Over
the past few days, some statements in articles in the newspaper have created –
on their own or by a comment made by someone - certain level of unease in me. I
thought I will put down my uneasiness as an anthology of comments. The underlying
theme of this anthology is the discomfort I felt.
One
Ms. Parul Sharma Singh writes [1] that, “[M]en can never really understand (my emphasis) what it is to
be a woman living in Delhi.” No, I am not going to dispute her judgment of men.
But, two points. Her father, a man, felt the fear of her daughter. I would tend
to think that he, even if not understanding
what his daughter must have gone through, must have felt the fear. Is feeling to
be discounted vis-à-vis understanding?
The men, fathers, brothers, husbands and friends of women, who came in support
of “gender equality and stricter laws for all crimes against women” felt the issue in their bones and that
is nothing to be sneezed at. But the writer does exactly that.
The
second point: Will the writer admit that she, an urbanite and probably of the
upper class, understands the situation
of the lower class people, living in urban areas or rural areas. I am sure she feels for them, but remember that feelings should be discounted. Sweeping
statements cut both ways.
Former
judge of the Madras High Court Prabha Sridevan quotes [2] Mr. Bezwada Wilson, a
campaigner against manual scavenging, “(A)n estimated 13,00,000 people from
dalit communities (my emphasis) continue to be employed as manual scavengers across the
length and breadth of this country.” I read out this snippet to a colleague of
mine. He, a socially conscientious person, was distraught. But … and this is
crucial … he could not understand why “dalit communities” was mentioned. I am
sure he feels for the people employed
as manual scavengers, all 13 lakhs of them. Yet, he asked whether manual
scavenging by other communities would have been acceptable. A nice question,
indeed. He thought this was caste-intrusion, totally unnecessary. Manual scavenging,
of and by itself, is worthy of full throated condemnation. I could not disagree
with that.
Yet,
I felt that the mention of the community is not an intrusion because it is the
reality. The mention of the community marks the boundary – no non-dalits need
apply for manual scavenging. To my mind, the revulsion he felt for the activity clouded his understanding of reality.
Now
from sociology to biology. Writing in an article in the Science and Technology page of The
Hindu of January 10, 2013 [3] D
Balasubramanian says, “[F]athers pass on their Y chromosomes in their genomes only
to their sons and not daughters. (Mothers have no such chauvinistic piggery… No
sex-based distinction here).” Reading this transported me instantaneously to
the title of Richard Dawkins’s original best seller The Selfish Gene. That title perhaps led to increased sales, but at
the cost of brickbats. People felt that the author was endorsing selfish
behavior on the part of individuals. He was doing nothing of that sort.
The
way the cited sentence has been framed in the current instance, the writer also
appears to be courting controversy! Do fathers actually pass on their Y chromosomes
to their sons and not extend this munificence to their daughters? Are they
discrimination / chauvinism personified? Perish the thought! In fact, sons are
defined by the fathers donating their Y chromosome to them! Of course, the
writer is well aware of this. Hence my suspicion he is throwing his readers a
bait and I bit!
Fathers
neither understand they are doing
this nor feel good or bad about doing
this. They Just do it, as NIKE
advertisements enjoin.
The
anthology of comments, now you understand is on feeling about and understanding of, in sociology as much
as in biology, women in Delhi, their fathers, brothers, husbands, and friends, people
of lower classes in our urban and rural areas, manual scavengers, dalits, non-dalits,
Y chromosomes, fathers, sons, mothers and daughters.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
2 comments:
The examples you cite just show that people's thinking is not entirely rational; there's an emotional element involved in thinking.
Matheikal, as many have said it before - for a sail boat to sail, you need the sails and the rudder. The former to catch the wind and the latter to help steer the boat and also one has to involve thinking in trimming the sails.
I have ALWAYS taken emotion to be the sails and rational thinking as the rudder. I am not a slave to either emotion or rational thinking. I am more emotional than anybody gives me credit (if that be the right word) for!
RE
Post a Comment