Trump's victory and NYT's admission: Liberals need to introspect

Just as I finished writing about the imminent shift in global politics, media and academia from the liberal Left to majoritarian Right, NYT – the beacon of ultra-liberal international media – admitted to smugness and incompetence in its election coverage, even if motivated by fear of a reader backlash and concerns about profit. Couldn’t help the “told you so” fist-pump, even as I felt deeply scared about the shift. As an aside, please don't miss the comments on the article hyperlinked above to get a great idea of NYT's bias.

Before anyone dismisses the gravity of this thinly-veiled apology, it should be noted that the last time NYT issued a public apology was for its pro-war coverage of Iraq war. Back then, one of its reporters, Judith Miller, had got sensational stories from a dishonest source, which helped build public support in favour of the war. While NYT’s election coverage might not be as regrettable because it didn’t lead to millions of deaths, the admission does prove more than a modicum of bias and mishandling.   

Before the election, when I raised doubts over NYT’s biased and uninformed coverage of the two candidates, the liberals united in their opposition calling Hillary “a great lady”, “one of the best ever” etc., and that only a tiny section of the population, the deplorables, supported Trump, so NYT was right in its coverage. That debate seems settled now.

Every pragmatic liberal, myself being one, must capitalise on this rarest of rare shifts to burst the ultra-liberals’ gargantuan bubble, and ask questions that they have so far been swept under the carpet by imposing their illusion of moral superiority on the dissenters. 

First and foremost, the ultra-liberals need to realise that everyone voting for Trump isn’t deplorable. 29% Asians and Hispanics, 8% Blacks, and 37% postgraduates voted Trump. People have priorities – taxation, elimination of Obamacare etc. – that figure above those of the ultra-liberals. Just because someone doesn’t rate gender equality and climate change as their highest priority, doesn’t make them deplorable. In fact, it’s safe to say that everyone who voted Hillary isn’t a messiah and didn’t vote her in pursuit of larger-than-life ideals. They had their own selfish reasons. The minorities largely voted Hillary not to eliminate the scourge of racism per se but for the sake of personal security, isn’t that selfish too? Or maybe they wanted her to continue Obamacare, or impose gun-control, or something else.

Secondly, the liberals must introspect. It’s easy for ultra-liberals to preach the ideals of equality from their vantage point – they forget the link between economics and hate. Of course, no one should be discriminated against on the basis of nationality, gender, religion etc. However, do they honestly expect a homeless man to think the same way? Should it be any surprise that to a homeless Hindu in India, a wealthy Christian walking by will appear as someone who became rich primarily because he ditched his original religion? Even if he doesn’t think that way, the politician next door will pose the Christian as an outsider, and the homeless man will be a sitting duck. This is no different from the way Christian missionaries operate – they blame Hinduism for the wretchedness of their targets, provide incentives for conversion, and it works quite well. Now, the educated understand that such an Us vs. Them view is stupid because it goes ad infinitum, but how does one blame the poor Hindu on the street, or for that matter, the target of conversion? This is exactly what has happened in America. Somehow the liberals are liberal only towards fellow liberals. If this continues, they will end up being self-defeating by providing easy targets to far-right politicians like Trump.

Thirdly, there is a need to start slaying the holy cows. Let’s demand end of triple talaq and UCC. Let’s point out reverse-sexism where it exists. Let’s stop taking those hypocritical human rights organisations at face value. Let’s start asking tough questions - Hillary Chameleonton stuck with her serial-cheater of a husband largely because she wanted to further her own political ambitions, so why is she hailed as a feminist? Her ambitions were also the reason why she went about odiously discrediting all women who came forward. When Trump did the same, we all remember the storm that kicked off, so why this bias towards Hillary? Sure, love for her husband and child must have had a role to play in making her stick, but if any liberal ascribes Hillary’s decision simply to this reason, just give that person an “awww” look and move on, but not before you ask them to read William Chafe’s book on the subject. Had she been a true feminist she’d have said “fuck you” in the face of her husband and pursued her ambitions independently.

There are hundreds of such questions on different topics to be asked, the one above only being representative of them. The next time a liberal laments violence by RSS, ask him whether he’s aware of the dastardly violence perpetrated on a daily basis by the Left in Kerala and Bengal. The next time a liberal waxes eloquent about Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s cryptic preaching, ask him whether he’s ever bothered to read Hindol Sengupta and Sanjeev Sanyal.

At the same time, let’s not lose sight of the liberal causes, even if the liberals themselves pay only lip service to them. Let’s stop buying products of companies that make racist ads. Let’s call for the removal of IHCL chief, Rakesh Sarna, for repeatedly harassing a woman. Let’s fight against all those men, like Trump himself, who always got a free pass.

The liberals and non-liberals are too deeply ensconced in their respective echo chambers to hear the other side. This is dangerous for any democracy. A bridge urgently needs to be built. For better or for worse, the liberals must take the lead because, on an average, they’re more privileged and educated compared to Trump-voters. #notmypresident doesn’t seem like a convincing start.

Why spark a gender war, Adele?

Today was yet another day of chest-thumping for the self-congratulatory feminist brigade. 

Adele, one of their icons, apparently has a hair problem since she doesn’t shave her legs more than once a month. On being asked by Vanity Fair whether her boyfriend minded it, she shot back, “He has no choice. I’ll have no man telling me to shave my fucking legs. Shave yours.” 

Expectedly, this was hailed variously as “best reply ever”, “take that, men”, and “Adele will have none of it, and you shouldn’t either” by all those media outlets that find Hillary Clinton to be an angel.

Now, there’s a serious problem with that statement, and even more with the attitude that goes into making that statement. It gives the stench of an uncompromising megalomaniac who lives life all by her rules, refusing to bend the tiniest bit to accommodate what is for most men a biological need, and one that is by no means impossible to meet for a woman.

Scratch that. Adele is none of the above. She’s a hypocrite pretending to be a diehard feminist.

Know why she bothers to shave her legs at all? “Because people in the front row at her concerts might notice them when she runs up the stairs to the stage.”

To me, it sounds like she’s happily complying with (unsaid) requests of all men (and women) in the front row to look presentable. But she has a problem doing the same for her boyfriend, the man who probably sees her naked every day. Why? Because shaving one’s legs for one’s man automatically makes one a submissive sandwich-maker?

So not only is Adele hypocritical but also lazy and arrogant because she doesn’t shave her legs for her man knowing she can get another at the drop of a hat, but does so happily for her fans since she knows their replacement might be harder to come by.

Now, it’s hard to blame Adele for being a lazy, arrogant hypocrite when almost everyone on the planet is one too. The problem is that she’s a hugely influential figure, an icon of female power for the hundreds of millions of young girls and women around the world who adore her. Unwittingly or otherwise, she has added tinder to the already raging bonfire of gender war. Adele just instructed those hundreds of millions of young girls and women to adopt a cavalier attitude to the most basic need of all men that are, or will ever be, in their lives. So yeah, I’ll add “ignorant” to the list of adjectives I’ve used to describe her.

I don’t think it should be hard for any woman to realise that most men find female body hair unpalatable, just like I realise that a lot of men are downright assholes about expressing their preferences to women. It’s possible that Adele has had bad experiences that have left her bitter, and hence her issue with being asked to shave her legs. The problem is that such attitude simply forecloses all possibility of dialogue. Even a polite request at the right time and place will go unheeded. Note that such a request is completely different from lamenting one’s partner’s small boobs or tiny penis, since those are things they can’t do anything about. However, it is no different from a man asking for a blowjob but straightaway refusing to rid himself of the jungle down there. Imagine the earthquake that’d have struck the Milky Way had it been Adele’s boyfriend making a statement on the lines of what she did.

For far too long, we allowed men to get away with making statements (and actions) like that, and now we have this stinking patriarchy. I am afraid feminism is well on its way to the same infamy.

It's perfectly fine to fawn over Chaiwala 2.0

Yet another “chaiwala” is making news, this time from across the border. Arshad Khan, quite literally the blue-eyed boy from Pakistan, has shot to fame courtesy a photo of his instagrammed by a Pakistani photographer. He’ll soon be a model, and might even star in movies. Too bad though that he won’t be able to milk the far richer Bollywood for some time to come.

Reactions to his photograph and the ensuing fame ranged from ecstatic loins to rolled eyes. There was one group though, that of the Eternally Peeved Feminazis, that couldn’t, as a matter of habit, hold back from making a mountain out of a molehill.

These days, whenever anything breaks out, I am only waiting for the pea-brained EPF to invent an angle that allows them to call for mass castration of all men on the planet. So this time, since the photographer was a woman and his subject was a man, I was relieved that the EPF would keep at an arm’s length. My relief was short-lived.

Below I counter the objections to the photograph made by two articles written by EPF:

1.      It is abhorrent to express surprise at his good looks despite his lower socio-economic strata: Ok, this is the motif of all EPF arguments – blind thyself to facts.
In the subcontinent, the poor people look uglier than their richer counterparts in a vast majority of cases. Of course, one can inflict further blindness by saying shit like “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”, but the truth won’t change. So what’s the harm if millions of people are pleasantly surprised at the charm of a chaiwala? Let's hope we see more such mascots of poor people's attractiveness to bridge the yawning gap. 

2.      Calling him “chaiwala” is derogatory: Clearly, the EPF live in a world where they sip tea of all colours except yellow, that too exclusively from vending machines, and go “eww, look at those spots on his shirt” when they see a drops of tea fall on the shirt of a real chaiwala while he expertly pours it from a wide vessel into a narrow glass. In the subcontinent, chaiwala is an important, if not honourable, occupation. During Modi’s campaign, except the one instance where Mani Shankar Aiyar – who clearly sips tea only from vending machines – meant “chaiwala” as a derogatory epithet, it was used only to signal Modi’s lower socio-economic strata, and never to suggest that he had ever been a dishonourable man. In his interviews, Arshad himself proudly admits to being a chaiwala.
The EPF lament that no one bothered to find out his name long after he'd gone viral, instead preferring to call him "chaiwala". Well, I didn't see any EPF approaching him to do this noble deed. After all, it was the very media outlets that they brand irritating and disruptive that bothered to eventually find out his name. If anything, "chaiwala" acted as a catchy slogan to gain him quick and widespread popularity. Does anyone remember the real name of the girl pictured below?

The Afghan Girl

3.    Craze for his blue eyes and light skin is colonial baggage: This is a recurrence of the motif mentioned in point 1. The truth is that blue eyes and light skin look eye-poppingly gorgeous, more so to people from subcontinent because they rarely possess those traits themselves. Several studies done on babies at least partially establish this, though since eugenics is a no-go area thanks to EPF and PC Warriors, much more needs to be done in this area of study. In all my travels through the West, I have not been accompanied by one Indian, and this includes females, who didn’t have their tongue hanging out at the very traits mentioned above. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the presence of these traits in our multinational European colonizers made their job easier.

4.      Arshad Khan could be photographed and his photo circulated on social media only because he’s poor:  Whhhaaatt? Are we forgetting Princess Diana’s death, Deepika Padukone’s cleavage splash on TOI, and countless other instances when the richest, most powerful people on the planet have been clicked without consent and driven to insanity.

5.      It would be better had the photographer tried to engage with the subject, including an “effin selfie” (I don’t understand the big deal about writing “fucking”, but that’s a non-sequitur issue):  The EPF forget that the “effin selfie” is the most heinous way of condescending and romanticising the poor and poverty, something that they warn vehemently against right before they lament the alleged lack of engagement. A selfie with a person of a lower socio-economic strata is nothing but conscience laundry, often used by white people strutting around the subcontinent to embellish their resume. Besides, what do the EPF expect the photographer to do anyway? Go up to the chaiwala and find out his painful life story and pen an op-ed on it? What have the EPF done except, oh, penning an op-ed on him. The EPF also lament that Arshad's fame on social media has unfolded in a language unknown to him. Well, so has their critique. Sadly, Arshad will never know how this bunch of do-gooders tried to fight the injustice done to him.

6.     The EPF don’t like how everything in this episode has revolved around the chaiwala’s “physical features”: Dear EPF, this isn’t 22^nd century yet where the viewers of a photo can dive into it to talk to its subject, and in this case, taste the chai he makes. So far, they can only admire what they see. Moreover, unlike your kind, most humans don’t possess the eyesight that lets them see the misogyny hidden behind the bikini girls printed on a scientist’s shirt.

7.      His fame caused him much embarrassment and disrupted his life: Embarrassment? Dressed in a suave black jacket barely a day after his photo went viral, a beaming Arshad couldn’t stop thanking the photographer and his “fans” for affording him a life he’d never imagined. Arshad was also admittedly overjoyed by those needling him for a selfie or an interview. He did say his business was briefly disrupted, though his main lament was purely economic: “kaam nahi karenge to raat ko le kar kya jayenge?” In that sense, the photo hasn’t disrupted his life at all, instead, it has given it a new lease.

8.     EPF ask a question – how many people would have showed up to meet him had he been a rich man?: This question is best answered by the Khans and Bachchans of Bollywood whose houses are perennially surrounded by banyan-clad idiots who pass for “fans”. In fact, the richer and the more famous the celebrity, the higher are his/her chances of being lynched by a crazy mob.

9.      In one of the articles, EPF say there is no such thing as “reverse sexism”, and only females are at receiving end of all gender-based discrimination: Haha, this is nothing but a manifestation of what Bill Burr said, "Women are constantly busy patting themselves on the back for how difficult their lives are, and no man refutes them because they want to fuck them." I am not surprised EPF think this way, because they're the first to go up in arms when told that a lot of attractive women are hired by big companies almost solely for their looks. Need greater examples of reverse sexism? Ask Brian Banks, the athlete who served five years in jail for a rape he didn’t commit, just because everyone found it too easy to believe the accuser since she was a woman. Judicial bias against men is systemic, and goes far beyond crimes against women. There are umpteen other examples of brazen reverse sexism.


It seems that the EPF, by hiding behind the condescending message of "let him do his job", are not too comfortable with the idea of social mobility - an illiterate, non-English speaking chaiwala breaking the ranks to become more influential than their stupid words.

Godspeed, Chaiwale! 

Possible foul play in 2013 Delhi elections, and systemic rot in Indian elections

I wrote this story for Mint, around the time of last Delhi Assembly elections which were swept by AAP. The story is based on 2013 elections, in which AAP and BJP secured 28 and 31 seats, respectively. It brings out how the party might have lost two seats because of what could have been foul play - in this case deliberate use of an election symbol, named 'Battery Torch', very similar to the party's Broom.

Mint decided not to publish it, so I am putting it here. The peg is India Today's recent investigation (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uttar-pradesh-assembly-elections-dummy-candidates-india-today-expose/1/746207.html) that reveals similar systemic rot. The story below reads very newspaper-y, for obvious reasons.

Below are photos of the two symbols - the fake 'Battery Torch' and AAP's Broom.

   

Story:

If you were an AAP supporter during the previous Delhi assembly elections, you have reason to be worried, for you might just have unwittingly voted your party out of power, in at least two seats.

But how could you have ever committed the grave error of mistakenly voting for another party? It’s because an election symbol bearing uncanny resemblance to AAP’s symbol – the Broom – was doing the rounds in the previous Delhi election. It is noteworthy that the EVM does not carry the name of the party, only increasing the likelihood of such a mistake.

Later, the symbol’s capability to trick AAP voters was taken into cognizance even by EC, which ordered its modification for the upcoming election.

Adoption of the Torch symbol

The fact that this symbol was adopted not by a party but by different independent candidates in as many as 29 out of 70 constituencies in the capital, should raise still more eyebrows. The next most widely adopted symbol - cup and saucer - was adopted in only 12 constituencies. However, before overenthusiastic supporters jump to castigate political rivals for foul play, it is necessary to know how election symbols are allotted to independent candidates. Besides the symbols reserved for national and state parties, the EC has a set of 'free symbols' which are reserved for independent candidates as well as those from lesser known parties. These candidates are then expected to indicate their top three preferences from among free symbols, and in case of clashes, the final allotment is done on lottery basis. Elaborating on the issue, a former Chief Election Commissioner (whose name I've removed because the story isn't for Mint anymore), said that erroneous voting due to similar-looking symbols had indeed been a problem in the past. He, however, added that EC had always been flexible about modifying such symbols on the basis of any genuine complaint received, since not doing so would be an impediment to free and fair elections. Sometimes, EC would also give its nod to symbols demanded by candidates, if these were found acceptable. Talking about the time when over 1000 candidates contested from Modakurichi constituency in TN, he recalled how a judicious choice of symbols could be a real headache for EC. He also mentioned that despite EC's best efforts to minimise confusion among voters, usage of dummy candidates with similar names and symbols had been a favourite modus operandi of political parties to cut into their rivals' vote share. He cited the example of Kuldeep Bishnoi, who, while contesting from Hisar, faced several namesakes.

Why I am a hypocritical liberal

Coming from a deeply orthodox family, I am quite happy with how I’ve turned out as an adult. I am totally accepting of intoxicants, sex, varied sexuality, and political incorrectness – all things I was critical and sceptical of as a child.

Just a few days back though, a phone conversation with a friend shook the firm belief I held in my liberalism. We somehow got on to the topic of transgenderism – a phenomenon I have nothing against but believe has been emboldened by the advent of technology and is too much of a #firstworldproblem to be paid much attention to – and I was quick to express my reservations, saying it was not ‘normal’ for anyone to feel out of place in their assigned gender. Expectedly, there was a strong rebuttal. She argued cogently that diversity was the new normal, and that the age old habit of viewing varied choices as deviations from a preassigned normal was more condescending than liberal.

That got me thinking. This is indeed true – I have indeed looked at varied practices such as homosexuality, transgenderism etc. as deviations from a normal. In my heart of hearts, I am still not entirely comfortable with these practices, and I am only ‘allowing’ them to exist, instead of wholeheartedly embracing them. As a child, I was subtly indoctrinated to believe that the needs of individual had to take a backseat to the rules of society, if ever there was a clash between the two. I always thought I had overcome that indoctrination, but childhood hangovers are not to be underestimated. Sure, my attitude is far better than condemning and actively proscribing diversity, but it’s not ideal. To use an analogy, if my friend views the world as a canvas covered with a random splashing of all colours conceivable, I view it as one with carefully done, linear, monochromatic strokes, interspersed with what can at best be called jarring multi-chromatic irritants. I will never remove those irritants, but I secretly, almost shamefully, hope that they become one with their surroundings over time.

List of people who ought to be killed

King Carlin once compiled a list of people who ‘ought to be killed’. This is one of the greatest acts of philanthropy in human history, for truly there are lots of people who ought to be killed so that the more deserving ones can live in peace. The list was comprehensive for its day, but sadly Carlin died before the internet age, which has spawned scores of other categories of people who ought to be killed. This young Padawan, who hates people as much as the Jedi master did, has taken on the mantle of carrying forward his much-needed work, so that someday it can come to fruition and make the world livable again.

Here’s a list of people who ought to be killed:

1.    Those who suffer from sapiosexuality, wanderlust, or bibliophilia: I don’t mean those who have these traits, but those who use these very words to describe their traits. I was first introduced to these words by tinder bios, so it’s only fitting that I leave a screenshot to explain things better.

I did hate myself a tad more after swiping right on her. She was really hot. I'm sorry.

2.    People who join tinder for ‘friendship’: How sad are their lives, that they need tinder to make friends? And somehow none of these friendship-seekers swipes right profiles of the same gender. 

      Sad and discriminatory – put ‘em down!
Again, live examples help. Yes, I am that bastard who collects screenshots of funny tinder profiles.

I didn't swipe right on her. But then she was ugly.

3.     Pouting mirror-selfie dudes and babes: Ah, I have a special place for them in my dark heart. Nothing would give me greater comfort than taking away their boundless joy when they pose in a mirror, contort their lips, tilt their head to one side, and click. These people need some good old torture leading to death - Scaphism, maybe?

The horrific tale of a Mumbai dance bar

Sometime last year I visited a dance bar in Mumbai. I’d gone in with two friends, with the largely platonic motive of experiencing firsthand the dying embers of a fire that once used to light up the Maximum City every night. I went in expecting nothing too different from a European strip club, maybe something only more tepid. Turns out it is arguably the only act I’ve committed that evokes the emotion of shame in me. It was traumatic, to say the least. The dance bar I visited, Ram Bhavan in Andheri, didn’t remotely pander to the dark, dingy stereotype created by Bollywood. It was far worse.

The description below was written in the immediate aftermath of my visit, and hence carries an emotional, first-person narrative. Of course, the passage of time allows me to restructure it into a more detached commentary, including bits on how bar dancers deserve and need far more respect and positive policy intervention than pity. I should also concede my hypocrisy in taking the moral high ground, but all that would not do justice to what I felt while I was in the midst of it. Read on.

I can never forget those eyes. If they gave off an aroma, I would know what lust smells like.

I tried mustering the courage to make eye-contact, but never could. She stood close enough to tempt, yet far enough to deter. Her gaze was captivating, inviting, and at the same time, puzzling, stupefying, and worst of all, intimidating. No female had looked at me that way before, not even in the most intimate of moments. Yet, I failed to capitalize on her lust. The best I could do, while she peered straight into my flinching eyes, was to watch her ring-laden fingers dance around her bare waist, the motions turning more suggestive as they moved towards the pierced navel, and slowly up to her cleavage-baring bosom. Yet again I tried following the movements of her fingers, hoping for them to lead my gaze right up to hers, almost failing when one of her fingers was juxtaposed with her cleavage, and finally giving up when the same finger brushed against her blood-red lips.

As if sensing my confusion and despair, a stout, bald, thickly-bearded man walked up to the table where I was seated with the two friends accompanying me, and stood right in front of me, blocking her gaze. For a second, I thanked him for taking the pressure off me. But the comfort was short-lived. Dressed in an immaculate dinner jacket, the man stood there silent and motionless, assuming such a wide-legged stance that our eye levels almost met. His aura was disconcertingly jaunty. His face carried a deep cut on the right cheek. It was clear he’d emerged victorious from a bloody battle. My heart skipped a beat as he slipped his hand inside the jacket, but luckily only to fetch a pen and a piece of paper. He sternly pointed to the shabby menu card on the table. Almost thanking him for sparing our lives, my friends and I wasted no time in ordering snacks. We were relieved that we saw him off quickly. His domineering presence had unsettled me deeply, even more than the stare of the dancing girl, which I somehow still craved. His departure gave me another chance to resume the battle between evolutionary instinct and decades of social conditioning.