Stereotype, Prejudice, Discrimination

Moscow, 1998

On a relatively cold evening in 1998, I was walking down a street in the south-west of Moscow. My hands were inside the pockets of my bluish jacket. A large vehicle stopped next to me. Before I realized what was happening, two Russian policemen pointing guns alighted and ordered me to raise my hands. As soon as I complied, they rushed towards me, twisted my hands behind, and handcuffed me.

“Заткнись!”  (Rude translation of Shut Up), said the blue-eyed, blond policeman as I tried to say something. They made me walk with them to a building nearby. It had a room which they used as a makeshift police station. The taller man frisked me in a humiliating way. He asked me to remove my jacket and realizing I couldn’t do it with my hands shackled behind, took off the handcuffs.

Once I removed the jacket, he took a pair of sharp scissors and unceremoniously cut its entire lining. Vigorous shaking of the jacket convinced him there were no drugs hidden inside. By now, I became bold enough to take out my “accreditation card” and give it to them. The Russian policeman glanced at it briefly before giving me the torn jacket and letting me go, without so much as a simple ‘sorry’.

Warsaw, 1999

A few weeks later, my employer, British American Tobacco, said they were transferring me to my next posting, Warsaw. Nothing to do with the incident above. I had been in Russia for too long. I went to Warsaw on a two-day look-see visit. Before I left Warsaw, one of the directors there told me that the Polish management would prefer to have a Polish guy take the position offered to me. It was nice meeting you, but sorry, we would prefer a local guy.

Over the next few months, BAT’s Polish directors tried everything to stop my transfer. But BAT’s head office was in London. After lengthy arguments between London and Warsaw, six months later, my going to Poland was officially announced. With a compromise: I should prove myself in the first six months. If not, the Polish management had the right to replace me with a Polish guy.

In the first two months, the Polish management tried to make my life miserable in every which way. I was refused a three-room apartment I chose, though a British guy a level below me was given a two- story house. The justification was that he had three kids and I none. The Polish Board hurriedly met and passed an emergency policy change to link the size of the flat to the size of the family.

I scientifically devised and sent across Poland a price-list for our products, part of my marketing job description. I was made to retract it, because it would upset our competitors.

UK, 2003

I moved to the UK after Poland. On two occasions, English boys, complete strangers to me, called me “Paki” in my face.

*****

Stereotype, prejudice and discrimination  

Psychology textbooks talk about stereotype, prejudice and discrimination.

Stereotype is our pigeonholing the behavior of a whole class of people. This can be positive, neutral or negative.

Women are emotional, men are rational, French are romantic, Muslims are dangerous, Jews are intelligent and business-minded, Americans laugh too loudly, British are hypocrites, Asians are dirty, Africa can’t produce chess grandmasters –these are examples of stereotyping.  

Prejudice is, as a rule, negative. “Women are emotional” is a fairly neutral statement. That stereotype may be positive or negative depending on the context. But “women are bad drivers” is a prejudice. The prejudiced person knows that every woman drives badly.

Discrimination is a step further than prejudice. It is acting based on the prejudice. A bank chairman thinks a male CEO is needed to run the operations of the giant bank. That is his prejudice. As a result, he rejects all female candidates (despite politely talking to them) and appoints a man as a CEO. That is discrimination because the activation of the prejudice has been unfair to some.

Yesterday, Trump announced names of six more countries, including Africa’s most populous Nigeria, as part of the US travel ban. Prejudice against those nations clubbed each and every citizen into one pigeonhole- BAD. Ban them from travelling to the USA. This is an example of a state-sponsored racial discrimination.

My experiences

In light of these definitions, let me analyze the three experiences I narrated earlier.

I was a perfect stranger to the blue-eyed, fair-skinned, Russian policemen with Slavic features. They could have mistaken me for a Chechen, or simply assumed that a dark man with dark hair and dark eyes must be carrying weapons and/or drugs. This was their prejudice and they acted on it. I consider myself a decent, respectable person. Certainly respectable enough not to be handcuffed without reason. However, my features were part of a stereotype that was not respectable from the viewpoint of the Russian policemen.  

In Poland, the discrimination against me by the Poles stopped after three months or so. After interacting with me on a daily basis, they realized I didn’t fit the stereotype. I was far more experienced and competent than any local candidate they had in mind. It’s possible some Poles didn’t like me, but that was no longer a class-prejudice. Once I began speaking with them in Polish, they gradually forgot I was a foreigner. My promotion happened without anybody discussing my six-month probation.

This is the difference between judging a class (stereotype) versus judging an individual. The visa process is a good example. US and Europe institute visas for Indians as a result of racial prejudice. But through the detailed visa process, they assess an individual. Based on that assessment, visas are issued to individuals. Trump’s blanket ban is anti-individual.  

Coming to my UK experience: Paki.  Those Brits who use that racial slur can’t distinguish between Indians and Pakistanis. I would say they are giving vent to their prejudice. The true spirit of democracy allows you to hate anyone, and true freedom of speech allows you to insult anyone. Racial slurs are prejudice-driven; by themselves they are not discriminatory.

There is a noteworthy difference between the racial discrimination I experienced in Poland and Russia. The discrimination practiced by the Polish Directors of the company was private- not state supported. They could harass me, but not handcuff me.

In Moscow, the Russian uniformed policemen handcuffing me were State supported. On that day, suspicion could have also prompted those militiamen to kill me. And nothing serious would have happened to them.

This is the reason the State-sponsored discrimination is the most dangerous, most lethal. Because the state can arrest, imprison or kill any person with impunity – even in a democratic state.

USA and Japan

I will give a historical example of State-sponsored racial discrimination by quoting a passage from a book.  

The Japanese, all American patriots knew, were Apes, monkeys, reptiles, insects, mice, rats, vipers, rattlesnakes. The slogan was: Good Japs are dead Japs. … General Slim, veteran of the Burma campaigns, reckoned that the allies had kicked over an ant-hill (another name for Japan)… now was the time to stamp on them.

While the US and other Allied armed forces were comprehensively exploiting plain racism in confrontation with Japan, thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans were being incarcerated in concentration camps in the United States. The “treacherous Japs” in America could not be trusted: If America was at war with Japan, only one course of action was possible. Congressman Ford of California represented a common view, maintaining: “that all Japanese, whether citizens or not, be placed in inland concentration camps…

There were no signs that the American-Japanese were about to pose a security threat to the United States in the Second World War, but this very lack of evidence was a damning circumstance. Thus the US army issued its conclusive judgment: the very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken.

By 11 August 1942, some 110,000 Japanese in America had been forcibly removed from their homes and businesses and confined in transitional concentration camps before final relocation in permanent ones. The result was racial harassment and abuse, the break-up of families, suicide, the collapse of businesses, and the demoralization and despair of the ethnic Japanese in the United States.

[Vietnam Syndrome by Geoff Simmons (pgs 126-127)]

As we know well, America not only imprisoned 110,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, it pulverized more than 200,000 innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb; Harry Truman, the US president who ordered the strikes, Henry Stimson, the secretary of war, the pilots who dropped the bombs, and majority of the American population were overjoyed after killing 200,000 Japs. This is what state-sponsored war hysteria does. State discrimination legitimizes imprisoning and killing an ethnic group.

*****

Today, USA and Japan are close allies and partners. People of the two countries view one another favorably.  Japanese cars and consumer electronics are particularly popular in the USA. USA takes care of Japan’s defence.

What does this tell us? That nothing is intrinsically wrong with any race or religion. State-supported discrimination and war hysteria are capable of poisoning sane minds. Prejudiced citizens are willing to support their state’s discrimination campaign. Empowered, the state can arrest, imprison and kill innocent people in thousands.

Political prejudice

Prejudice and discrimination based on race, religion and gender are well-known. I would like to add a new 21^st century category to it: Political prejudice.

“Oh my god, how could he vote for Brexit? I thought he was of a sound mind.”

“I saw his FB posts on Modi. I can’t believe he is the same person I knew for so many years. I have unfriended him.”

“Fox News should be banned. It’s a Trump channel. How can they be so biased?” and so on.

The Political prejudice of the 21^st century is inflamed by social media. Earlier we were not aware of the opinions of our friends, family members on political issues. For decades, communities could enjoy life without discussing politics. Now FB and WhatsApp have given everyone a platform. Opinions are visible. Hate groups can be formed quickly. Halo and horn effect have gripped the population. Meaning if I love Modi, then everything he does is good, and if I hate him, everything he does is nasty. Not only that, if I love Modi, everyone I love must love Modi as well. If they hate Modi, I must start hating them. This is the modern political prejudice.

There is no human being without prejudices, neither you nor me. Because we can’t always control our brain. If it wishes to create a stereotype, or a prejudice, we can’t stop it. But we don’t need to act on our prejudices. Unless we lose our minds (which happens when minds are brainwashed), we can control our actions. By not acting on our prejudices, whatever they may be, we avoid discrimination.

Termites

India’s home minister has so far called the Bangladeshi illegal immigrants “termites”. That could have been discounted as election rhetoric or personal prejudice. But now with the introduction of the CAA-NRC-Detention camps package, that prejudice has been converted into State-Sponsored Discrimination.

Applied history tells us that unless such discrimination is nipped in the bud, it eventually leads to intense hatred, war hysteria, concentration camps, and massive destruction and casualties.

Ravi

CAA-NRC and the Supreme Court

One is a relative, the other a stranger, say the petty minded

The entire world is a family, say the magnanimous

[[Maha upnishad: Chapter 6, verse 72]

Note: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the entire world is a single family), the verse above, is engraved at the entrance to the hall of India’s parliament.

Crime of the descendents

In June 1971, Sabbir Rafi fled his village near Dhaka and crossed the border into West Bengal. The Pakistani military was raping, looting, torturing and killing the East Pakistanis in what was the largest genocide operation since Hitler. Sabbir was fortunate to run away with his wife and children. His son Nabil was 10 and daughter Safina, 6. In India, Sabbir began working as an electrician, his children graduated, Nabil worked in a bank and Safina taught in a school. Sabbir had four grandchildren born between 1988 and 1990. The family further expanded with great-grandchildren born between 2010 and 2013. At the time of his death in 2015, Sabbir Rafi had two children, four grandchildren, and four great grand-children. Other than Nabil and Safina, who entered India as kids, the rest of the family was born in India, had never left India, and had never set foot in Bangladesh. Not having seen or been to another country, they considered themselves Indian.

India’s CAA-NRC package (citizenship amendment act/national register of citizens) now prescribes sending Nabil, Safina, their four children and four grandchildren to detention camps. All existing Indian detention centers are inside jails. The Rafi family can be officially detained there for three years with no right to bail. In case Bangladesh doesn’t accept them as citizens, they can be held in jail for ever. As the descendents of illegal immigrants, they can never become Indian citizens.

If Sabbir Rafi and his family had been Hindus, they would be awarded Indian passports in a government ceremony instead of rotting in detention camps.

Inclusion includes exclusion

It is argued that the CAA is about giving, rather than taking away, citizenship. Sounds like a bunch of schoolgirl bullies ostracizing a girl by not talking to her. Anyone who has studied the set theory in mathematics knows that what is not included is excluded. At the toss before a cricket match, a team of 11 players is announced. They are the privileged ones. Try telling others that the team selection was about picking the 11 players, not un-picking the rest. Whichever angle you choose to look from, the fact is that those not in the team are denied the honour of playing in the match.

CAA is not a standalone act. CAA along with the proposed NRC (National register of citizens) and the government order to build detention centers across India is a comprehensive initiative.

Persecution of minorities

People like Sabbir Rafi fleeing East Pakistan were persecuted by Muslims (West Pakistanis). The argument that Muslims can’t be persecuted in Muslim countries is false. Most Bangladeshi refugees in 1971 were persecuted in a Muslim country by fellow Muslims. And their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, forming a majority of the illegal population, are India-born and India-bred.

The Indian government has chosen Trumpism as its model. But it has managed to out-trump Trump himself. In the USA, children born of parents, however illegal, are American citizens as long as they are born on American soil. India now plans to arrest, detain and deport all Muslims under 32 years (1 July 1987 is the cut-off date) whose ancestors entered India after 1971.  

Human existence is the proof

For decades, Indians could take pride in that they could live their entire life without any documents. My own father, (who never went to school) has no birth certificate, naturally no school-leaving certificate nor a marriage certificate. But at 86, he exists, is happily married and thinks of himself as an Indian.

Human existence itself should be the proof of human existence, not documents. In the welfare societies of Europe and America, documentation helps citizens procure benefits- unemployment allowance, pensions, social security and so on. India is a poor country; its government offers no social security. Why then imitate the welfare States by being obsessed about documents?

By threatening imprisonment, the proposed legislation shifts the onus of proving existence to the citizens. Unlike America, birth in India (after 1987) no longer makes you a citizen. You need to prove none of your ancestors, alive and dead, migrated to India illegally. Not only Sabbir Rafi’s family, whose ancestors really entered India from East Pakistan, but each and every Muslim family must prove their ancestors were legal.

In a country that had little or no documentation, this is a burden that will be a source of harassment, corruption and mental torture. In a country where birth certificates were not mandatory, its government is now asking its Muslim residents to prove the pedigree of their ancestors. Since this is done with retrospective effect, it is illogical and bad in law. The Indian state can make birth certificates mandatory if they wish, create a State mechanism to ensure everyone gets one at birth, and only then require the residents to offer it as a proof of their existence, not with retrospective effect.

The hypocrisy

This is not the first time for a CAA initiative - there was a previous attempt four years ago. The Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a notification on 7 September 2015 to amend the passport act. That notification had a similar, but not identical, wording.  

On 12 December 2019, the CAA (citizenship amendment act, 2019) was passed by both the houses. It came into force on 10 January 2020.

If you read those two documents carefully, there are three key differences.

a.      The wording “Persons belonging to minority communities” is now omitted. Minority communities, I presume, is a sensitive phrase.

b.      Afghanistan has been included for good measure. In 2015, only Pakistan and Bangladesh were mentioned. Why this change? Afghani refugees are tiny in number; India’s foreign ministry gave a figure of 18,000 in 2011. This inclusion is probably a result of lobbying. Or it’s a prelude to inclusion of more Muslim countries in the future – à la Trump.  Pakistan and Bangladesh are any way the most sensitive and controversial. Because their migrants speak the Indian languages, and are indistinguishable from Indian Muslims. That opens up an opportunity to question the origins of every Indian Muslim.

c.       The words “… who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and entered into India on or before the 31^st December 2014…” are a surprise omission.

India’s Home Minister has been talking of persecution of Hindus and other minorities, but in the Act, references to minorities and persecution are both omitted. Why? Because only during the 1971 war, there was major persecution (including that of Muslims by a Muslim state). The majority of illegal entrants in later years have come for economic reasons. Keeping the word persecution would have meant kicking out Hindu economic migrants. This is, in fact, what people in Assam want. They want all illegal immigrants, Hindus and Muslims alike, to be removed from India.

Talking to the media about persecution and omitting it from the Act is as great a hypocrisy as writing ‘world is a single family’ on the parliament’s entrance and introducing this act inside.

The problem started in Assam in the 70s. That post-war immigration problem has now been distorted to give it a Muslims persecuting Hindus colour.

Which country sends the highest number of visitors to India? Bangladesh. It’s the only country from which more than 2 million tourists visit India each year. If it was such a persecuting nation, why would India issue millions of visas to its residents, and increase the risk of illegal migration? No, it’s simply another example of duplicity. Bangladesh has more than 12 million Hindus, the largest minority group. Though declining in percentage because Muslims are more fertile than Hindus, the absolute number grows each year.

Pakistan statistics quoted by India’s home minister qualifies as ‘alternative facts’. He repeatedly quotes Pakistan with 23% and Bangladesh with 22% non-Muslims in 1947. A deliberate case of double counting. West Pakistan (today’s Pakistan) had only 3.4% non-Muslims, not 23%. The proportion of non-Muslims in Pakistan has gone up from 3.4% (1951) to 3.7% (1998) as per the Pakistani census.

Identifying Hindus and Muslims

Rajan Khan is a prolific best-selling Marathi writer. He is an atheist. He was born a Hindu. To protest against bigotry, he changed his name to Khan. Everyone in his family carries that surname. How will the police classify his family? As Hindus? As Muslims?

Nature and science can only distinguish between a man and a woman. Or between a man and an animal. Religion is man-made. No Indian ID mentions a person’s religion. India has no procedure to register a person’s religion at a temple. Will the government specify how to identify a Hindu and a Muslim? Features such as a beard? Skull cap? Pierced ears? Circumcision?

What if a Pakistani migrant converted to Hinduism? Does he become a citizen? What if a Bangladeshi Hindu converted to Islam? Is he sent to jail? And what about atheists? The Act doesn’t offer pardon to atheists.

The updating of the NRC for Assam started in 2013. Mainly because a judge from Assam (Ranjan Gogoi) became a Supreme Court judge in 2012. It took six years to update the register. Out of 33 million, 1.9 millon applicants were excluded. If it took 6 years for 33 millon (Assam), mathematically, for 1.4 billion (India) it will take 254 years. To shorten the time, India will need to abandon all economic activity, recruit a few million people to create the NRC, and a few million policemen to investigate and arrest.

Supreme Court has little choice

Above are only a few of the key arguments.

The Act does not reflect the Government’s stand (no reference to persecution or minorities).

The Act coupled with the National Register is unconscionable in that any Muslim under 32 can be arrested, detained and deported, even when born and bred in India.

The Act is discriminatory and unconstitutional in that while an Indian-born Muslim under 32 can be imprisoned, a non-Muslim under 32 is awarded citizenship.

The Act is bad in law because the burden of proof is shifted to the citizen with retrospective effect. Particularly bad, because such proof (birth certificate and others) was never mandatory. The proof required now includes proof of citizenship of ancestors long dead.

The Act doesn’t specify the way to identify a person’s religion. It is silent on converted Hindus, converted Muslims and atheists. Creating the NRC (National Register of Citizens) on the lines of Assam is likely to take 254 years.

The Act converts India from a democratic to a police state. An order to build detention centers in each state and filling them with young Muslim families is a bigoted, immoral action. Having a great-grandfather who ran away from a Pakistani war zone fifty years ago is defined as a crime of Indian Muslim youth.

India’s Supreme Court has little choice. In 2006, it struck down a similar but less horrifying initiative (IMDT act, 1983) by the Indira Gandhi government (Sarbananda Sonawal vs Union of India on 5 December 2006). It took the court 22 years to decide the case by calling the act ultra vires the constitution.  

This time, hopefully, the Court will be faster in banning the CAA-NRC package. It’s not a great feeling to belong to a Police State.

Ravi

References:

1.       https://indianfrro.gov.in/frro/Notifications_dated_7.9.2015.pdf  Notification in September 2015 which talked about the persecution of minorities, a reference now omitted.

2.      https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/UserGuide/E-gazette_2019_20122019.pdf The text of the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act.

3.      https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/cab-shows-bjps-ignorance-about-assamese-sensitivities/articleshow/72500425.cms Criticism by Assam’s chief minister.

4.      https://www.pscp.tv/w/1RDGlNvpWozxL India’s home minister offering alternative facts.

5.      https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-bangladesh-non-muslim-population-citizenship-amendment-bill-bjp-1627678-2019-12-12 Since its formation, Pakistan’s (today’s Pakistan) non-Muslim population was never more than 3.5%. Including East Pakistan is a case of double counting.

6.       https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1436100/ The Supreme Court strikes down the Illegal migrants act, 1983 (Indira Gandhi government) declaring it ultra vires the constitution.

7.      https://www.loc.gov/law/help/undocumented-migrants/india.php Children of undocumented migrants. A disturbing document.

8.     https://www.hrln.org/admin/issue/subpdf/Refugee_populations_in_India.pdf  Report of refugee populations in India. Though outdated (2007), makes an interesting reading.

9.      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bg.html CIA states Hindus in Bangladesh constitute 10% of the population.

10.  https://www.upsciq.com/magazine_months/march-2019/?shaarSlug=model-detention-manual The Indian central govt has asked all states and union territories to set up at least one detention center. It is suggestive that the detention manual is not available anywhere in the internet.

R.

Raincoat

In December 2004, my British friend Lisa came to Bombay to visit me. Lisa and I are friends for more than thirty years. She is a lesbian and I am very straight. That makes it an enviable platonic friendship. On that trip, Lisa had come with a girl older than her. Don’t know if they were mere friends or more, but it was none of my business.

Bombay is not a touristy place. Once the two British girls saw the Gateway of India, the Gothic architecture in South Bombay built by their own ancestors, and refused to visit the Elephanta Island, because of the Tsunami which had happened that week, not much remained to be seen. From the day of arrival, they had expressed interest in Bollywood. I had to disappoint them by saying there is no such place as Bollywood. Hollywood exists, but not Bollywood. The best thing that can be done is to watch a Bollywood movie.

Bollywood movies are fairy tales for adults. Protagonists must be good looking, the leading lady Miss Universe if possible. Villains must look and act nasty. Every fifteen minutes or so, the storyline freezes, and everyone starts dancing. The leads (called the hero and the heroine) take carefully choreographed bollywood steps, and behind them are hundreds of dancers creating the Indian corps de ballet. The dances are extremely colorful, rhythms invigorating, sets appealing and tunes catchy. The seven or eight songs in the film may have nothing to do with the plot, but they offer a welcome relief to those who wish to buy popcorns, visit restrooms or answer missed calls. In effect, every Bollywood film is a musical. I thought Lisa and her friend would enjoy that part much. Also I won’t need to translate anything when the songs are on.

I checked with my Indian friends. They recommended Dhoom, a blockbuster film of that year. It was a nonstop action thriller, with seven or eight songs. An ideal film for foreigners wishing to get a taste of Bollywood. Dhoom had the famous Dhoom machale number, which I was obliged to listen to every morning at my gym.

In 2004, we couldn’t yet book movie tickets on internet. I checked the Dhoom timings in the newspaper. Lisa, her friend and I took a taxi to a nearby multi-screen cinema. We waited patiently in the queue for tickets, anxiously looking at the watch. I like to watch the ads before the movies.

“Three tickets for Dhoom, please.” I said at the counter.

“Dhoom? That’s house-full.” The man, whose head was the only visible part, said. I thought he frowned to suggest people just can’t walk in ten minutes before Dhoom and expect to get tickets.

“Look, I have my friends from abroad here. They wish to see a Bollywood movie. If Dhoom is not possible… do you have tickets… for…. Hulchul?” That was another recommendation from friends. This one had Kareena Kapoor, and six songs.

“No tickets for Hulchul either.” The man said. By now the queue behind us was getting restless. Indians respect foreigners, but only up to a certain point. The ticket seller gave me the names of the remaining films.

“I have tickets for Raincoat. Raincoat has Aishwarya Rai.”

Raincoat was a good English title. Maybe the film has lots of English dialogue, I thought. And Aishwarya Rai was a Miss World. I briefly told Lisa what the options were, and bought tickets for Raincoat.

By the time we reached our seats, we had missed the ads and trailers. Suddenly Raincoat, the feature of the day, started. The film begins with Ajay Devgan, the lead actor, coming to Calcutta from a smaller town. He has lost his job. He meets the woman (Aishwarya Rai) he was engaged to many years ago. She is now married. For the first ten minutes, maybe twenty, the two protagonists are in a depressing-looking room, just talking to each other. Films connected to Bengal are generally depressing. This one had no music, no songs. The two protagonists were speaking in chaste Hindi. Of course, no subtitles.

In the darkness, I turned to Lisa and whispered, “I am so sorry. The title Raincoat was misleading. They are talking in pure Hindi. And no songs, no dances. It seems unlikely there will be any. Please tell me when you wish to leave, and we will leave. Sorry.”

I waited for five minutes. I had lost interest in the film. As soon as Lisa gave a signal, we would all leave. Lisa was still focused on the screen. I kept taking my eyes off the screen and looking at her for a sign.

“We can leave when you wish.” I said once again.

“No, no. It’s fine. I think we will guess the storyline. In any case, I can just keep watching her endlessly.”

Well, if Lisa is happy looking at Aishwarya for two hours, why should I hurry? Or worry? Gradually, I got over my guilt, and began to get involved in the movie.

At interval, three of us came out.

“Once again, so sorry for bringing you to this film. I want you to know this film is exactly what Bollywood films are not. If I wanted you to understand how Bollywood films are not made, I would have selected this film. It must be a torture for you to sit through the hour without understanding a word. I can give you….”

“On the contrary…” Lisa said. “We understood the whole story. The visual medium doesn’t need words. And these are good actors. We are enjoying the film, don’t worry.”

Wow, I thought. I had always admired Lisa’s intelligence. To appreciate a film without knowing a word in that language was remarkable.

“She is a prostitute.” Lisa began. “And he is a drug-dealer. Both are unhappy about their professions. That unhappiness has brought them together. They are discussing how both of them can escape with each other’s help….”

Lisa went on and on. Giving me minute details of the storyline. I didn’t interrupt her. My initial thought was to give the English girls the gist of the story, until interval. Since I had not seen the film before, I had no idea what would happen in the second half. But if I could tell Lisa the story till interval, that would make her life easier. When Lisa told me the story, I changed my mind.

The English girls had invented a story. Just by watching what was happening on the screen. They could continue in the same vein till the end of the film.

I said nothing. Of course, she was not a prostitute, neither was he a drug-dealer. Lisa’s was a western perspective on the images she had seen. Her entire storyline, though interesting, had absolutely nothing to do with the real storyline. But who was I to disrupt her creativity? Would the real story be as enjoyable for them as the fiction in their mind?

We re-entered the auditorium to watch the movie. On that day, Lisa and I watched the same movie with two different storylines.

Ravi

Lord Ram vs. Emperor Babur

On Saturday, 9 November 2019, India’s Supreme Court gave its final verdict on the Ayodhya dispute. Faithful Hindus considered a piece of land in Ayodhya to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Unfortunately, Babri mosque (named after the Mughal emperor Babur, an invader from today’s Uzbekistan) stood precisely at that spot. Court cases between Hindus and Muslims claiming ownership have been going on for the past 70 years. In 1992, dozens of overenthusiastic Hindus took matters and hammers in their own hands, and demolished the Babri mosque.

On Saturday, the Supreme Court awarded the land to Hindus based on archeological evidence; for good measure confirmed the act of demolishing the mosque was criminal; and offered to Muslims five acres of prominent land somewhere in Ayodhya as a consolation prize. The case offers several interesting, even amusing, points.

Deity as a plaintiff

India is a religious country. No wonder the Indian law allows God to be a plaintiff (or defendant) in a court case. In the Ayodhya case, the child version of Lord Ram (Ram Lalla or infant Ram) was the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of India may be supreme, but surely it can’t be more supreme than God Himself. Lord Ram won the case. He showed the courage and endurance to be a party to the case. (Babur was merely represented by a Sunny Waqf Board). The infant Ram probably turned into an elderly Ram during the court process. After fighting successfully a protracted judicial battle, He will now get a lovely, magnificent temple.

History and mythology

I was once naively arguing with a faithful Hindu about the Ayodhya dispute. Babur is a historical figure, I said, while Lord Ram is a mythological figure.

“Not true”, that man said. “Lord Ram is as historical, as factual, as Emperor Babur. Babur was born more than 500 years ago (in 1483). Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya on 10 Jan 5114 BC, more than 7000 years ago. Just because Ram was born centuries before Babur, does He become a myth, a fiction, and Babur a fact? How do you know that Babur existed? That Jesus Christ existed? Because you trust the history books that talk about Babur or Jesus. Similarly, I trust Ramayana which is the authentic biography of Lord Ram.”

The reverse journey

How far can you go back in history? To understand the time machine that the Supreme Court used, I must mention certain dates.  

Babri Masjid was built 491 years ago, closer to Babur’s death. What was in that place before? This was the question the Supreme Court was asked to decide. To decide it scientifically, all relevant literature in the past 500 years, and before, was scrutinized to find references to the Babri Masjid or Ram temple. The literature included Baburnama, Babur’s memoirs (1589), Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas (1574) and Abul Fazl ibn Mubarak’s Ain-i-Akbari (1598).

The most important witness in the case was the Archeological Society of India (ASI). In 2003, its experts conducted an in-depth excavation resulting in 1360 discoveries. It was fortunate that a decade before that the mosque was demolished by Hindu mobs. Without that, such excavations would have been impossible.

You break it, you own it

The wittiest comment related to the verdict compared the case to a gift retail shop. In a gift shop while browsing, if you drop a gift and damage it; it becomes part of your bill. This is called the American Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.

What would have been the Supreme Court’s verdict if Babri Masjid was not destroyed? Would it still gift the land to the Hindus, asking them to build a temple there by demolishing the mosque? Probably not. No civilized court would, by a written order, authorize destruction of a 500-year ancient mosque.

Is this, then, a route to replace more mosques with temples? Mobs first go and demolish a mosque. The Archeological Society of India recruits hundreds of experts, excavates, finds ancient evidence, and then the court gifts the place to Hindus. After all, before 700 AD, Islam itself didn’t exist. Thirteen centuries ago, every piece of land where a mosque stands today must have had something Hindu there before.

For the holy Hindus with hammers, I am afraid, this strategy will not work. On 18 September 1991, the Indian government issued an act freezing the status of all places of worship in India: a mosque remains a mosque, a church a church and a temple a temple. Irrespective of what was in their place in the past. Section 5 of the act made a single exception: The act would not apply to Ram Janmbhumi-Babri Masjid. This exception allowed the Supreme Court to convert a Masjid land into a temple.

The verdict

The five Supreme Court judges who delivered the unanimous verdict have made the full text of the verdict available in www, in a clever manner. The main text runs into 1045 pages, has no executive summary, and the index has no page numbers. Every conscientious analyst and commentator is expected to read the 1045 pages to digest the excellent verdict. Sorry, but I refuse to do so. I am glad Lord Ram won the case. His winning offers peace a better chance. His winning or losing makes absolutely no change in my life, or in the lives of most Indians. Who is economically affected by this verdict? Mainly, the lawyers on both sides who carried on the attack and the defence for decades. Perhaps, employees of the Archaeological society- for them nothing further to excavate in that place. Possibly, politicians who needed it for election manifesto. Everyone else is indifferent to the court cases going on since 1950.

Muslims are offered five acres of prominent land in Ayodhya as compensation. Almost double the size of the original landholding. Another gorgeous mosque, perhaps a replica of the Babri mosque, can be built there. Muslims anyway have Mecca and Medina. Surely, they can sacrifice a single mosque for Hindus. (One that was demolished anyway). I won’t be surprised if this was the logic the Supreme Court of India used in arriving at its unanimous decision.

Ravi

The Big Mac Affair

Employees who have a direct or indirect reporting relationship to each other are prohibited from dating or having a sexual relationship: McDonald’s employee policy

On 1 Nov 2019, McDonalds fired its President and Chief executive Steve Easterbrook, 52, for his consensual relationship with an employee. Easterbrook was competent, innovative, on his watch McDonald’s share price had more than doubled. His salary was nearly 16 million USD per annum. If he was romantically involved with a colleague, was that not his private business? If the relationship was consensual, how could an employer interfere with it? If two consenting adults fall in love, is it not strange that in a country like America, companies call it an offence and sack the offending employee? McDonald’s is not an exception. More than 75% companies now ban office romances, particularly if one of the two dating employees is a boss of another – either directly or in the chain of command.

Office romances

In the multinational company where I worked, dating and relationships were a norm. In Russia and Poland, where I worked for more than a decade, most employees were young, in their twenties. Because following the collapse of communism, the reformed countries were young themselves. Russia had a lovely kissing culture that prompted men and women to start their working day by kissing one another. Russian custom requires a man to kiss a woman three times, and that custom was followed more rigorously than any company policies. This was a tobacco company. We spent days in the offices and nights at the clubs. The company looked like a club for the young people, and cigarettes were only an excuse that allowed those young people to meet one another. I can give a long list, but won’t, of the relationships – some of them converted into marriages. Certainly this company had no anti-dating policy, times were different.

The awkward relationships

Doesn’t mean all relationships were equal or innocent.

A British boss, head of a country, had started dating his secretary. He was married and she was divorced. In a couple of months, he promoted her and doubled her salary. In absence of a policy, the only reaction from the Board was raising of eyebrows.

A German director didn’t hide his relationship with his secretary either. This low-intelligence woman became a de facto director. Access to the German director was possible only through her. The subordinates, some of them fairly senior executives themselves, required to discuss critical matters with this moronic woman, seek her consent for certain actions. This was visible and tolerated, god only knows why.

A template case not only in this company, but several others, was that of a married boss starting an affair with a younger subordinate. The unmarried girl enjoyed the perquisites of the relationship in form of promotions, paychecks, gifts at the same time expecting her boss to divorce his wife so that the two can start a new family. It never happened. The girl remained unmarried and left the company or the boss so late in life; it became difficult for her to find a replacement.

Such relationships mixing business with pleasure corrupt the office atmosphere, and are demotivating for the colleagues.

#MeToo

We are now in the 21^st century, a century not at all innocent. Maybe the earlier century was not innocent either, but women silently suffered abuse and harassment. A company such as McDonald’s employs young girls 16 onwards. There are regular reports of McDonald’semployees complaining of sexual harassment on the job. Their accusations include groping, indecent exposure, propositions for sex and lewd comments by supervisors against workers.

It is not easy for women to complain against sexual advances or harassment when the complaints can result in further harassment, stopping their promotions, giving them a bad appraisal or even loss of a job.

Not only the accused men, but also the employer can be sued for harassment or improper relationships. Companies such as McDonald’s take the safe way out and ban them to minimize any liability that may arise. The boss may be individually liable for misconduct, but the company defends itself by saying the company policy tried to prevent such misconduct.

How consensual is consent?  

We remember well the case of Bill Clinton. Clinton was 50 and the young intern in the White House was 23. He expected the young girl to offer not only written services which her job required but oral services as well. How easy is it for a 23-year old girl to say no to the President of the United States?

McDonald’s fired President Easterbrook is 52 years old. The identity of the girl he was in relationship with is not revealed. Without knowing anything about her, I would still bet she is much younger than Easterbrook. This is the Clinton-Lewinsky template, where the powerful man lures a young girl into bed. The greater the age difference, the greater the suspicion of it being the abuse of power. Usually the interest is merely biological; it’s an offence to call it love or romance.

What is the solution?

Let us assume Steve Easterbrook was genuinely in love with the girl. What were his options? Since he was the President and the CEO of McDonald’s, every female employee in the company was subordinate to him. He had no defence of somebody working in another department.

Since Easterbrook was earning a salary of 16 million USD, it is safe to assume the girl’s package was much lower. Before taking her to bed, Easterbrook should have suggested she left McDonald’s. She needed to weigh what was more important for her: Easterbrook or McDonald’s. If she were to leave McDonald’s, the issue would be solved. If she were to leave Easterbrook, she was probably not worth his love.

He could have disclosed his love to the HR department and asked for their advice. The HR department reported to him. In all probability, they would suggest the same thing: either the girl should leave the company, or Easterbrook should leave the girl.

Easterbrook earlier had a relationship with one Denise Paleothodoros, a PR employee of Golin, advisor to McDonald’s. When Easterbrook became McDonald’s’ president, she informed her company of the relationship. The McDonald’s account was taken off her to avoid any conflict of interest. This is a decent way to conduct affairs.

The other solution to the problem could be marriage. If love was so serious so as to result in a marriage, McDonald’s could have perhaps forgiven Easterbrook. Marriage can’t be misconduct. And marriage usually puts an end to all romance in a relationship.

Ravi