An evolutionary perspective on the Chopra-Jonas marriage

This is a no-frills and more substantive version of an article by me that will appear in the media soon. It explains from the perspective of evolutionary psychology the societal disapproval of marriages between older women and younger men, the hook being the uproar over 36-year old Priyanka Chopra’s marriage to 25-year old Nick Jonas. I think this would be a good introduction to anyone curious about the extremely powerful field of evolutionary psychology. The underlined sentences will assist the TL;DR types.

#PriyankaChopra on Twitter is a good barometer of how a lot of people feel about a woman marrying a man 11 years younger to herself. Expectedly, liberal backlash has condemned and dismissed this as ‘patriarchy’ of the unwoke. No matter how well-intentioned, the problem with liberal backlash is that it assumes purely social roots to the institution of patriarchy. The liberals neglect, even hound, those who try to point out patriarchy’s obviously biological/evolutionary roots, which are well explained by evolutionary psychology. The implicit assumption, sadly, is that anyone attempting to do so is trying to justify patriarchy. In defence of the critics, they’re wary of the dubious pseudoscience that has been used in the past to shore up eugenics and male superiority, leading to untold horrors. However, given that we learn from our past, there is no reason to continue shutting down perfectly tenable scientific explanations. If anything, knowing the biological reasons behind patriarchy will allow us, as a society, to deal with it more effectively.

Before embarking on the discussion, readers must keep in mind three things: one, natural selection – the evolutionary force that shapes human behaviour – cares about one and only one thing: transmission of genes down the generations, that is, having the maximum number of children for every couple;  two, in fulfilling its aim, natural selection drives individuals to behave in a manner which will help them find the best possible mate(s); three, natural selection doesn’t choose or design the environment we live in, it only responds to the given environment such that we’re driven to find the best mate(s).

A strong indicator of something having biological/evolutionary roots is its presence across cultures, geographies and ethnicities. Seen from that angle, in a large majority of marriages that happen globally, the man is older than the woman. For example, in US, a nation far more liberal than most others, men are older[i] in 64% marriages and women are older in just 23%, whereas they’re of a similar age in the remaining 13%. This trend holds for the still more liberal Scandinavia. It’s commonplace across the world for women to be attracted to older men, and for men to eye young women. It’s evident that the roots of this trend are embedded deep in human biology.

Given the first fact about natural selection mentioned above, it’s not difficult to see why cohabitation/marriage in the hunter-gatherer era happened between older men and younger women: because women’s reproductive shelf life is much shorter than men’s, the men preferred[ii] younger women as wives to allow birth of more children. Women, on the other hand, preferred[iii] older men because they remained fertile even at later ages and the time allowed them to rise in status and resources, and thus become better protectors-providers.

In those times, given that physical attractiveness and child-birthing capabilities were a woman’s greatest assets, a man’s marriage to an older woman was considered a waste of his genetic potential. For a woman, a younger husband usually meant a feeble protector-provider. Thus, older women and younger men mutually discounted each other as marriage prospects.

Though circumstances in the modern era might have changed drastically – women have far more to offer, marriage is hardly done only for procreation, the role of men as protectors-providers matters much less and can certainly be fulfilled by younger ones – human emotions, endowed to us by natural selection in the hunter-gatherer era, haven’t undergone nearly the same metamorphosis. Seen in this light, it’s not entirely surprising that the ‘animal spirits’ sometimes unleash themselves in ugly ways, which is what, in most cases, accounts for the behaviour of those expressing disapproval of Chopra-Jonas marriage.

Interestingly, the animal spirits can be unleashed even against younger female and much older male pairs, which is another evidence of its biological roots. One only need dig up the storm of tweets castigating Milind Soman for dating a woman nearly three decades younger, to be sure of this. The logic behind this outrage is exactly the same: a woman marrying a much older man, nearing the end of his reproductive life, is wasting her genetic potential. Though Soman was seen as the predator in this case, men usually take only half the blame for wasting the genetic potential of much younger women because these women – now often pejoratively called ‘trophy wives’ – have over the evolutionary past consented[iv] to such relationships, given the huge resources at the disposal of some much older men. In case of older female-younger male pairing, my guess is that usually the female is considered the predator while the male is let off as the gullible prey. I’ve tried to find an explanation for this in evolutionary psychology, but haven’t found anything concrete. Maybe it’s a straightforward case of men asserting their historically superior physical and political power over women, which would make for a classic case of social patriarchy. An expert would be able to reason out better, though.

It’s important to note that though natural selection dictates our behaviour, it works quietly without making humans conscious of itself. In other words, most of those who outrage against Chopra’s marriage to Jonas, or Soman’s to Ankita, don’t precisely know the reason for doing so, but act on an impulse. This explanation counters the notion of an all pervasive, carefully-knit and sustained social patriarchy, in favour of one that’s built into the environment in which these people find themselves. This environment is such that in order to succeed – that is, find the best mates – unconsciously practise patriarchy over egalitarianism. That’s not at all to say social patriarchy doesn’t exist. It does, and significantly so – the youth are deeply influenced by the actions of the elderly and the influential in their community. For example, taking selfies, an act unmatched in abhorrence by all the patriarchy that the world could muster, is a purely social phenomenon which implicitly teaches people that partaking in it enhances their chances of evolutionary success, and has hence spread like a virus.

On the other hand, what accounts for the behaviour of those who support Chopra-Jonas marriage? Are these superhumans who have overcome natural selection and magically developed altruistic qualities? The answer is an emphatic no. This happens simply because they have managed to build for themselves an environment in which natural selection promotes altruism and empathy as the emotions that help genes thrive. In other words, this environment – driven by an emphasis on increasing standards of living, which has brought about participation of women in the economy and countless other associated benefits – promotes altruistic and cooperative folk over the non-altruistic and vindictive ones. To succeed here, if you had to choose between emulating JRD Tata and Arun Gawli, I would strongly suggest the former. Indeed, altruistic emotions are more important to transmission of genes than aggressive ones, which is why the arc of human civilization bends towards peace and egalitarianism.

The far more interesting question is, how was this environment – one that encourages low birth rates, in clear contrast to the aims of natural selection – built? This is often the  great evolutionary mystery to those who are curious about evolutionary psychology, and a gloat to those who are dismissive of it. To the disappointment of the latter, there is an explanation available: natural selection, to drive us towards making babies, instilled us with the big O. It is in seeking this pleasure, and not babies themselves, that we end up making them. Using our highly advanced brains – also a gift of natural selection – we have found ways to enjoy the big O without worrying about the babies, thus outsmarting natural selection. Alas, being ‘evolved’ doesn’t come without its fair share of irony.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, those who find themselves in the clutches of patriarchy have not been able to create this noble environment. This is not to suggest giving a clean chit to those who troll Chopra and Jonas, because some people caught in this environment have still been able to deploy their mental faculties to select the right emotional response, going against the grain. In evolutionary psychology parlance, each individual follows what’s called ‘status hierarchy’, a natural order in which individuals unconsciously arrange themselves as per their capacity to attract the best mates. Of course, the hierarchy is not written in stone and keeps shifting, but to expect someone lower down to upend it is a bit much.

In a considerable majority of cultures, it’s highly likely that the right kind of nurture can provide the right environment, and thus bring out the right nature. It’s important to keep reminding ourselves of the struggles that some of the most liberal modern societies required before they reached where they are today. This, instead of blaming everything on the apparently incurable social patriarchy and denouncing completely those suffering from it, should be the emphasis of aspiring changemakers.

---

[i] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-the-average-age-difference-in-a-couple/

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Male_preference_for_younger_females

[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Female_preference_for_older_males

[iv] https://bit.ly/2OnUR32

Will Love, Marriage and Procreation Stand the Test of Time?

The seeds for this post were sown in my mind about two years back, during a phone call. My friend was aghast to know that I had never been in – or wanted to be in – love, and that I didn’t want to marry or to have kids. Given the present state of society, she expressed concern that I would come to regret my decision if I didn’t get married by early 30s, because by then the marriage market would be out of supply.

I was aware of this, of course, and tried convincing her that I really did want to live and die a childless bachelor. But more than that, I tried explaining to her my vision of the future, upon which my resolve is predicated. In this future, love would be a far weaker force than it is today; marriages – if they happen at all – would happen much later in life, expire after a predetermined period, and the marriage market would retain supply even for older individuals.

Not surprisingly, this was laughed off, and for good reason. Under the prevalent circumstances, falling in love, getting married (once) and procreating completes the holy trinity of human life. Nevertheless, I believe that the trinity, no matter how ubiquitous, will not stand the test of time. Advancing technology will either crumble or change the trinity’s form to the point of non-recognition.

To a certain extent, I have already been proven right. Women empowerment, birth control, abortion and online dating have significantly shaken the traditional roots of the trinity. However, three upcoming technologies – the result of unprecedented advances in healthcare and genetic research – are set to disrupt it beyond anyone's wildest imagination. These technologies are: increasing life span, creation of artificial sperm and egg, and ectogenesis (pregnancy outside female body).

Let’s start with increasing life span. When it comes to marriage, the tacit understanding behind the ‘right age’ is predicated upon the duration of female fertility and the fact that human life is finite. There would be no ‘happily’ in ‘happily ever after’, if there was actually an ever after. Well, the ever after is now around the corner. As per conservative estimates, life expectancy by 2100 AD will be a mindboggling 160+ years, coupled with much longer sexual shelf life for both genders. The number could be much, much higher if certain technologies come to fruition. In such a scenario, I am curious to see who would be confident enough to proclaim someone as the ‘love of their (entire) life’ and take the marital plunge by 30 – the cutoff age at which concern for the unmarried turns into derision – and stick to the same partner throughout. Can people imagine living with one person for 130+ years? Longer life expectancy coupled with longer sexual shelf life for both genders, will ensure that marriages happen late, are no longer a singular event, and become contractual and limited to a few decades. This would also mean that the marriage market is profuse with supply at much later ages in people’s lives.

The other two technologies – creation of artificial gametes and ectogenesis – are far more radical than increasing life expectancy. To understand their impact, one must go back to the evolutionary reasons behind love. It is well established that sexual attraction – nature’s tool to make us lose our minds so that we make babies – is the progenitor of love.  But, what happens when humans know that, by forsaking sexual reproduction, they have a chance to have made-to-order babies, whose physical and psychological traits can be determined as per their preferences?

Would people let go of an ideal offspring in favour of endlessly worrying, as they do now, about their partner’s receding hairline, breasts being too small or too large, anorexia or obesity, and countless other blemishes – all of which mar the quality of offspring? Moreover, sexually produced babies will continue to be at a far higher risk of genetic diseases than their soon-to-come asexual counterparts. In such a scenario, parents who choose to reproduce the old way would perhaps not be considered too different from the anti-vaxxers of today, thereby bringing immense social pressure, and perhaps regulation, to adapt. In time, asexual reproduction would deal a death blow to sexual attraction, and consequently to love itself.

One can argue that despite babies being made to order, men and women will continue to love and marry as long as women carry babies in their womb, and for the upbringing of the child. Here’s where the genius of ectogenesis steps in. Ectogenesis will enable childbirth entirely outside the female body, thereby putting an end to the idea of men and women being ‘fathers’ and ‘mothers’. Not to mention that all these technologies will eventually cost cheaper than to do stuff the original way.

The impact that this will have on human society as we know it, is impossible to gauge: the combination of several forces – asexual reproduction, women no longer hobbled by pregnancy, and their increasing economic ability to care for children alone – would mean the predominance of single parenthood and increasing asexuality among humans. Becoming a parent will simply mean sponsoring a made-to-order baby. The resulting children, knowing they were fed not by their mother’s umbilical cord but by a test tube, would hardly carry the level of attachment towards their sponsors that they do towards their parents. Shorn of the burden of childbirth, women will finally have a chance to compete with men on truly equal terms. On the other hand, men, unencumbered by their love for women and by their need for women to procreate, might try to ensure their control over resources while they still can. This would make people look back at the present gender war with fondness.

Sure enough, even with these technologies in place, millennia of evolutionary and social training won’t disappear overnight. The present humans, and possibly even some future ones, might balk at the idea of relinquishing the cherished motherhood and at the thought of their children not being truly ‘theirs’. Love and contemporary methods of marriage and procreation will put up stiff resistance before they are choked to death by the descendants of the very humans who have sung countless paeans to them. After all, what is human desire in the face of convenience, favourable economics, pressure to conform, and the lure of a fair-skinned, blue-eyed child?

Why do I, someone who won’t even have children that will be affected by the future, take so much interest in it? Part of the enthusiasm stems from the possibility of my vision coming true. The rest stems from the desire to pose a counter to everyone – from parents to friends and countless sundries – who question, pillory, pity and dismiss my life choices. Blissfully ignorant of the lurking future, they relentlessly lecture me on how ‘natural’ and blissful marriage, love and procreation are, the right age to take each of these steps, and the minimum number of children to bear.

It’s not that I don’t see reason for their angst. As things stand today, I am a regret of evolution, for I have resisted its most fundamental impulses, love and procreation. But my point is, these impulses are hardly as fundamental as they’re thought to be.

Like all else, love, marriage and procreation are nothing but stepping stones to a rapidly evolving future. There is but one truly fundamental human impulse – the desire to stand vindicated for one’s choices. To, at the end, be able to look one’s detractors in the eye and say, “I was right”. I don’t want to say these words literally. I only hope to stand vindicated by the choices made by my detractors’ kids and grandkids, to watch quietly as they horrifyingly witness their progeny make the very same choices that someone – who they thought was a fool to miss out on the joys of life –  made several decades ago.

Review of Kiran Nagarkar's novel, Cuckold

At the risk of jumping to conclusions – this being my first Nagarkar novel – I will say that the author is already one of my favourites alongside Manu Joseph, on whose recommendation I read him. Can’t say I’ve been disappointed at all. Let me also confess that I was biased towards this book even before reading it because it deals with the story of my ancestors, who have traditionally been neglected by the genre of historical fiction. One of the reasons I picked up this book – other than its catchy title – was to learn more about the Rajput kings of Rajasthan. This book isn’t classic historical fiction, since the language is contemporary and the author doesn’t necessarily strive for pinpoint accuracy in depicting social customs of the 16th century, in which era the book is set. Having said that, it is loaded with invaluable information about the statesmanship and philosophy of Rajput kings, methods of warfare, internal and external power struggles of Mewar and surrounding kingdoms, and Babur’s conquest of India. I disagree with those who think this book is primarily a love story, or that its central theme is the protagonist’s failed attempts to win over his wife, Meerabai (not once referred to by this name in the book). Agreed, this is indeed a leitmotif of the book, and has a profound impact on her husband, Maharaj Kumar, but this isn’t what the book is about. The quote below should put an end to this debate: "My wife, Kausalya, Leelawati, my friends matter to me, but the meaning of my life doesn’t revolve around them." Which brings us to what this book is actually about – a deep dive into the meaning of Maharaj Kumar’s life. I have hardly read something that explores a character’s heart, mind and soul in such excruciating detail. Often through deeply revealing mental dialogue, Cuckold unveils the different roles he plays in life – that of a husband to two different women, a lover to several others, a son to a father who suspects his son will unseat him someday, a brother to those who incessantly plot to have him killed, a visionary warrior who considers peace and commerce to be more important, and an ambitious statesman. In the end, the book reveals an endearing man who’s tough on the outside but deeply conflicted inside, constantly questioning his actions and decisions. I suspect, though, that this is a book written by a man, based on a man, and for men. Depiction of female characters solely from a male perspective, physical and sexual violence, and excessive details of battle strategies (which I thoroughly enjoyed, including the bit about jihad’s importance to war) give me the impression that it would put off most female readers, but then I could be wrong. And oh, keep a dictionary handy while reading Cuckold. Hardly have I come across a book which had so many unheard of words.

Answering the question - What will my legacy be?

A few days back I was out till late night with a bunch of friends, looking for chicken roll for two of them. We finally located a roadside eatery where they began to chomp. The eatery had three child labourers, none over 14 years old, doing most of the cooking and serving. I wasn’t eating, so got busy mollycoddling a stray. He was cute and won’t stop leaping on to me and soiling my t-shirt with his paws.

I moved away a tad bit to keep the t-shirt clean and got busy chatting with friends. He hung back. In about another minute or two, I heard loud wailings. I turned to see that his left hind leg was curled up off the ground and he was limping away to the other side of the road as fast as a three-legged creature could. Why? Because one of the child cooks had hit him with a steel rod that was probably kept there just for that purpose.

I was morally outraged. Why hit an innocent creature who wasn’t even being intrusive? I ran towards the dog and saw that, despite the brutal intent of the assault, he’d escaped serious injuries and would soon be able to walk again. I turned back and unleashed my moral outrage against the child attacker - “Tumhe koi maarega faltu mein to kaisa lagega?”, and variants of it.

The guy was unfazed. Completely. In previous similar experiences, I had seen the guilty at least murmur justifications. This kid didn’t even bother with that, just kept looking down at the plate he was garnishing. I got my friends to pay up quickly and soon left the place in disgust, reacting typically like a morally outraged person would.

After physically abandoning the crime scene, the next step for a morally outraged person is to abandon it mentally, too.  I was in the process of blocking out horrific memories of the wailing dog and the stoic child, when I was reminded of something the inimitable Manu Joseph said – “If you’re morally outraged by something, get closer to it.”

Given that going back to the child and digging calmly into his reasons behind committing the act would most likely have proved futile, I chose the next best option - trying to figure out why a human being, a child no less, would do such an inexcusable thing.

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind. All these evils are a direct consequence of population explosion. We’re breeding like maggots and there are not enough carcasses to feed on. Why is unprovoked physical violence an abhorrence for you and I, but not for a teenager who’s had no education and probably sleeps on a half-empty stomach every night? Well, for one, you and I need to realise that what we think of as innate is often a byproduct of the environment one grows up in. A child who grows up watching his alcoholic father grab his sister’s ass and beat up his mom without reason, is often thrashed by his employer, must steal food and learn to land blows to survive on a daily basis, can hardly be expected to empathise with an animal. Physical violence, for this child, is either a way to vent his bitterness or a survival mechanism.

All those mob lynching incidents that we hear of these days? Sure, to an extent the spurt could be explained by the present circumstances, but never underestimate the fury of a group of people who’re underfed and underpaid. For them, it doesn’t take much of a leap to go from cobbling street dogs to lynching humans, especially if they’re paid for it.

That largely explains the depravity of the deprived. So, if the poor clamped down on producing more like them, surely the world would be a better place?

Hardly.

As white-collar crimes by Ivy League graduates, sexual exploitation by the powerful, female foeticide and infanticide by educated and urban Indians, and money laundering by chartered accountants suggest, physical violence is perhaps the least destructive form of depravity that has come to characterize human beings. The educated avoid physical violence simply because they don’t need it for survival and they have too much to lose by engaging in wanton violence. They channel their depravity into ugliness that’s more rewarding and easier to hide. The wealthy and the uneducated, however, don’t have similar inhibitions about it. Salman Khan and the Gujjar community are living examples.

In short, it’s pretty clear that making the poor educated and/or rich, or reducing their numbers, isn’t going to change anything, except probably making things worse.

To get rid of the problem permanently, I propose a radical solution – VHEMT. Started in 1991 by American environmental activist Les Knight, VHEMT stands for Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.  As its motto - “May we live long and die out” – suggests, VHEMT calls for all humans to stop having kids, so that the human race is wiped out for good within a generation. There’s no violence, no suicide involved. We just have to stop making more of us.

Many would argue that adherents to VHEMT are a bunch of misanthropes. Except for a few like me, that’s not really true. Most of these guys can be perfectly described by Lord Byron’s “I love not Man the less, but Nature more”. VHEMT guys believe, and rightly so, that a planet sans humans would mean its biosphere can revive and restore to its former glory again.

This makes perfect sense for the climate change radicals as well as for the hedonists who don’t care about the environment. For the former, not producing another resource-sucking creature would mean they’re doing their utmost to save the planet. For the latter, there’s a more subtle reason to adhere to VHEMT. If the entire human race decided to eschew kids, it would give us a guilt-free passport to the planet’s loot and plunder for as long as we live - not more than 125 years. So we could fire up all those coal plants again, shelve the boring EVs once and for all, and extract oil without worrying about ‘peak oil’. Once we’re gone, the planet will heal itself in due course. There are other less obvious benefits of VHEMT. College admissions would become easier. There’ll be more food for humans and stray dogs. No longer would women drop behind in the workplace due to pregnancy-induced leaves. Divorce settlements would be much less messy. The pro-choice vs. pro-life debate would end instantly. Above all, the most vexing question invented by humankind – what will my legacy be? – would become redundant.

If we can’t go as far as VHEMT, let’s begin by celebrating those who’ve already embraced this movement. For every Father’s Day, let’s have a Not-a-Father’s Day. For every Mother’s Day, let’s have a Not-a-Mother’s Day. For every Children’s Day, let’s have a Children-Never-Born’s Day. In place of the bygone “Hum Do Hamare Do”, let’s make a brand new start with the ambitious “Hum Do Hamare No”.

Review - Manu Joseph's latest book 'Miss Laila, Armed and Dangerous'

There are two Manu Josephs. One, Manu the author. Two, Manu the journalist. The first is an inspiration while the second is a warning. In his previous two books, Manu the journalist took a backseat and Manu the author – capable of staining the blank page with timeless wisdoms - shone through. In this book, however, exactly the opposite has happened.

First and foremost, this book should be deprived of its “fiction” tag. The only fictional element here is the lame stage names given to really well known, real-life public figures. This book is essentially an extended, heavily biased, opinion piece laying out the author’s thoughts on a particular case that rocked India over a decade back, and continues to emit aftershocks. Although I will avoid spoilers, anyone with a fair command on current affairs will be able to guess the real-life equivalents of the book’s characters and its plot, just a few pages into it.

The book’s best part – the author’s quintessential, though grossly generalizing, barbs against human rights activists – also turns out to be its most ironic. In presenting a completely one-sided view of important real-life events and the people involved in it, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary, Manu exposes himself as an activist, and perhaps a cowardly one at that, for his activism hides in the garb of fiction. I should mention here that asking tough questions is the job of a journalist, but asking them in a way so as to turn public opinion favourable to one’s own is not only irresponsible, but also dangerous. But then, as I said, Manu the journalist is a warning.

Of course, not everything about the book is bad. Like his previous works, this book has Manu’s signatures – underdog male characters, strong female characters, and of course, timeless wisdoms. Although the beginning seems jagged due to one too many interjections by the author’s voice, it soon picks up pace and reads like a thriller. It’s a given that the enjoyment readers gets out of this book will be directly proportional to their ignorance about the goings-on of the world. The plot twist towards the end is admirable, too.

I’ll leave you with some gems that only Manu is capable of writing:

“Hope is a premonition of defeat”

“There is no evidence of Damodarbhai’s guilt except one. Hindus adore him and they can’t explain why.”

“Damodarbhai is not right, Damodarbhai is not wrong. He is a secret thought that people have already thought.”

“You can defame love by calling it madness, which only confirms its existence.”

One of the character’s response when his daughter asks him why he doesn’t leave India when he dislikes it so much - “India is a wound. But it is not a wound like a whiplash. It is a wound, like a spouse.”

“Sweetheart, I’ll always be yours because no one else might want me or I might be too frightened to stray, for that is what faithful men are, unwanted or cowards.”

Wait, I forgot to ask the most important question. Considering the entire book is based on true events, what if that man turns out real, too? If he does, I will go back the very day and change this review, as well as my thoughts on Manu the journalist.

Satire - Marital rape from a Bharatiya POV

All this silly outrage over the government trying to preserve the right to marital rape. Don’t all these feminist libtards get it? By defending marital rape, the government isn’t just protecting the “institution of marriage”, it is protecting something much bigger – the very future of this country. Let me explain how.

Bharat is a nation of sanskari men, where a majority of men observe strict celibacy before marriage. They don’t succumb to the Western sins of attempting to woo girls to date. The only exception is a minority who sometimes force their hands into the tee shirt of an unsuspecting girl who agrees to venture into a desolate park with them. She makes some noises but usually not those that indicate trouble. If she does no one really cares, including the top-button-loose khaki-clad protectors of the people. Because everyone supports the men, they must be right. If you think they’re not, remember what our dear Netaji said, “boys commit mistakes, will you hang them?”

Given his preoccupation with being sanskari, Bhartiya nar leaves the job of finding a girl for him to his parents, before he dies of sexual frustration. Have you seen the “V” sign proudly brandished by a Bhartiya nar’s friends at his wedding? That’s they celebrating his overdue loss of virginity. V= Victory = Virginity (lost). Once the marriage is done, he loses little time in claiming this much deserved victory. After all, if the girl in the park didn’t complain, why should the wife? Obviously, once she’s sitting all decked up in the bed, she is craving relief from the 50kg lehenga that’s about to bury her in the ground. That, combined with the glass of milk (or perhaps Red Bull these days, given India’s embrace of modernity) - can you really blame it on the men? Silly Ajay Devgun, backed out despite Aishwarya’s kinky pallu-ripping invitation in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam.

Sometimes we hear an incident or two of wives complaining that their husbands raped them. Those insolent ones get thrashed even by their parents. If the girls’ parents support the husbands, they ought to be right. If you’re in doubt, remember what Netaji said.

At the heart of marital rape lies another underappreciated reason – Indian men’s love for their wives. Denial of sex is a ground for divorce. Some Indian men love their wives far too much to divorce them, so they don’t let them deny sex. In any case, only 10-20% of the wives get raped. That’s just a few crores. Big deal.

So, do you now understand why marital rape – a perfectly justified activity as explained above – is also essential to the future of this country? It’s the kids, stupid! For a lot of sanskari Indian men who assiduously shield themselves from the Western notions of romance and consent, the right to rape make love to their wives is essential to the continuation of progeny, and thus to sustain the fast-dwindling population of India.

However, our sanskari government didn’t stop at this. It presented still more arguments to convince people of the necessity of marital rape. One of those is that, “This country has its own unique problems due to various factors like literacy, lack of financial empowerment of the majority of females… and these should be considered carefully before criminalising marital rape”. Now, the government understands these aren’t “problems” at all, but crucial to the continuation of the institution of marriage – after all, Westernization of women through education and empowerment makes their rape by sanskari husbands unlikely. Criminalizing marital rape would be a big step towards empowering women, hence it must be avoided.

Another brilliant argument is, “What may appear to be marital rape to an individual wife, it may not appear so to others.” Assuming the government isn’t talking about eyesight, it’s right in saying that women who get raped by their husbands are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. Estrogen, you see. Here they are on common ground with another women’s rights champion, All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB). While defending triple talaq, AIMPLB said that it should be preserved because men have greater decision-making power than women. Such nouveau wisdom!

Lastly, the government rightly touches upon the misuse of Sec 498A to punish innocent husbands for domestic violence they didn’t commit, fearing that a law against marital rape will be similarly misused. This argument is based on careful analysis of data from countries – US, UK, Nepal, Bhutan etc. – where laws against marital rape have forced all husbands to flee to India, where men are still allowed to be men. Added to this is the government’s concern over how to prove marital rape. It’s saddening that this concern hasn’t been extended to non-marital relationships, where proving marital rape can be equally hard. This presents us with a golden chance to revoke anti-rape laws for boyfriends too. After all, why ruin a brewing marriage? And boyfriends never rape anyway, their girlfriends just invite it, so there’s little use of keeping a redundant law.

While we’re on the subject of revoking laws, let’s also revoke Sec 498A, the biggest threat to the institution of marriage. India has deftly avoided making a law to protect male victims of domestic violence, and now needs to correct its folly of trying to protect women. If women can undergo rape, what’s the harm in taking a few beatings at the hands of pati parmeshwar? And all those reports of burnings for not paying dowry are #FakeNews about kitchen accidents by presstitutes.

Let’s all be thankful to our sanskari government and Bhartiya nar for fighting tooth and nail to shield our great nation from existential Western attacks. Together, they shall defend our superior civilizational ethos and keep evil notions of romance and consent at bay.

Dunkirk: Nolan walks further down the wrong path

In Dunkirk, Nolan falls for the same trap that ensnared him in Interstellar – that Zimmerman’s background score is a substitute for dialogues, and cinematographic grandeur, confounding nonlinearity and Bollywood-like heroism are substitutes for good old character development. In cinema, dialogue and character development still make for the compass, and technological shenanigans only for the oars. Clearly, Nolan’s beliefs have changed since the days of Following, Memento, The Prestige and The Dark Knight. While Dunkirk thankfully stops short of Interstellar’s meme-worthy sappiness and grandeur, it does have fuel-less planes shooting potent adversaries out of the sky. If grandeur and victory of good over evil were the criteria, only the hypocritical would admire Dunkirk while trashing Bahubali.

Besides the notion that it’s Nolan’s best work, the biggest misconception about Dunkirk is that it’s a war movie. That’s wrong for two reasons – Dunkirk doesn’t focus on war beyond its facade of guns and warplanes, and moreover, it’s hardly a movie. A movie is an on-screen narrative that begins at one point and ends at another – and sometimes at the same in case of gems such as Pulp Fiction - passing through several points during the course of its journey. Dunkirk eschews all attempts at a narrative. It just teeters at one spot like a drunkard. Wonder whether D(r)unkirk would be a more fitting name. In mathematical parlance, Dunkirk is not a flow but a stock; a stock of numerous, unconnected images that run past the viewer’s eyes in Nolan’s signature, though now tiresome, nonlinear fashion one after the other, with a very predictable attempt at the end to link them all together.

Dunkirk begins coherently by focusing on one desperate soldier, a Frenchman, who violates orders to join ranks with the fleeing British army. Except for the non-sequitur, awkward shot of the man taking a dump on the beach, one would think fleshing out this narrative would have made for a great movie, bringing out the travails of soldiers trapped in a merciless war. Sadly, it soon collapses into multiple threads – a dog fight, a bunch of British civilians ferrying to Dunkirk to take back their soldiers, and the original one of the French soldier – each of which is reduced to nothing but the stock of images referred above.

Sure, some of these images are worth gaping at, and to those who are easily impressed, Nolan will remain the most useful investment of their movie budget. The scene depicting a German bomber’s attack on a British minesweeper ship, and another of soldiers trapped underwater while the surface is set ablaze by oil, are some of the greatest sensory treats ever. Certain others – one, a soldier killing himself by sailing into the waves, and two, hundreds of British civilian boats reaching the shores of Dunkirk in a heart-swelling display of true patriotism - could have been made much more powerful but feel half-baked due to Nolan’s rush to distort time and replace individuals with larger-than-life, mind-boggling events. For the most part, Zimmerman’s persistently edge-of-the-seat background score also seems out of sync with what happens on screen.

In all fairness though, Nolan must be commended for historical accuracy – the Stucka dive bomber makes its characteristic whistling noise while diving down, and original models of warships and planes have been used wherever possible. The only noticeable departure from real events is the yellow-coloured nose of the German planes (in reality, this happened after Dunkirk evacuation was over), though that was done only to allow clear distinction for the viewer. Unfortunately though, such eye for detail is lost on all but the WWII-obsessed viewers.

In Dunkirk, Nolan has come a long way from his initial days of making tiny movies focused on a handful of characters. There are fighter planes, naval destroyers, U-boats, and phantasmagoric imagery. Sadly, all this has come at the expense of characters. I miss the Nolan of yore.