your head is one day replaced with the grim realization that your own struggle has arrived. The assailant and his prejudice have changed form and you are the next prey. And there is nobody left to fight for you or with you.