Strip Down at Lokhandwala: What really matters.

Amidst the revelations the #metoo movement has been bringing into focus, an incident that occurred on the 26th of this month has stirred up discussions and confusion everywhere as bizarre footage of a seemingly distressed woman stripping in front of cops went viral across social media.

The woman in the videos has been identified as model Megha Sharma, who resides in a luxury high rise apartment complex in Lokhandwala, Mumbai. Footage of multiple events from that night were released, some posted by Ms.Sharma herself. Here's what we can deduce from it:
Sharma had requested the security guard of her Apartment to get her cigarettes at 1am in the night.

The guard refused to run the errand and refused to let any other guards run it for her. However, he provided her with the number of the shopkeeper.

Sharma then proceeded to get them herself. Upon her return, the CCTV footage shows a brief discussion between the two which then escalates into a physical altercation, Sharma seemingly initiating it.

The rest of the footage, assumed to be from other residents of the area, shows an irritated Sharma being surrrounded by 8-9 policemen and the Guard, being stopped from going upstairs to her house and being forced to come to the station with no belongings or proper clothes on. She allegedly was polite about coming the next day, and the video shows her offering her lawyers number and even agreeing to come along if she was just allowed to change. The security guard then shut down the elevator, and Sharma, now aggravated, questioned why there is no lady constable and why she is being stopped from going home at 3am.

A series of bizarre events followed, where she broke down and stripped hoping it would drive the men away, yelling at everyone. The background shows many of the residents now at the scene witnessing the events.

From the footage, it is difficult to figure out who is at fault here.
According to Section 46(4) of CrPc, women cannot be taken to a police station before sunrise or after sunset, but the policemen clearly were inexplicably and oddly determined to take her away for interrogation, not even letting her change even when she agreed to go. It is interesting to note that Sharma was the one who made the call to the police against the guard.

Over that, Ms.Sharma claims that she started hitting the guard after she met with downright slut shaming and demeaning comments about her clothes and character after she politely asked him why he couldn't run a simple errand. The guard could be held at fault if the claims turn out to be true, although assaulting anyone, man or woman, unless out of selfe defense, can be considered a criminal offense.

The event that attracted the most attention and discussion is Ms. Sharma stripping down to her underwear out of nowhere. One could see this as an attempt to drive them away.
However the videos show her screaming 'Is this what you wanted to see? Look at me, is this what you wanted?' among other loud accusations of 'Attempting to mess with a woman's dignity'. These particular lines raises the question nobody seems to be asking;  was this an attempt to make it a case of sexual offence?
In a country where sexual abuse is finally being taken seriously, the phenomenon of associating any unpleasant incident or altercation that involves a woman to sexual offence, even if it doesn't have anything to do with sexual misconduct or even undertones can prove to be very dangerous. When the line between sexual misconduct and plain beefs blurs, actual cases of these offenses can become just as difficult to serve justice to as they were all these years, if not more.

What went down with Ms. Sharma that night, from what we know, had nothing to do with sexual abuse, although attempts were made to make it appear like it did. It appears to only be a case of a physical altercation. It goes without question that justice should be served for whoever was the victim that night. We still don't know who was really at fault, but the question here isn't who the perpetrator is, but if women are being reduced to potential sexual offence cases and #metoo stories.

India's lust for pale skin

A young ambitious woman walks into an interview and gets rejected. A fair maiden, usually a well known star, skin gleaming like it runs on electricity, hands her a tube of what is advertised to be a boon for her misfortune ridden life.
In a week, said woman walks back into the same office, everyone is blown away by her fair skin, a sense of achievement which apparently even her resume couldn't give her, and she lands the job. Sounds familiar? Does it anger you as much as it should, however?

We as Indians grew up normalizing the horror that these very common and very prevalent advertisements are. We have been taught that a woman's looks weigh more than her resume. That having unflattering looks is a misfortune you need a miracle to get rid of. That women are objects to stare at in awe at a workplace.  And above all of these, that dark complexion is the root cause of one's misfortune. And although it isn't as focused on and prioritized for men, attempts are still made to suck them into this mindset too.

The motive here is not to shun fair skin and glorify dark skin, but to ask the question nobody wants to hear; Just how thick of a bubble do we have to live in to not see that one's complexion is simply the color of their skin, completely out of their control and completely irrelevant in most if not all aspects of life? These ideas have been drilled into our minds so deep that it actually does reflect on real life in many deep impacting ways. Complexion is relevant in India in the worst ways possible.
Finding a groom for women of darker skin is talked about as if  it is a nightmare, people addressing their complexion with sympathetic undertones. It is not uncommon to find well accomplished women settling for men that aren't ideal for them because they are dark skinned. People bleach their skin with creams and serums that promise to make their skin '7 shades lighter' in a week, with fairness associated with words like 'lovely', 'handsome' and 'pure'. It is not uncommon to find people spending a fortune on 'treatments', almost as if darkness is something one needs to 'treat'.  It is a normalised phenomenon in our country, and people do not talk about it. In the changing world of makeup, where lack of diversification in color ranges in countries that have predominantly pale skinned people faces criticism, India, the country that needs it the most still seems to need a few more decades to even acknowledge dark skinned people. It is almost as if the makeup industry and the beauty business of India fears diverse complexion. And they managed to get away with pretending India doesn't have dark skinned people and fairness is a standard to be reached. And they're still doing it, ears shut, eyes closed and shaking their heads sideways, refusing to even consider the needs of darker skinned people.

The ideology that in a country like India, arguably with the most diverse native population, everyone should strive to be as pale as possible, is utterly ridiculous and completely devoid of logic to say the least. It is but simply a result of decades of psychological conditioning. Complexion is not a factor, color discrimination is. And yet we continue to live as if it doesn't matter, though we know and bear witness to the fact that the psychological impact it has on the young and old, women and men alike is not only noticeable, but also intense and life changing. How much longer before it ends? Will it ever?

Storm

What does heartbreak feel like?
So many things nothingness can hold. So many demons to keep you company through the loneliness. Its fascinating, watching yourself fall through the deepest, darkest corners of your lovestruck soul. Self doubt, guilt, anger, fear.

So many demons to keep you company. What does it feel like?
As the tornado in your gut dances its way up into your heart, making it beat faster, ache more...with every thought and memory, every second, it just beats a little faster. Aches a little more.
Until it's pounding in your chest and melts into warmth in your eyes, your head spins and it hurts to breathe. You would, yesterday, fall back into loving arms but you today find yourself being caressed...scratched by their shadows as you delve deeper into the horror that is grief. Loss. Leaving ever healing scars on your face.

This lasts, you realise, only for a moment. Among the wreck the weather within you left, you pull yourself together again, wipe away the tears, your breath gets slower and deeper, calculated. You try to see the light again. Pretend that second of relief is real and the next moment follows and you remember you didn't have to force yourself to breathe normal yesterday.

So many demons to keep you company, dancing in the storm that brews inside you over and over again, words drowning within themselves and your screams inside, muffled and choked because you know nobody will hear them.
You begin being afraid to fix yourself because you dont want to be broken again. You befriend those demons, dance with them, fall deeper and deeper into the shadows till you become one.
A shadow. Dancing in the storm that brews inside you. Over and over again.

And only you get to admire the beauty of it.

The battle against Sabarimala: Is it really necessary?

Riots, blood soaked pads being flung around, death threats and court verdicts.
All over a place of religious worship. A place of tranquility and spiritual awakening. Some would say that it shouldn't even matter and people should stop worshipping imaginary superheroes altogether, but this is a very real problem to the rest of us, and apparently, the government of this country.

Let us, by the way, conveniently ignore the fact that the supreme court is being involved in a conflict of opinion over an entirely religious matter.

For those who are unaware of the situation, Sabarimala is a temple in Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala where Lord Ayyappa is worshipped by his male devotees. The age old tradition of it being a place of worship exclusively for men has been abolished by the Supreme Court of India  as of September 2018 after an uproar by activists, resulting in an uproar by the temple and its devotees. It's just all very loud and everyone wants to talk, but neither of the two parties want to listen.

And now for my completely irrelevant opinion on the battle that this has turned into.

Places of religious worship, in a place like India, are more dense and distributed than  good hospitals and proper roads. There is an abundance, if not an overload of religious congregations, ashrams, festivals, rituals, movies, music (i could keep going) in our country. Although it is a rather recycled answer to all the questions being raised by the activists fighting for women's right to pray in a temple, that has for many decades been exclusively for men, it still holds relevance and reason. Other temples exist.
It takes very little thought to come to terms with the fact that it is a political statement more than 'the right to worship'. Sabarimala is (now) an option among millions for women to go and worship. It definitely is an attempt at making everything more inclusive for women. And I've never been against empowering women, I've never been against inclusiveness (which is a conversation for another day) as long as it is really necessary.

So is it really necessary? Is it really that blasphemous to leave a bunch of men minding their own business in some forest worshipping away their sins alone?

I've been one to go by 'Don't do to others what you dont want done to you'. We could apply this especially to the changing gender dynamics of today.  If we reverse the genders in this scenario in particular, what would transpire?  Would people be okay with men 'fighting' to get into a place of worship that has been, since forever, according to tradition, exclusively for women? Would the government even survive if they lift a ban on men entering places that were meant only for women? Maybe men wanting to enter womens ashrams, for example? Even though they have more than a million other places for options? Why hypersensitize and glorify a sense of community in women and do the exact opposite for men? A congregation of thousands of men or women alike need their privacy and space from the opposite gender, especially with people of the kind of mindsets our country has. Is that really so difficult to understand or respect?

There are a lot of factors to this, and even if you manage to debunk the claims raised above, many other questions remain unanswered and ignored.

  We can be sure of the fact that a lot of the women who want to worship in Sabarimala are actually religious and most of them participate in a lot of the gender exclusive and sometimes discriminatory practices Hinduism has to offer. Why then, do they refuse to respect the story that lies behind Sabarimala's ban on women? Why the selective commitment to the religion they want to fight so hard for?

What is more bothersome than this is that even the people who are opposing the lift on the ban don't seem to entirely understand the motive behind the ban.
It was never about menstruation. Or at least it wasn't originally. The Lord at Sabarimala is meant to be celibate, waiting for his devotees to finish worshipping him so he can marry his lady love who waits for him at a temple nearby. Hence, women weren't allowed in the temple so as to not do a disservice to their lord and provide him with 'distractions'.
Now you could argue that women aren't distractions. One could argue that Ayyappa isn't real. But people believe in what they believe in. And if someone claims to be religious enough to put up THIS BIG a fight for the right to worship, one would find it hard to believe that the same someone would conveniently ignore the same religion's mythology and traditions.

There have also been cases of activists allegedly attempting to bring (not wear but bring by hand) blood soaked sanitary pads into the temple. Also note, without any rhyme or reason, that many of these activists and speakers arent Hindus.

It becomes imperative to question ourselves, Is this really necessary? What point are we trying to prove? There are a thousand other places more boisterous and beautiful, brimming with spiritual energy and cultural relevance in India and the world. When there is no reason for a fight, what good is the fight going to bring?

Women should be treated as equals because they are. But that does that mean we abolish mutual respect among the genders in the process? Since when did inclusiveness mean we squirm uninvited into any nook and corner available without reason or incentive?

If something is unnecessary, it is not productive. But everyone is angry, everyones yelling, and nobody wants to listen.

Today's Gender Crisis

Long gone are the simple times when the world was divided into two parts. Or rather one and a half. Man and his responsibility, the woman. The secondary, the passive. Come to think about it, the days of gender inequality aren't even that far behind us, and it still continues to exist and thrive in many parts of the world today. Most of it, in fact. But then, we are progressing. Women are, well, in some parts of the world neck and neck with men. Not in every way there is, but with time, there's hope that we'll get there.

But what happens when progress goes too far? So far that we don't know if it's ahead of our time or if it just doesn't make sense anymore? One look at today's first world sociopolitical problems will give you all the answers you need, although i must warn you, if you're a little underexposed to the muck of the issues that face our youth these days, you might end up having more questions than you started with.

Among the unfortunate perception of gender equality and feminism in first world countries trying to fight patriarchy with matriarchy, we apparently now have a whole spectrum of genders and sexualities, the numbers crossing multiple hundreds. This might seem ridiculous to you and I, but there is a whole section of the society 'fighting ' for the inclusiveness of all the genders, sexualities and even races that keep getting added to these pseudo lists every day.
Now, I'm not going to ask someone to be a certain way or act according to the norm of the society. I won't be offended if a person in a mans body dresses as a woman/a child/a giraffe, because it's none of my darn business. This is the kind of attitude one would expect to be appreciated by these sociopolitical activists, If only it were that simple, though.

Let me first point out some loopholes in the logic behind the claims of all these categories being legitimate and then throw a different perspective on them:
> The misconception that 'sex', 'gender' and 'sexuality' being interchangeable or even similar.

Sex is the chromosomes you are born with. There is male, there is female. Then there is intersex, which is considered a deformity and not a separate sexual profile. Gender is what you identify as or perform the roles of in your daily life. Sexuality is what you're attracted to and aren't.
To think that there are distinctive genders based on whether you like having sex before or after falling in love, with the lights on or off or if you have multiple partners or not...not only does it seem silly and juvenile, it is also unnecessary. It is unnecessary to have to carefully sort yourself into labels and boxes that prove to be of no use in your life as an individual.

> Gender fluidity- The idea of mimicking stereotypical gender roles in order to identify as that gender, while also trying to debunk gender stereotypes and roles.

Now, like I said, i don't personally have a problem with someones behavior or the way they dress. I don't. But I see misinformed youth and adults alike taking on this 'identity' of gender fluidity. The idea is you can identify yourself as male or female, at any time or any day, depending on how you dress and behave. So if I, a hypothetically gender fluid person, wore a plaid shirt and a hat and slouched, I can demand to be identified as a man. And as a woman if i wear a dress and lipstick. Ironically, most of these people also actively oppose associating visual and behavioral traits with specific genders.

> Hypersensitivity and hostility towards a difference of opinion

Especially rampant in the first world, the 'phenomenon' of being 'mispronouned' is a popular way to victimise oneself and villainise the current gender system. Such is the power of being a victim of 'mispronouning' that there are members of the left fighting to make it an act of violence, against the law. Over that, cis people, especially cis white people, are mocked, almost as if it is a coolness quotient. Many seem to be oblivious to the hypocrisy here.


Among many, many others, these are some places where this whole movement falls short of rational demands and beliefs. It is so clearly an attempt to somehow make oneself more relevant, more special than the rest; all in the guise of being a fight for equality, I fail to see how it isn't being debunked yet. All that being said, I haven't much of a problem with the circus that is today's gender crisis, but when it reaches a point where people with a different opinion are being targeted, villainised and invalidated, I can't help but get a cultist vibe from it. I can't help but disagree with the way it functions.