Intolerance rears its ugly head

I keep hoping these stories will become less frequent, but they just don't: certain parties of the Indian polity appear preternaturally threatened by any divergence from what they presume is the norm, and they're willing to become violent to express their discontent.

Exhibit A: At a high-profile event to raise money for AIDS awareness, Richard Gere hammily kisses Shilpa Shetty on the cheek. News outlets, high on the scent of Bollywood/Hollywood celebrity, print the picture and replay the event ad infinitum.

Rather innocuous; he's not kissing her on the mouth, he's clearly showboating, and it's exactly the sort of overdramatic, I'm-a-hero blockbuster crap that should go unnoticed, or, at worst, ridiculed for being unnecessarily cheesy.

Not so in the delightful subconty; no, Gere is being harangued to tender an apology, people in Mumbai are burning effigies of Shetty (and, apparently in some cases, screaming "Death to Shilpa!"), the BJP insists that "Such a public display is not part of Indian tradition" (what about kisses in Bollywood movies, though?), and the Shiv Sena describes the event as "an attack on India's cultural ethos," and the involved parties are explaining that it was just, you know, a thing that happened, certainly not obscene or meant to harm anyone's sensibilities (on target, misguided, or otherwise)

Exhibit B: Members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena in Mumbai attacked the offices of Star News in protest over their coverage of a Muslim and Hindu girl eloping. An executive editor is injured; the property is damaged, and more than 40 cars are smashed with hammers and iron rods. While the news channel certainly may have "glorified the love story" (what channel doesn't exploit ANY story they see as capable of driving ratings?), I fail to see how this can be construed as "anti-national," as the Hindu Rashtra Sena claims.

There are certainly many people who think these reactions are insane, overwrought, and completely unnecessary, but the fact that the BJP is once again gaining political power (e.g., regaining a simple majority following the Municipal Corporation of Delhi elections earlier this year) is a bit unnerving when they appear to be tacitly (or explicitly) promoting a sort of close-minded provincialism.

I suppose what it comes down to for me is how flummoxingly protectionist people can be about a culture that is persistent, resilient, and vibrant as India's, while at the same time boasting about how strong India is, how it will become the world's next superpower, &c. It seems like simple logic that if India is to influence hundreds of countries across the globe, it will have to witness some things that are a bit "foreign" to its storied history, as well. It happens in the U.S. as well, lest we overlook examples such as (successful) attempts to legislate about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Am I being too optimistic, assuming that eventually people will come to their senses and acknowledge that, although it might not be the path one individual might choose, another individual still has the right to live his or her life as he or she chooses, sloppy kisses and all?

Reality and race

So if you're in India or the U.K., you know there's been a firestorm of criticism over Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother, with brazen reality hussies mocking Bollywood bomb Shilpa Shetty. It might be racism, it might be ignorance, it might just be people with nothing better to do than form petty, meaningless blocs that can bandy insults back and forth.

Seeing as I haven't actually viewed any footage (of them allegedly calling her a "Paki," a "dog," and telling her she can't speak English), I can't really comment; furthermore, even if I did see it, it's nearly impossible to divine the intent behind the words, because, to an extent, they should be considered within the context of the incredibly strange, surreal situation of being locked in a house and filmed 24 hours a day, which may or may not cause people to behave as they would not in the "real world." If you do want more info, or a comparison of how media is covering this (which I find endlessly fascinating), try this link.

No, I'll restrict my comments to a short criticism of India's I&B minister, Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, who has decided that this is an excellent occasion to highlight just how reactive and moronic government officials can be. According to Vijay Rana's report in the Indian Express ("Government's latest role: Shilpa Shetty's Big Brother"), "...Dasmunsi said actors on foreign assignments should 'inform the government' and also the Indian High Commissions/embassies on reaching foreign shores so that not only the Bharatiy nari's samman [Indian woman's honor] is safe, the country is also saved from 'unnecessary embarrassment.'"

1) I fail to see how a few narrow-minded, silicone-injected, bleached blonde bimbos (if that is indeed what they are) could harm the honor of roughly 500 million people;
2) Will Salman Khan or Mallika Sherawat reporting to an Indian consulate necessarily prevent him or her from making an ass of him or herself and, by extension, the ass of the subcontinent?
3) Isn't this more embarrassing to the U.K. public at large, if one can extrapolate that manufactured C-listers represent the pulse of a nation?

(Note: I am QUITE heartened by the response of Shetty's spokesperson -- "Shilpa's family strongly feels that this is a game, and it should be treated in that spirit, rather than becoming an issue between two nations." At least someone has some damned sense. Unfortunately, of course, not the respondents to an IE online poll, 54% of whom think the government was right to butt into the situation.)