There are a few numbers that are in the cache of your memory. Whenever you hear any number, you first scan this cache for a hit. Upon a miss, you embark on a more thorough analysis and interpretation to recall the fragment linked to the number. There are certain numbers that remain etched till age starts offloading memory slots to make room for worries about the future. For instance, I can skim these numbers of the top of my head: 1947, some birthdays - depending on how eager and insistent a person is about being reminded that they've aged by a year, 1958, 7,5,4,1, 270, 619... Then there are numbers that reside till they have utility, like the TV channel numbers, your employee ID, There are also numbers that ink your memory till they ink the newsprint. 377 belongs to this last category.
Following the apex court verdict, there has been quite a din on the matter. The din, surprisingly, is not the result of abuses hurled at each other by two confronting ranks of folks with parallel lines of thought. The prudes, despite their victory at court, were not elating at an elevated pitch but quietly content. The few who did come out of the closet in euphoria were rounded up and hounded by the activists, in a role reversal that would have seemed vindictive but for the location - the TV studios as against the streets. The panelists who had laughed their way to the studios were complaining about being rendered a minority by the enraged ones - LGBT activists, liberals, even Congress spokespersons.
But the one voice against the verdict that stood out, not because of the tonal quality or the eloquence, but because it had ever sounded at all, and so immediately, was that of the Congress VP awaiting the ceremonial designation as the party's PM candidate. I have been told that sarcasm is a nasty way of wording your views, but it also seems an intricate way of doing it. So, I put up a status on Facebook, wondering why the unmarried prince had been peeved by this particular judgment into pronouncing his personal opinion, one that is usually, perhaps cleverly, unsaid, or totally cliched because of the delay in uttering it. Although some friends got the import and liked my status, others decided to let me know they liked it whenever they happened to meet me. One friend did warn me about being unrestrained in commenting on the powerful, especially the ones who have inherited power even in a democracy. It did not seem a coincidence anymore that those who had liked the status were ones living well away from Indian shores. What with the tolerance we have for hate speeches and the scorn for dissenting messages on social media and their espousal thereafter, most of my friends were only being wise.
The point, though, is why should these potent people be offended by my blithe suggestion conveying an amusement not unique to me? If the suggestion is stigmatizing, given what the society holds to be natural and orderly, then there is a real threat to the "supposed" minority - most of whom don't have a guerrilla cadre to fight for their dignity - who choose to acknowledge that their private preferences do not follow the predominant pattern pontificated to be the proper way of life. The threat is not one of being taunted, but of discrimination in matters such as employment and education that do not hinge on the private lives of individuals. Furthermore, with the preference outlawed, it also condones an intrusion into a person's life, an intrusion that is odious and bigoted. Individual freedom is not the facilitation of behaviour that is preferred by the masses and preordained on a person. All social struggles, be it against the caste system or the subjugation of women, are aimed at snapping such societal shackles. The judiciary, looked upon as a moral guardian against an imposition of democratic malevolence, should never sanctify the shackles on the basis of the dominant mood. The law, for all its supremacy, has no right to dictate the decorum in two chambers that are essentially intimate refuges - the one of worship and the one of love.
But the one voice against the verdict that stood out, not because of the tonal quality or the eloquence, but because it had ever sounded at all, and so immediately, was that of the Congress VP awaiting the ceremonial designation as the party's PM candidate. I have been told that sarcasm is a nasty way of wording your views, but it also seems an intricate way of doing it. So, I put up a status on Facebook, wondering why the unmarried prince had been peeved by this particular judgment into pronouncing his personal opinion, one that is usually, perhaps cleverly, unsaid, or totally cliched because of the delay in uttering it. Although some friends got the import and liked my status, others decided to let me know they liked it whenever they happened to meet me. One friend did warn me about being unrestrained in commenting on the powerful, especially the ones who have inherited power even in a democracy. It did not seem a coincidence anymore that those who had liked the status were ones living well away from Indian shores. What with the tolerance we have for hate speeches and the scorn for dissenting messages on social media and their espousal thereafter, most of my friends were only being wise.
The point, though, is why should these potent people be offended by my blithe suggestion conveying an amusement not unique to me? If the suggestion is stigmatizing, given what the society holds to be natural and orderly, then there is a real threat to the "supposed" minority - most of whom don't have a guerrilla cadre to fight for their dignity - who choose to acknowledge that their private preferences do not follow the predominant pattern pontificated to be the proper way of life. The threat is not one of being taunted, but of discrimination in matters such as employment and education that do not hinge on the private lives of individuals. Furthermore, with the preference outlawed, it also condones an intrusion into a person's life, an intrusion that is odious and bigoted. Individual freedom is not the facilitation of behaviour that is preferred by the masses and preordained on a person. All social struggles, be it against the caste system or the subjugation of women, are aimed at snapping such societal shackles. The judiciary, looked upon as a moral guardian against an imposition of democratic malevolence, should never sanctify the shackles on the basis of the dominant mood. The law, for all its supremacy, has no right to dictate the decorum in two chambers that are essentially intimate refuges - the one of worship and the one of love.
Comments