Bollywood's Gay Casting Couch is out of the Closet!

Indian culture is quite "homosocial" in that displays of affection and body contact between men is socially acceptable and is commonly depicted in Bollywood movies. Research in India also shows that there seems to be a hidden subculture that allows a man to engage in homosexual activity without compromising his masculinity or his sexual orientation. The mantra must be; what is hidden is also invisible. His sexual orientation is up for questioning only when he adopts an alternate gender identity or seeks emotional and sexual fulfillment in a relationship with another man.

But with the expansion of education and English-speaking middle-classes along with access to Western literature there is an increasing tendency in India to associate certain behaviors with being gay or bisexual (like in the western world). The once common "homosocial" behaviors have now garnered a sexual element, especially in the urban areas. Also, like in most of the world, sexual contact between men is more likely to be considered unequivocally homosexual.

With more defined sexual identity, gender roles and characteristics, Bollywood actors seem in a hurry to shed their previously "homosocial" behaviors. In their hurry to clear their names some of them have also exposed a film industry that is rife with a culture of secret and sometimes perverse form of homosexuality. It seems that not only are homosexual favors frequently traded but they are also used as stepping stones for the newbies. Many aspiring actors and models have had to engage in same sex activities with directors, model coordinators, fashion designers, producers and other Bollywood bigwigs in exchange for prominent roles. While many in the industry continue to deny its existence, models Aashish Chaudhary and Rahul Dev, fashion designers Ravi Bajaj and Manish Malhotra and film columnist Bharati Pradhan have told news media of the ubiquity of the gay casting couch while denying ever gracing it.

The Industry has had a still harder time still quelling the rumors with recent revelations of actual incidents. Noted playback singer Sonu Nigam, little know model Surjit Jagdish Singh and actor Sahil Khan have publicly acknowledged sexual harassment at the hands of a journalist, a fellow actor, and a model coordinator respectively.

But this culture has not limited itself to the fringes of Bollywood. Many "A" list personalities have been rumored to be in same sex relationships and/or accept favors in return for promising film careers. Marc Robinson a model turned actor has suggested that many of the industry bigwigs like Shahrukh Khan, Karan Johar, Mahesh Manjrekar and Sanjay Leela Bhansali might be involved in gay relationships referring to their "proximity to male friends". (His comment appeared in an article for Hindustan Times which has since been removed from the newspaper's online archives)

Shah Rukh Khan is one actor that has kept the rumor mills churning for a long time. He has been dodged by gay rumors ever since he debuted on the small screen. The one that figures most prominently in gossip columns are that of a relationship he shares with director and TV personality, Karan Johar. With no hard evidence columnists have still found it easy to read into everything from movie titles, off-the-cuff remarks and body language to substantiate the rumor. With all these recent revelations it’s hard to say what is true or not.

When you apply Western standards to define what being gay is, Bollywood men often fit the bill. Not by choice but often because of the way they are directed, the clothes they are made to wear and the dancing they are expected to do. The most masculine of actors are required to wear flashy clothes and jewels, shed a tear, and break into song and dance around trees! Is there more to be said?

Bollywood might be born out of a conventional and conservative country but it’s inside story is filled with anecdotes of polygamy, sexual exploitation, sleaze and everything else we love to write and read about!

Binayak Sen: Guilty as charged?

The Maoists (Naxalites) claim their violent struggle in India is driven by the predation and disenfranchisement of the under classes by the Indian government. As such they attract those they purport to fight for, the Adivasis, who make a large part of the Maoist armies. They are the impoverished indigenous Indian population whose wellbeing has often taken a back seat. For those of us unaffected by these “bad” government policies the destruction of property and life seem incomprehensible. Violence cannot be justified by the defense of other’s necessity. But what makes it harder to sympathize with the organization is their intractable ideology that includes not participating in elections and supposedly attempting to create a large independent “red revolutionary zone” through India. Separating the sympathizers from the non-sympathizers would be easy except for what the resistance and retaliation has become. The harshness and brutality with which both sides; the Maoists and the Indian Government, have tried to overcome each other have created crossover sympathizers. There are Adivasis who aren’t actively supporting the Maoists but are still targeted by the government forces and a vigilante group “Salwa Judum”. There are a number of “fake encounters” under investigation where the anti-Maoist forces have brutally killed innocent Adivasis labeling them as terrorists and proclaiming the deaths as incidental to an ambush. The Maoists on the other hand have orchestrated the frequent killing of several security personnel and gruesome murders of businessmen.

So on which side of the struggle would a human rights activist pledging his efforts towards the Adivasis find himself? The complexity of that answer would be lost with a quick response. It also becomes necessary to separate the Naxal’s cause from their means when tackling the question.

Dr. Binayak Sen’s training as a pediatrician might be the least impressive part of his resume. He is also a noted civil rights defender and the general secretary of the Chattisgarh unit of Peoples’ Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL). He has worked tirelessly to create health care programs for the needy and poor in the area. Chattisgarh where he lives is also the hotbed of Naxal activity besides having a large Adivasi population. The anti-Maoist forces have been especially vicious in their retaliation considering more security personnel have been killed by attacks in this state than in other Naxal affected states together (Bihar and Jharkand). Some claim the disproportionate response is aimed to rid the area of the Naxals and Adivasis quickly so as to redeem the mineral rich lands of Chattisgarh for industrial development. Under Sen’s leadership several fact finding campaigns have been launched dealing with human rights violations perpetrated by the state government, deaths of prisoners while in police custody and the “fake encounters”. Understandably neither the Government nor Dr. Sen find themselves in each other’s favor.

With all of the Government’s questionable tactics and ignorance towards the plight of the Adivasis, Sen must find himself aligned with the Maoist cause even if he strongly disagrees with their violent means. This is no way would make him a terrorist or one who abets terrorism and there is no intent to suggest that either.

Through his work and association with PUCL, Sen has come in contact with numerous detainees and criminals, offering them legal advice and medical treatment. But when he asked the Government and met 33 times with Narayan Sanyal, a imprisoned senior Maoist leader accused of 302 murders, the Government saw red.

Sen was arrested under the Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005 (CSPSA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He has been accused of passing letters from the Maoist leader to operatives outside the jail, possession of materials that show allegiance to the outlawed group and helping rent an apartment for some of its members. If all this were true Sen has crossed the line of an innocent sympathizer to that of a guilty co-conspirator. The arguments that his being a model citizen thus far makes him incapable of such overt support are weak. But the fact that evidence has been circumstantial and not provable beyond a doubt makes the case for him strong. Sen being a letter courier does not mean much without the contents of the letter. He needs to be released on bail until the prosecution has concrete evidence and contents of the letters are shown to be incriminating.

Did Sen become so enraged by the government’s action and inaction that he began to provide active support to the Maoists or was his sympathy for their cause unfairly tied to his public service towards just another inmate? Until the courts can declare him innocent or guilty, Sen has no place in jail.

Farmer Suicides: Searching for a Solution

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reviewed the situation on farmer suicides on August 31st during his visit to Mumbai and attempted to work out comprehensive strategies to combat the problem. But all if was more of the same. More aid packages or a true solid plan.

Trade liberalization and globalization now has our farmers competing in a global market whose complexities befuddle even the most educated among them. With the opening of India's agricultural sector, international agri-business giants now get to sell genetically modified seeds with promises of high yielding crops. The modified seeds are often twice as expensive as the traditional ones and require costly pesticides and fertilizers to sustain their growth. Farmers have abandoned the traditional growing methods and seeds for the new branded ones, accepting the high costs as a measure towards eventual profits. (The acreage that is now being cultivated with modified seeds has increased more dramatically in the areas of farmer suicides) As such farms have flocked to money-lenders and banks taking advantage of the easily available credit with varying rates of interest. The local money-lenders often work on a set of rules that are unfairly aggressive and intimidating but with interest rates lower than most banks they remain the more attractive option. With the huge investment required for producing the crops most farmers forgo purchasing crop insurance. At the mercy of climate, health, world economy and new seeds the farmers find themselves precariously poised at the edge of loan default. A drought, crop failure, fluctuating prices or a health crisis can singularly precipitate a financial debacle. Unfortunately the last decade has been unfairly cruel and farmers are facing a plurality of these triggers. The seeds have not served them as well as expected, climatic changes have contributed to droughts and decreasing water-levels and farm subsidies by the western governments to their own farmers (esp USA) have created steep drop in the prices of popular crops like Cotton and Soya. With more than 20,000 suicides, is there a solution?

Ajay Shah,a Senior Fellow at National Institute for Public Finance and Policy, in an article for the Business Standard; "Making sense of farmer suicides (2006)", seems to accept the complexity of the agriculture business (mostly cotton cultivation) and suggests "a shift from small farmer-entrepreneurs to sophisticated organisation structures" where farmers become employees rather than owners. He cites the need for capital, equity, know-how and expertise in dealing with the new challenges as the basis for his suggestion. In his piece he directs blame toward inadequate and improper policies and markets dealing with cotton. A critic of the method of debt forgiveness, he also believes the government's and media's response is exaggerated in light of other forms of mortality claiming an equal if not larger toll on life. While the numbers might not be staggering in comparison, the fact that this is a recent phenomenon with an alarmingly increasing rate affords it the attention it is getting. I am a bit uncomfortable with blanket corporatization of agriculture and would rather see a scenario developed where the farmer are able to and have the opportunity to make an informed choice between being an employer or an employee.

Vandana Shiva, a strong anti-globalization advocate, would not accept anything less than a farmer's right and ability to exist as a self-employed professional. Her prescription includes a return to organic farming or traditional methods of cultivation, ending seed monopoly of the MNC's, fighting for an end to unfair farm subsidies in the west, rewriting the rules of trade in agriculture and appropriate credit opportunities. Shiva is a bit ambitious in her designs. With India reshaping itself for a global presence, a roll back of free market reforms does not seem feasible or likely. But she does have a lot of valid suggestions that might show a lot of merit in their implementation.

It seems that a more favorable cotton policy as advocated by Shah, along with appropriate credit counseling and education, price control of seeds and auxiliary farming needs, use of tested and more dependable crop and seed varieties, more effective anti-dumping laws, provision or help towards purchasing of crop insurance, an informed opportunity to be a part of a corporate structure and psychological counseling for distressed farmers might be a multi-pronged response and attempt to solve the situation.

Is India being a responsible neighbor?

Myanmar (Burma) has been in the news lately for the recent iron hand crack down by the military junta on the saffron clad monk's pro-democracy demonstrations . Myanmar's most prominent allies and trade partners India and China have come under some strong criticism for their low key and muted response. India and China can play a key role in restoring democracy but will the burgeoning trade relations and Burma's strategic geographic situation be a strong deterrent for either country to come down heavily on the military regime.

Burma a former British colony gained its independence in 1947. But in 1962, Ne Win; an army general, and his military men him overthrew the then elected government. He set up an authoritarian government to smother democracy and realize his vision of a socialist state. He isolated the country from the rest of the world, created a one-party system and cracked down on any expression that detracted from this vision. The once most prosperous part of the British Empire transformed into one of the world's poorest nations.

Ne Win's rule finally ended in 1988 finally after nationwide student demonstrations calling for democracy that were forcibly and brutally crushed.

India was the first neighboring country to criticise the Burmese military government's actions during people’s uprising. The Indian Embassy in Rangoon is said to have actively supported the pro-democracy student activists.

Yet later that year came the formation of a new and even more repressive military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Council. The military junta renamed the country Myanmar in 1989.

India followed a policy committed to open support of the forces of democracy and “complete disengagement” with the ruling military junta in Burma. Most of the rest of the world also participated in isolating the country. China was one that did not.

In 1990 Burma held its first general elections and Aung San Suu Kyi's party; the National League for Democracy, won. However the military junta never allowed her to take power and instead put severe restrictions on her movements and access to the Burmese people as well as the outside world. The military junta has been accused of grave human rights abuse including curtailing the freedoms of its citizens.

Until around 1994 India continued its anti-junta policy but then after intense internal debate it reversed its course and resumed relations with Burma.

Why India changed its policy: Strategic, security and financial concerns

China used Burmese isolation to its advantage and aspired to create a strategic alliance with the country's regime. It pumped in economic, military and development assistance. India's ideological stand on the other hand failed to produce any tangible changes in the Burma, instead it saw the strengthening Burma-China alliance as a possible threat to its eastern flank and maritime borders.

India also suffered increasing attacks along the border it shares with Burma from insurgent groups such as the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF). It assumed the milatry junta could have been of assistance in helping quell the insurgency.

With India's economic boom, private and government business eyed the market across the border. The military junta also wary of its over dependence on China were looking for alternate sources to help its development.

With its disengagement tactic failing, India was weighed down by its strategic and security concerns as well as Burma's business potential. It seems that it decided to put aside its moral and ethical ideology and instead engaged the military junta.

India-Burma ties; Mixed results and wrong signals:

Trade between the two countries is now said to soon reach 1B dollars. India will also become the largest investor in the country. India has managed to almost level its leverage with that of China's on the small nation.

Unfortunately Indian trade and cooperation has not just been in developing infrastructure and use of resources. It has become a major supplier of arms and ammunition's in an effort to make money and equal that of China's supplies. The Burmese generals have also been promising cooperation with the counter insurgency operations but have shown little in terms of true effort.

New Delhi hosted a visit by Burma's military leader in 2004 and more recently India's Minister for External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee visited Myanmar to further boost ties. He also gave a weak statement in response to the crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations by the Burmese Monks that raised eyebrows the world over. A government official is said to have compared India's alliance with the junta with that of US's interest in Pakistan's Musharaff.

What India can and should do:

India needs to adhere to the highest standards of international conduct to maintain its steadily increasing visibility on the world stage. It needs to revert to its morality and ethically driven ideologies in dealing with Burma. Trade sanctions might be necessary while maintaining humanitarian assistance. India needs to involve China in a bilateral coordinated move to find ways to pressure the regime to return the country to democracy. With both the nations working together neither would have to have be concerned about the other taking advantage of its pullback. The Burmese people are looking to the outside world to oust their oppressor. For India to fail them would be a grave error and a serious lack of moral considerations.

India's hungry can be fed

With billions in reserves (In 2001 India had a national stockpile of around 60 million tons of rice and wheat) and a robust economy India still suffers from a malnourishment epidemic and persistent hunger among many of its people. The United Nations' World Food Program claims that "nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India, a low-income, food-deficit country. Around 35 percent of India's population is considered food-insecure, consuming less than 80 percent of minimum energy requirements."

What causes the persistence of food deprivation in the country? Either the food production and/or availability are failing the people (Food Security) or the people that are hungry cannot afford to the buy the food that is available (Financial Security).

If it can be argued that these are the root causes of hunger then a society that ensures all its people an adequate and steady income to meet their basic needs along with a steady and easy access to most essential commodities from a public distribution system, then hunger could possibly be eradicated. Essentially a system of "Social Security" that ensures financial security along with food security.

Food Security:

The Food Corporation of India set up a public distribution system (PDS) with objectives that seem to satisfy food security with the assumption that its citizens would be able to afford its subsidized prices. The main objectives of the Public Distribution are threefold: first, to provide food grains to the poor at affordable prices; second, to support farmers by purchasing food from them at reasonable prices; and third, to maintain national food security by holding stockpiles of food.

The effort has been earnest and prevented large scale famine in India over the past several decades. However, its primary objective of being "poor" driven has not fared well with the universality of the PDS coverage and the absence of targeting. Every household, irrespective of its income, can have an entitlement card and draw food grains against it. The flaw in this mechanism is obvious; there is no commitment towards the poor. There is a larger drain on the stockpiles at the warehouses and at the local fair price shops. Unavailability and low quality of remaining supplies is a common problem at the retail sites. With a "poor" centric approach more resources could be diverted to improve the distribution and access to the economically driven regions. With a smaller pool of consumers, the efficacy of the system could also improve dramatically.

On its secondary goal of supporting farmers the PDS is only partly successful. The market driven and irrigation centered agricultural policies at the time of its formulation have the system only providing its beneficiaries with wheat and rice and four essential commodities (sugar, edible oil, soft coke and kerosene oil). The system then alienates not just non-cereal growers but also those that cultivate other cereals.

The Public distribution has been criticized for various other inadequacies such as the cost, distribution, management etc that are not being discussed here.

Financial Security:

The government recently began implementing the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). The NREGA provides a legal guarantee for one hundred days of employment in every financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage. It is an ambitious and expensive scheme. Also without getting to the root causes of financial insufficiency and dealing with it, the system could become overburdened and unsustainable. In the articles I referenced for this piece, there seems to be a lot of debate regarding the cause of poverty, which eventually leads to hunger, with little consensus. It also remains to be seen if the minimum wage would be sufficient for the basic shelter and food needs. There needs to be a combined impetus towards training unskilled workers with skills that can be better utilized in the Indian marketplace. It is however a step towards ensuring financial security for the poor.

It seems that India might actually have the answer to its hunger problem in its public distribution system and NREGA. If these two grand schemes can work in tandem and in a more poor centric way, the hungry might get to be fed.

(References for this essay included articles and papers by Amartya Sen, Vandana Shiva, reports from UN's "World Food Program", articles published by "Global Policy Forum" and "Reducing Poverty and Hunger in India: The Role of Agriculture" IFPRI 2004-2005 Annual Report Essay)