Search Results

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Freedom of Expression’ is the right of every individual to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The right to express oneself freely is not only necessary for individual growth but also for the growth and development of a country. A democracy would not really be a democracy if its citizens are petrified of voicing their opinions. The freedom to criticize anachronistic and obsolete ideas shows that the society is dynamic enough to change in adverse situations. But in this tech savvy era, where sharing information across the globe takes only a few seconds, are we really making the best use of our freedom? The free word can cause harm by propagating offensive sentiments or inciting violence. With the internet and its security of anonymity, societies have become increasingly careless with the written word. From celebrities to common people, nobody gets spared from hateful unsolicited advice. A few days back, one of the leading ladies of Bollywood, Deepika Padukone was shamed on Instagram for posting photographs which apparently ‘insulted’ the hallowed ideals of ‘Indian Culture’. Likewise, when Priyanka Chopra posted a photograph of her meeting the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Berlin, little did she know that she would be mocked at for wearing a dress and sitting with her legs crossed. Haters slammed her for her lack of etiquette. The free word can cause harm by propagating offensive sentiments or inciting violence. Last year, singer Azealia Banks was accused of throwing racist insults against former One Direction member, Zayn Malik. She tweeted a series of racial and homophobic slurs about him. Research has shown that cyber bullying can have more negative effects than traditional bullying. It leaves the victim feeling scared, depressed, angry and frustrated. It is easier for a person to bully someone over the internet because then, they do not have to face the repercussions of their hatred. They do not know how detrimental their comments can be. One of the most damaging effects is that the victim begins to avoid any social contact. Harassment of people on online platforms is an act of sheer cowardice and needs to be curbed. In the name of freedom of expression, bullies can terrorize people, xenophobic ideas are spread without restraint and out-dated social standards are enforced in the form of slut shaming, body shaming and homophobic commentary. This can surely not be what our founding fathers had in their mind when they guarded the right to freedom of expression as constitutionally guaranteed human right. Freedom of expression only works so far as one does not harm another being. It is time for us to realize that with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. With PM Modi declaring the Emergency as the darkest days of our democracy, it seems fair to revisit the situation 42 years down the line to see how our constitution failed its citizens at a certain point in history. Mrs Indira Gandhi’s move of declaration of the Emergency led to her being compared with the world’s most notorious dictators, and it seems that India is yet to learn from the aftermath. The period of highs The period of 1971-72 marked the hiatus of Indira Gandhi’s leadership. She had neutralized her enemies within the Congress and inflicted a severe defeat on Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. Her popularity seemed unparalleled with policies like ‘Garibi Hatao’, which gave her a pro-poor image, and yielded the two-third mandate that she desired. What led to the Emergency? Garibi Hatao was ‘a goal without a method’ according to Dr Shashi Tharoor. The existing recession, unemployment, spiral of inflation, and the refugee proliferation in the wake of The Bangladesh War led to a sharp deficit in funds; simultaneously, the mid-70s oil crisis added to the plight. Gandhi also interfered with the independence of the Judiciary by appointing A. N. Ray as the Chief Justice of India, and superseding three senior judges, thereby breaking convention. In Gujarat and Bihar violence and strikes broke out over lack of food and unemployment and soon Gandhian and veteran politician Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) rose to prominence, calling for a ‘total revolution.’ Meanwhile, the Allahabad High Court passed a judgement against Gandhi claiming that her seat in the Lok Sabha was corruptly gained, and that she would be required to forfeit her position as PM of India. Right after, Gujarat elections saw the rise of the Janata Party led by Narayan and the state slipped from the hands of Mrs Gandhi. As Gandhi’s case moved to the Supreme Court, JP announced a weeklong mass rally to force Gandhi down. Mrs Gandhi responded with the declaration of Internal Emergency on 26th June, based on Article 352. Why is this significant today? The Emergency lasted for 21 months, from 1975 to 1977, and is a classic example of how quickly a democracy can turn despotic. The Emergency was marked by press censorship, suspension of Fundamental Rights and a series of draconian decrees which reduced the power of the Parliament and tampered with the power of Judicial Review of the Judiciary. Many news houses like The Times of India, printed blank newspapers to show that they were being censored. Journalists like Kuldeep Nair, politicians of the opposition were incarcerated for their criticism of the government’s moves. Focus was then shifted to a calling for maxims like ‘a new sense of discipline’, ‘discipline makes the nation great’ and ‘talk less, work more’. Once the Emergency was lifted, Gandhi lost and was unable to even get elected to the Lok Sabha. The darkest days of the nation will dawn upon us when religion and politics will shake hands, when party propaganda will influence every aspect of our life: From what we wear, to what we speak, eat, or do. India will complete 70 years of its independence this August as a democratic country. However, India has developed its own brand of democracy, given its unique culture and peculiar problems. Our elections are allegedly rigged, marked by spurts of violence and corruption which is considered normal. Though Mrs Gandhi’s rule is seen as the darkest time in Indian political history, but to me, the darkest days will come when a party with overwhelming support would hold a high mandate in the Lok Sabha, to pass any draconian law without a declaration of Emergency. The darkest days of the nation will dawn upon us when religion and politics will shake hands, when party propaganda will influence every aspect of our life: From what we wear, to what we speak, eat, or do. The darkest days will dawn upon us when innocents will be killed, surrounded by angry mobs and when life will be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ I hope, the citizens will stand up in opposition by borrowing strength from the ideals of democracy to oppose the Big Brother. Light will only dawn on India then, if people realize the nature of a democracy garbing despotism.

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. Recently, the words ‘Freedom of Speech’ have come under the spotlight. They have been used, misused and abused innumerable times. Saying the term out loud makes us feel powerful, in control and most of all, human. At first glance, it might seem like a very simple idea for us to wrap our heads around: Human beings, the most superior species on planet Earth should have the right to say what they want to. Yet, there are restrictions on this right, and surely we agree that there ought to be. There is also consensus that these restrictions should be reasonable. An example that is often cited to explain the nature of these limitations is that the right to Freedom of Speech will not protect a man who is “Yelling fire in a crowded theater.” Closer home, the word that might lead to prosecution (rather, it has) could also be ‘Azaadi.’ So, what happens when these limitations start to become larger than the right itself? When they start seeping into our daily lives, our views, our ideas, our opinions, our college, our nation? Who turns that fuzzy and blurred line between reasonable and unreasonable limitations into a clearly defined one? I might not have the answer to any of these questions but what I do know is that I have the liberty to ask them (at least at the time that I am writing this, I do.) I believe our beloved Freedom of Speech is in troubled waters right now, and the only way to bring it back safely ashore is to understand the magnitude of damage we cause to the very foundation of our country when we curb an individual’s right to it. After all, there is a reason that Freedom of Speech is one of the main pillars of democracy and is frequently referred to as the mother of all liberties. In these interlinked spheres of free speech and democracy, there is a term called ‘The heckler’s veto’ that is defined as the suppression of free speech by those in power, using excuses of possibilities of public dissent and threat to public safety. Yet, even a casual perusal of any Indian History book will tell us that most of India’s triumphs have been based solely on peaceful protests and public discourse. Therefore, when the largest democracy in the world starts to use the once widely celebrated means of expressing discontent as the reason to curb rights of its citizens, we have to come to terms with the fact that if we don’t question these curtailments now, we might not have the choice to question them in the future. So, next time when someone gets castigated for yelling ‘Fire’, maybe we should look around and check, because there might really be one.

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. In an unprecedented turn of events, an anguished BJP spokesperson confirmed on Monday that Parliament had been adjourned for a week due to a hostile pillow fight between members of the Congress and those from her own party. “They started it”, she meekly opines. “And soon enough, there was a mass of feathers flying all over the place. I had to rush immediately because of my allergy.” I’m kidding—but I won’t be surprised if this ‘news’ started doing the rounds on all major social media in the next 24 hours, with concerned citizens lamenting the loss of decorum in the country’s highest legislature. Proliferation of fake news has definitely been one of the worse byproducts of the age of information overload; the sheer number of stories inundating the internet makes it impossible for an individual reader to verify the veracity of each. Give yourself a pat on the back if you could guess that there was no pillow fight—but remember that many can’t tell the difference (Remember that one uncle who uses a phoney WhatsApp forward as the basis of all his political arguments?) Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign in the USA, entirely fabricated articles gained the confidence of the electorate, at times outperforming legitimate news in terms of likes, comments and shares on Facebook, perhaps because of their unrelenting sensationalism. There was a piece on Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump, one on a child sex-slave ring run by Hillary Clinton and people believed these wholeheartedly—both because of their inability to tell that these are untrue and because these stories confirmed their inherent biases about certain candidates. There is much to fear in a post-truth world in which personal opinion and emotion gain primacy over objective facts as yardsticks for measuring the quality of information. Merely raising awareness about the existence of canards doesn’t help—it often, ironically, worsens the problem because people start labelling as ‘fake’ anything they wish to dismiss, including perfectly accurate reporting. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg launched a multi-pronged approach to curb misinformation last week. He’s making it easier for users to report hoaxes, collaborating with third party fact-checking organisations and disrupting incentives for financially motivated spamming. But much too often institutional measures such as these fail to contain bogus news, which spreads because people want it to. The onus for confirming the validity of news, then naturally falls on the end user. There are several things you can do to become a more informed consumer of news. Develop the habit of checking whether the assertions made in an article are backed by relevant studies, statistics or fact-based evidence. Does the author cite multiple credible sources? Does the peice allow subjects to respond to criticism? Secondly, become more aware of your own prejudices, which in important ways shape the way you evaluate news. Do you ever turn to an openly partisan news outlet, because nobody else covers some issue dear to you in as much detail? Do you read reports that go against a cause you care about more critically than usual? The system which spreads rumours is only as flawed as the people comprising it, and that may include you.

I live to see times when a comedy show that means no harm to any individual, religion, god or the society as a whole, is crucified. To quote Groucho Marx-““If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you.” The most interesting agenda with the protest by a particular religious sect lashing out at the organizers and the participants is that they feel offended and believe that not just theirs but any religion is a grey area for humor. An English dictionary describes religion as, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”, on a more practical aspect, religion or faith as we refer to it is something that aspires hope, a flame of light at the darkest hour of the night, something that keeps you going and gives you the strength to make it to the gates of hell and back. Therefore, being a sincere atheist, I have no beliefs in god, that is not me saying that religion or god is an over rated concept, but that’s me saying that as an atheist, I’m simply the loyal opposition. Your religion may be based on the principles or teachings of ideal creators known as gods, whereas my religion is humor. When at a crossroads in my life, I can with all honesty state that humor is what kept me going, that particular group, their podcasts, their videos, that’s what kept me sane. Therefore, if you are offended by what they say or do, and you want any sort of action taken against them, that is simply you undermining my religion and stating that your religion is superior to mine. I agree that my words are clear witnesses to the fact that I am obsessed with their work, and because of that very same obsession I understand exactly how that particular religious sect feels. I have the very same feeling of hurt and offence taking over me as I see people who do not respect my ideals and my beliefs without being aware of the intentions. And now, to the most important aspect of this protest, how political and religious groups have fired abruptly on this show for publicizing concepts of obscenity and vulgarity and for using abusive or offensive content to make hay while the sun shines. We live in a developing country which is bleeding constantly due to casteism, sexism, poverty, corruption, and crimes against women, unemployment, malnutrition, and illiteracy. Our country is not just a country with different religions or castes or creeds, but a blend of different mentalities, there are people who believe that they have the right to feel offended and there are people who when offended, do something about it through channelizing the offence in a positive manner, by talking about it, by writing about it, by singing about it or by joking about it. I am not cynical about my country or my society but I feel a very important urge to speak out about things that have been left untouched by this controversy, to get offended whether in terms of sexism or casteism in a country like in India is ironical to begin with. Our society is dominated by two professional industries, the media/glamour industry and the political industry, first of all, talking about the media or the glamour industry that includes advertisements, television shows, movies and music, how come are we not offended when an advertisement is aired on national TV with a male using a deodorant and several different females clinging to him like bees on a hive, when patriarchal dominance is showcased in almost 70% of the television shows, when historical shows include scenes of royals visiting brothels, when reality shows use individuals from unfortunate backgrounds and exploit their life stories to score TRP brownies. Why they are not offended when physical intimacy and out-right violence is celebrated on the silver screen, or when almost nude individuals (both male & female) dance around each other indicating sexual provocation. Where are their baskets that catch offence when a rapper is given the throne and the scepter of the music industry by the means of sexist and senseless songs, when scripted award shows have the rich and the flamboyant flashing their glamour quotients and at some extent dishing out inferiority complexes to a normal individual? Over to the latter, people inspiring authoritative influence- politicians, self proclaimed godmen, and the police department. In a study conducted, “It was noted that a staggering 24% of elected politicians were charged with criminal activities in the year 2004, this number grew to 30% in 2009, and 34% in 2014, with the number dominated by crimes against women. The role of an elected representative is to voice the views of the people and not to criticize it, personal views have to be kept personal simply for the reason that every single individual has a different thought process, and everyone’s views are subject to respect. It may be my personal opinion and not that of anyone else’, but it is a shame to live in era where not a single day goes by without endless counts of crimes against women, and crimes committed by elected officials. I can go on record and challenge anyone who attacks a comedy show in today’s social environment to ban all such shows the day we have the honor of not reading about a single crime against women in the morning newspaper. In the year 2013, Delhi Police recorded 62,130 complaints of criminal activities of all kinds, out of which 11,836 were against police personnel. A department whose sole responsibility is to stand guard for the safety and help of the public has gone down to be the biggest source of harassment to the public. A common man who becomes the victim of any such crime thinks twice before entering a police station fearing harassment, and the question here is, should we be working proactively against humor rather than addressing these issues first. Godmen and religious cults have been active in our country with millions of followers admiring and praising them, they have also been sources of heinous crimes such as rapes, molestations and money-laundering. To sum up this argument, an obscenity is any statement or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, and the bottom line is, for how long will we ignore the issues that are corroding our developing society and understand that we have indeed entered a new era of liberal thinkers and that the morality of our time has been victimized by the traditions and culture of our past. And about the show that inspired me to write this piece, humor cannot be versatile and does not appeal to the sensibilities of every member of our society. The issue is not about freedom of speech, but freedom of choice. We have heard that one man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist, one man’s treasure is another man’s junk, but I feel disheartened when I witness a society where one man’s humor is another man’s obscenity.

The temperature in Delhi, as I write this, is quite unusual. A molten effervescenve is in the air. Seems like humanity is burning, regardless of colour, creed or caste. In such times, is it right to be adamant about enforcing the idea that students ought to wear full length garments below the waist while they eat? The honest argument is as follows. The assumption made is: questioning of all authority isn’t inherently bad if it makes the human condition better for all parties involved. With all the respect I have for discipline and order, the point being asserted is that if at times, because of the physical factors that surround us, if it would be ideal to remove a certain law or condition, then why not? If I would have my way, I would make it allowable to wear clothes in the mess that do not offend the majority’s sensibilities. Fortunately, I am no one to assert anything. But, nonetheless, female students are allowed to eat while wearing knee length clothes. The appeal made in this embodiment of the written word seeking goodness for the human condition is to remove the need to wear such clothes fearing break down of discipline atleast in times such as this when the city is hot. Very hot. I am not demanding anything. Only requesting. Please, respected Principal, allow us to feel at ease while eating. The only reason why I’m even trying is because I feel that Principal John Varghese is a much more approachable person of authority than our previous principal. Nothing but truly, A burning human being, the editor.

One can be found whining about the alienation on the part of certain groups in St. Stephens college, and about how cliquey communities can get; how conveniently they might ostracise you, if you land up in a group of a common language speaking people, or of a particular society or of a common demographic belonging. For instance, few days into college I was informed of the presence of a mini Kerala thriving in Delhi; this fact was sealed with the overwhelming majority of Malayalis and the cult so formed around a Mallu don. So, geographical, linguistic, ideological plurality remains a characteristic merit, which of course, we all are proud of, but at times unmatched frequencies of these groups, can leave you feeling ‘left-out’. The month of August was coming to an end, but with it, approached the event, which definitely altered all stereotypes, which had painted a deceptive picture in not only in my mind, but also of others. With the advent of the Malayalam month of Chingam, which falls between August- September, St Stephen’s College was buzzing with an air of enterprise. Surcharged members of the Malayalam Literary Society organized meetings and discussions, for one of the most awaited events in college, which materialized on September 1st and 2nd, in revelry of the harvest festival, Onam. Onam, one of the most vibrant and elaborate festivals of Kerala, commemorates the homecoming of the mythical righteous king, Mahabali. This imaginary annual visit of Mahabali from the nether world to meet his subjects is celebrated by Keralites with week-long festivities symbolic of the flourishing agrarian past and copious prosperity during the King’s reign. A sliver of this festival was brought to St. Stephen’s College, cherishing the myriad facets of God’s Own Country, for the two days. On 1st September, surge of energetic voices echoed down the corridor; voices which seemed like tigers roaring, invited serried multitude of students all the way to the Café tree. Trail of First Years painted as tigers, cavorted along the drum beats, inviting bouts of laughter and amazement from the spectators. The ‘Puli Kali’ or tiger dance, a recreational folk art, lifted the festive mood, with a combined performance in the mess lawns; with the hilarious leopard chase by the hunters, human pyramid, and finally, unfurling the ‘Onam 2015’ banner in front of all bemused students. The Tug of war, known as Vadamvali was yet another entertaining event later in the day, which saw massive participation from all the students. That evening, a walk down the main corridor was no ordinary sight. Heaps of flowers in hues of yellow, orange, purple were laid. There was a different air of cheer that evening, with people crooning to the rhythm of Malayalam songs, while lending a helping hand in the preparations. The Fine Arts Society, meanwhile meticulously laid the outline for the massive floral carpet, ‘Pookkalam’ in the main portico which was soon to be adorned with flower petals. September 2nd , was the day of Thiruvonam, when the legendary Mahabali descends on earth to revisit his populace, initiated with the Principal inaugurating the Onam celebrations at the main portico along with our very own King Mahabali, Akshay Cyril of 1st Maths honours. The inaugural ceremony was all the more scintillating with the beauteous Pookkalam, laid the previous night. It earned the appreciation of the Principal, who remarked that this would be his last Onam in college. On asking Mahabali whether he learnt Hindi, Mahabali spoke to Principal in fluent Hindi, inviting laughter from all. The ladies were dressed in impeccable off-white sarees with golden borders, and the boys in dashing mundus (and variations thereof, owing to feminist conveniences) brought a whole new festive zest to the day (and also, fodder for social media updates). The much awaited cultural show-case commenced soon afterwards, starting with the Onam vanchipattu or the ‘Boat song’, traditionally sung by the row men of all. The first year boys sang the Onam Song and got the audience involved in its rejuvenating rhythm. For aeons, the call of ‘Aarpo Eirro’ is known to enthuse and energise the spirit of camaraderie amongst the people. Later, The Third year ladies performed the traditional Thiruvathira dance, renowned for its impeccable team work and graceful moves. Portraying Parvati’s longing for Shiva, the thirty two dancers kept the spectators starkly gripped till the end. Then, Onam Sadya, considered to be the perfect meal of Kerala, was served by the Malayalam Literary Society. With umpteen varieties of dishes, people conveniently forgot that they could but eat only a finite amount, however mouth-watering the dishes were. The day ended with the screening of the blockbuster Malayalam film ‘Dhrishyam’ starring national award winning actor Mohanlal which has now been adapted into other Indian languages. The English subtitles were a boon for the non Malayali students but the acting prowess of the cast conveyed the message better than words. Coming to think of this event, now that months have past, one can conjure all the beautiful memories made in those two days. The spirit of oneness was extraordinary. By promulgating the cultural vivacity of Kerala, we discerned a connection among people separated by vast distances. Simply by mingling over Onam lunch, in taking turns for eating dinner at the mess during the preparation period, in being taught the lyrics of Malayalam songs and being applauded for getting the unfamiliar words right, and in the smiles captured by the PhotoSoc, we unconsciously wove the fringes of a beautifully different culture with the spirit of ‘Being a Stephanian’. For one thing I know: St Stephens is one place where all these privileges to witness amazing festivals knock at your door; and more than anything, it is a brilliant learning experience. Broadening your horizons and opening your mind, provides one with a deeper insight into the nuances of life and how people celebrate it, in their own distinct ways.It wasn’t only about upholding the idea of good governance, as exhibited by Mahabali, and celebrating the thriving prosperity of Kerala, but also the fact that this event certainly broke the ice between people belonging to separate communities, and enshrouded the spirit of revelry over these two glorious days. After all the wonderful experience that we went through, I myself felt well bonded over with the people I worked and interacted. And with this, I congratulate the Malayalam Literary Society for having put up a very successful show-case of a beautiful culture, which enchanted one and all in its magic. Thank you, PhotoSoc, for the wonderful pictures. Ever indebted.

Secularism, a term as intrinsic to my understanding of India as electoral competition. But, apparently for some in the current political discourse, it has become contentious. While, debates and discussions form the essence of any democracy, the purpose of this article is to highlight why some ideas are sacrosanct and should remain that way. The story of independent India features riots and religious intolerance as often as communal unity. Every second week or so the headlines mention an eminent leader of the ruling party going ahead and questioning why the Constitution contains the word ‘secular’. To be fair, given the close association the BJP has with the RSS and its history of communal politics, any mention of ‘Indian culture’ and ‘secular’ is bound to be seen with suspicion. While, some of these statements may be pardonable, others are blatantly unacceptable. More often than not, accurate facts are presented in a distorted manner to suit their agenda. For instance, the term ‘Hindu’ received a religious connotation not very long ago and strengthened in that regard only under the British Rule and the term ‘secular’ was added to the Constitution during the Emergency proclaimed in 1975. But, the implications derived from these truths are extremely problematic. Somehow, the conclusion was reached that everyone in this country is a Hindu or secularism is undemocratic because it was brought on in the constitution during the emergency. But let us not make the mistake of thinking that this is an actual debate. Secularism is the hallmark of a democratic state. But why? Democracy, as the definition goes, is rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Religion forms a major component of people’s identities. The problem arises when different people follow different religions. So whose religion should prevail? No one’s- says the doctrine of secularism: everyone has the right to practice, preach and propagate one’s own religion and the state shall distance itself from all religions unless intervention is required for greater social benefit and reform. Why is this notion important? History has the answer. Colonial India, as we all know was subjected to a policy of ‘divide-and-rule’ by the British. The most obvious manifestation of this was the notion of separate electorates. This meant that the Muslim population would vote for Muslim candidates for whatever number of seats they were allotted in the legislatures. As a result, politics began to take communal forms and polarisation along religious lines became stronger. The end result was a painful and bloody partition of the subcontinent wherein the two separate nation-states of India and Pakistan were created. Pakistan was formed on the premise of a state for the Muslims as the League believed that Muslims in India could never have any real rights or powers as they would always be oppressed by the Hindu majority. These fears were not completely unfounded as there were forces that actively worked towards making India a Hindu-nation (Think: RSS). But more importantly the larger section of the political class believed that India was a land of diversity and the democratic dream triumphed over all else. But the scars of the Partition and everything that led to it were never quite wiped away. The story of independent India features riots and religious intolerance as often as communal unity. And this is preciously why secularism remains important: in the absence of it our land would turn to chaos and bloodbaths as it did during the dark days of the partition. It is important to remember how deep the mistrust between the religious communities runs before we dismiss secularism as a redundant notion. It has also been argued that certain parties use the blanket of secularism to create vote-banks through minority appeasement, while this may be true it does not warrant the rejection of secularism. Any attempt by others to do so should also be challenged openly and condemned widely. India is a country of a growing and dominant youth population and thus, the onus is on us to ensure that the liberal democratic dream burns bright.

An interview of The SUS President for the year, Aina Singh. The interview team comprises Rishi Bryan (IInd English), Urvi Khaitan (IInd History), Havisha Khurana (IInd Maths), Noel Corera (Ist B.A.P), Benjamin Harry Clarance (Ist English) and Ishita Blest (Ist English). This interview was conducted on the 11th of September. Yes, that’s right. 9/11. Rishi Bryan: So, Aina, how does it feel to be the second female president of the SUS, ever, in the history of the SUS? Aina Singh: It feels strange, that I’m the second president. I didn’t know this before I became president. I just thought that a girl hasn’t been made president in a while, but, now that I know this, its very disturbing, And I’ve been talking to a few teachers, I’ve actually talked to the girl herself recently, she’s teaching history now. She has horror stories, and it’s just sad. I don’t know why this is happening, is it specifically in the college or society in general, but instead of being happy I’m just sad that I’m the only other person who became president and that also not by elections, so if there were elections I would not have won and there would have been only one female president in the history of St. Stephen’s college SUS elections. “Maybe this place needs this, needs somebody they hate, to do stuff they hate, because there are some things that I think are actually good for the people here, that a lot of people don’t agree with.” Rishi: So you’re sad about being the president rather than being excited about being president? Aina: I’m excited about being female president, but I’m sad about being the second female president ever. Rishi: That’s a good way to put it! So tell us about that fateful day when the whole of college woke up to that notice put up on the board announcing the results and what was your initial reaction to it? Aina: So, there is this friend of mine who is a part of the whatsapp group for the Wodehouse Society, I’m not. So, I didn’t have a campaign and I didn’t really have a support group. I tried to build one but because of certain issues of my own I hadn’t have any time to do this so I decided a week before the last day for nominations that I wanted to be nominated, so I told my friends that I’ll go to open court and talk about a few things and that will essentially be my aim. My aim is not to get anything more than that out of this because I know I won’t get it. Rishi: So wait, a very frank question to ask right now would be, did you expect to, or did you even want to become president? Aina: I wanted to from the first year, but I did not expect to, because I knew I would never have the support base, also because, let’s be honest, you don’t get a support base because you’ll become a good president, I think you get support base because you please people in some way or the other and I don’t think it’s specific to this college, I mean look at the DUSU elections, it happens everywhere. So my friends told me that Wodehouse is planning to have a mock candidate and maybe you can be that candidate. Rishi: People were talking about how your actual aim was to go into open court and talk about things that you thought had to be talked about. Aina: Yes, that was my aim. So, when this thing came out about the notice and a bunch of people started calling me up (and yes I took all those calls), and on facebook also, people started messaging me saying that you have become president, and I said no it’s a Wodehouse prank. Wodehouse has been planning a prank and since they could not find a mock candidate, they have come out with the notice and people said “but there is Ayde Sir’s sign on it”, but Ayde Sir is a jolly fellow, he might as well just be in on the prank. But then I went out and everybody was standing there and the principal came out twice and said that Aina Singh is now the president. So then I was like “okay”. Rishi: What exactly did you feel at that moment when you realized that you were president? Aina: My first reaction was “I can’t be president, I’m resigning, and I can’t handle this, I don’t have a union. I have a manifesto, but it’s not been made like people make it for campaigning. It’s just a paragraph or two of what I think about the world. So my first reaction was I can’t do this, and secondly I thought that the president needs to be in campus a lot and I live in South Delhi, in Saket. So, my first reaction was “I cant do this”. Rishi: What made you think otherwise? Aina: So, I came out into the crowd and this person who I cannot name came up to me and said “you are shaking”. I replied saying “Yes, I’m nervous”, and he replied saying “Why don’t you resign?”, and that was when I knew maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe this place needs this, needs somebody they hate, to do stuff they hate, because there are some things that I think are actually good for the people here, that a lot of people don’t agree with, not because it’s not good for them but because it doesn’t affect them directly. So, they are looking at their own self interests. I felt this place needs someone like me. I know it’s a bit narcissistic to say, but given the circumstances, it felt like the right thing to do at that moment. Ishita Blest: So, the very first thing that I noticed about your manifesto was its name, “S.C.U.M.”. I would want to know what exactly SCUM stands for? Aina: Firstly, SCUM stands for nothing. It’s a word. All these theories about how it stands for “Society for Cutting Up Men” are not true. So, where did you get that manifesto from? Ishita: (unsure) We were given the manifesto, I think. Aina: By whom? Havisha: By me. Aina: And where did she get it? I mailed it to her right? So it wasn’t a public manifesto right? I mailed it to my friends and members of my proposed cabinet, and with people whom I wanted to know the manifesto and give me feedback and join my union if they wanted to. It was not a public manifesto. My final manifesto, which is just the same thing except in more polite language, he (Mr. Ayde) has it and he said he will put it up, but I don’t know, there was some rule because of which you can’t put up the manifesto. So, whatever, he has my final manifesto which is essentially the same thing, just in more formal language. So, if I’m giving out my manifesto to my friends and cracking a joke, must the entire college take that joke so seriously? So the joke that was going around, rather the rumour that was doing rounds was that I was married and I’m some man – hating, baby – eating feminist, and then simultaneously this book called “Scum”, and I’ve read it and I’m really inspired by it, not by the radical notions of it, but by the problems she describes. So it was a joke I was cracking with my own friends saying that it was the scum manifesto, except that the whole college took it so seriously, that it became even funnier. The fact that you are still asking me this question is just funny. It was a joke. Noel Corera: How do you intend on conducting speedy and fast survey monkey (a website which provides data gathering services) polls? As, in my opinion, it will be a long and cumbersome process, because I, for myself saw for how long the student union council elections were held. So, how do you intend on conducting speedy elections every time an important decision pertaining to us students needs to be taken? Aina: When I said survey monkey polls, I meant whatever is speediest. Even if it’s a google doc, like whatever is fastest. Even if it is issues happening about the evening tea and whether people want to volunteer for making it or not, So I’m holding a meeting today at 5 in the SCR lawns, so I’ll do whatever is fastest for the main discussions that affect the student body directly. There are some things that I can argue for with the college directly, but if there are some things that I feel it’s not my place to make any value judgement about, then I’ll follow whatever is the fastest way, whether it’s the survey monkey polls, or meeting them directly. We are building an email database, but not a lot of people are co-operating, so it’s happening. Rishi:  May we know who your camp is and who the people you’re working with are? Aina: I don’t have a camp, I have a cabinet. There were 34 people but I think 2 left, but the list is up. So, there is Suchishmita Panda, Aditya Chaturvedi, Annalisa, Lina among the third years. Among the second years there is Raghav Pangasa, who is treasurer, Apratim and a number of people. We don’t have any first years. I don’t think that’s even a good idea. We will be taking first year volunteers though. Rishi: So, just by the names you were mentioning, I noticed that there are many more women in the cabinet than men? Aina: (firmly) Would you ask me this question if there were many more men? So, this is a thing right, if you produce a play with all men people just think, ‘oh! it was the requirement of the script’; if you have a council of most men people just think, ‘oh more men turned up’; if you have anything with more women, they ask you why? Rishi: But is it a stance or…? Aina: No, I just have more females friends, men tend to not like me too much! So, I just asked my own friends to join. So, let me make a larger point while trying to not sound too pretentious about it: people who have lesser privilege in terms of anything (gender, caste, economics, etc.) tend to have more sympathy for equality. And I am really big on the whole inclusivity (sic) thing so I will obviously take more people who have, if not the exact same opinions (as me), are at least as sensitive as I want them to be and more of such people just happen to be women. I don’t think it’s anything I should be ashamed of or explain. Rishi: No, we didn’t mean… Aina: I am not saying you are saying it. Urvi Khaitan: One of the points you raised with regards to the improvement of the mess facilities mentioned an ‘economic privilege based’ increase in fees. So, what exactly did you mean by this? Aina: See, firstly I’m not sure if it is my place to even say this. So this manifesto, again, was not the final one. I have not included this in the final one because this was just what I was circulating amongst my friends and it also kept growing everyday, this was really not final. And you can have a manifesto before the elections but after the elections you really can’t have a blueprint where you say that I will do this- nothing more and nothing less. Now, to answer your question, we have already had the mess committee meeting and the question keeps coming up- oh! you want better food and all but we don’t have the money- because they are functioning on a Rs. 99 per person per day budget. So, I also feel that this was a little unless for me to suggest because anyway the food is subsidised. If there are people who can’t afford a Rs. 99 per day, other people are paying a little more for them that they don’t have a choice of… the college decides this, India is also working on a subsidised system with progressive taxation. So, I don’t even think that there was a point of me mentioning this. I just mentioned this because way too many people were asking me- oh! you know, some people can’t afford it, so what will you do? So then I said obviously, it will be raised for people who can. Noel: The library is a silent place, so don’t you think installing a photocopy machine would violate that? Aina: Not all photocopy machines are loud. Noel: How will you conjure up the funds required for the same? Aina: Funds is a problem with everything but, a lot of people are willing to give sponsorship. It just needs to fall within the ambit of what the college wants from its sponsors because the college also has certain rules. So, it is a tricky question- funds is a tricky question. But, it’s not that expensive if we can get the funds and the college gives the permission, we can totally have a photocopy machine. Also, there are a number of rooms at the bottom where you can keep the machine. You don’t have to keep it bang in the middle where it will disturb everybody. Plus, the point of taking the book out, photocopying it, and getting it back, you also have to issue it. And this is there in so many libraries across the world. You just photocopy the book in the library itself. I don’t think that’s really a valid point that it will be noisy. Rishi: The GCR (the Gentlemen’s Common Room), why do you want to come up with something like that? Aina: Okay, so side note: the union room is no longer there with us. We are sharing a room with people so I’m not sure how we are going to do this. Rishi: what was your intent? Aina: My intent was to… So I was talking about gender equality and I was talking about it in a number of ways. So, every time a woman talks about gender equality or at least most of the times, she says that women should have this and that. Men, then, come up and say, ‘oh! there are certain privileges women have. Why don’t men have those privileges? One of the things that was talked about was microwaves- the only privilege that Rud North has and Mukh East doesn’t is a microwave. You want that, take the curfew and the night outs ban as well. You only want the microwave. So, in that same conversation, this thing of saying, ‘oh! you have an LCR we don’t have a GCR. So, here, have a GCR but do you realise that you don’t need it. It’s a privilege to not need a place to change. So, this was just symbolic. Rishi: Is this your way of being politically correct than absolutely… Aina: The term ‘politically correct’- it’s so debatable. Does it mean that you are being fair to everybody or does it mean you are being diplomatic? I try to be fair and not diplomatic so if you call that politically correct then- Rishi: It’s not really a necessity for the men. Do you think that men would go sit in a place where- Aina: Probably not! At the same time, somebody like me would also not go to the LCR if I had any other place to like sleep or whatever. There are a number of women who don’t want a place like that but, it’s not about what you want, it’s about the culture of hiding and enclosing and having a separate space that is problematic. Spaces are very gendered- since,we are having gender conversations- if you are looking at equality why aren’t you looking at either de-gendering spaces or, if you have to have gendered spaces, why not have both? Whether they get used or not is, obviously, different but, it’s more symbolic than being literally there. Nobody might use it but it’s something to think about. We don’t have the union rooms, so I am not sure how we going to do this but, we will find a way. Urvi: One of the reasons that the LCR exists is because a lot of the day scholars are not allowed to enter girls’ residence. So, is there anyway we can depoliticise this entire concept of residence and make it more transparent. Will you be able to establish dialogue with the college for that? Aina: Not yet, I have not yet been able to establish a dialogue. I have given them a letter asking for microwaves saying that the resident girls will pay Rs.100 each which will get them a microwave if the college cannot get the funds. (Update: The girls’ blocks got new microwave ovens after this interview was taken). I haven’t received it back yet but I know that it is being forwarded, so it’s being talked upon. The dean has forwarded it to the principal. So I am trying to have that conversation, let’s see how far I get. Ishita: How do you plan on making ‘unicolor’ more vibrant? Why do plan to invite eminent guests only from the North East? Aina: So I was thinking of the cultural separatism that’s happening in the college, like Haryana day, which should not happen and so, the Union will not organize it. If anybody wants to organize it, they can. There are certain cultures which are being oppressed and some of them are privileged. Now I want to make changes in my own ambit so things get better in Stephens. I realize that north eastern people do not have any problems. I was trying to work on some ideas but was not sure. There was a function called ‘Unicolor’ showcasing the culture of north east, organized by Spic Macay, last year. The politics of it was a bit weird, like cut-out Naga headgear, which is totally culture appropriation but the emphasis was on a band and a fashion show and that’s it. It was very nice and good but their concept had to be larger. If we talk about the North East and how its culture has to be showcased, why aren’t we talking about the problems that they face? We can’t project something that’s nice and forget something crucial like the problems. But now I realize is that there is not such a big problem to the people in Stephens, but other things are. So now I am looking for a cultural day. It’s still in a very working condition in which you can come as whichever culture you want to dress up as. So we have something as a Cultural Committee which might not really work because people might not actually come and say, “Hey I am being discriminated.” The fact is that, the committee will just be there symbolically, so if something wrong happens I can actually help. Benjamin: So you were talking a lot about the trans-gendered, but since we do not have any trans-gendered people here… Aina: How do we know that? Benjamin: Are there any ways of finding out if there are any? Aina: Society and culture invisibilises (sic) transgender people that are why you are asking me this question. Do you know everybody in college? Delhi University last year said that we welcome transgender students. Our college principal put up a status on Facebook saying about how Stephens has a history of welcoming all sorts of heterogeneity, and rightly so. If we plan on formally receive them, I believe that there must be some of them right here. Because what is transgender? We need to know who they are. Does it simply mean you were born with certain organs and identify with the other gender. There is a global debate going on about it. So my question just is, are we giving them comfort enough to identify themselves as transgender. That’s just a conversation I want to talk about in the council meeting, if that is the right place to talk about it. There is a structural problem that there is no right place to talk about these things. So I have put these ideas forth and I mean to have a conversation about these things even if they yield no result. Rishi: There has been a rumor that you plan to restrict the freedom of movement of boys in residence after a certain time. Are you trying to put a curfew on the boys? Aina: Yes, it is in my rough manifesto. All I said was same rules apply for all. Now one thing that has been picked up is that “how dare she restrict the freedom of movement of boys?” Where’s the indignation when girls have been locked up for the last 30 years with no food at all? And where is all this indignation that we will shut down the Science Dhaba after 10? I have not yet had a talk with the college about it. I have not started the conversation with the college. College has a view that we cannot remove the curfew from the girls because of their safety. I believe safe spaces are a very politicised concept. Spaces can be made safe only if the girls are let out especially within the college, since it is the responsibility of the college that nothing happens to anybody. If there has to be any rule why does it not apply to all? After 10, if the spaces outside the rooms become such a terrifying space, why are they not for the boys? I do not have anything against the boys. Some of them are my friends. You should put the rules for everybody. People are saying that Aina is going to impose a curfew, who am I to do that? I don’t have that sort of powers. All I can do is request the college. The college might not want to talk about that at all. It’s just something I intent to talk about. My intention is absolute equality. Urvi: So you plan to conduct an audit to determine how disable friendly the college is, which will be done for free by an NGO. So, the college already has a lot of requirements. What steps are you planning to take? Aina: Ayde Sir said that he would look into the proposal and it will be the principal’s final call. They have been a number of things such as the braille printer and Ayde sir was very happy about it. The college would be able to afford it themselves. But what we realized is that blind people have stopped reading braille. That’s 80,000 saved. Now what we need to do is that everybody has laptops which most of them do. And that we have all the email IDs and we send them mails every day which we have started to do now. Urvi: There is an empty unused room right next to the college hall called Samvedna of the equal opportunity cell meant for disabled students. So instead of formulating another society, why not revive the former? Aina: We are not formulating another society; we have a committee that will look after it. For example, there is an empty braille notice board. But since we don’t need braille I would like to take that title off so we don’t look stupid. There are a number things that have to be done let’s see what I can do in this one year. Rishi: So this is the most trivial questions of all the questions I have been asking you so far. Do you have a plan for the fests, Harmony and Cappricio, yet? Aina: When we talked about Capriccio, we were told that we would not talk about it anymore. It would mean angering the college. The college has very firm reasons for why it will not conduct the fest. I don’t know the reasons, but it is very firmly decided by the college not to conduct it. We will try to conduct Harmony as vibrantly as can be. People from our cabinet have a lot of contact from bands and associations so that they can make it livelier. I think the union in the past few years has been centered only on harmony and sweat shirts. It’s not that difficult to organize it. Yes for 5 days we have to probably sleep in the college hall. But it’s just 5 days. We can’t tell the college that we’ll give you a great Harmony is what we’ll do throughout the year. Harmony is a simple thing. People give sponsorship, college takes sponsorship. Harmony happens; some 100 people come, dance for 5 minutes and then go back. Other people are not even allowed in the college so it’s not a big deal. It’s just made into a big deal. The Interview team thanks Aina for her time. Aina confesses that the interview team went a lot easier on her than she thought it would. #AinaSingh #Genderequality

When one writes about St. Stephen’s college these days, one has to do so with extreme caution lest one treads deep into controversial waters without even intending to. One after another, laudably contrived controversies have been wrought upon the college and the people associated with it. Countless articles have been written accusing the college of harbouring elitism and promulgating Christian ethics. As a present junior member of the college, it is hard for one to not articulate one’s views given the circumstances. This article, however, is not a defence of the Stephanian identity. It is a celebration of its ethos; of being Stephanian. So, what is being Stephanian? And what is not? I wish to go about answering the latter question first. Our alumni, once junior members of College, sometimes make ridiculous statements. These are often in jest – after all, the Stephanian sense of humour is well known. To many, they come across as being immersed in the greatest heights of elitism, demeaning the identity of fellow colleges and their students, but that is not being Stephanian. The informed reader will understand that an allusion is being made to Mr. Shankar Aiyar and his unsolicited argument with Mr. Maken. The uninformed reader will, when they read this news piece. One does not discount Mr. Shankar’s achievements in his line of work while accrediting his Alma mater for most of his success, but it is the manner of such endorsement which is not always well received. Being Stephanian means much more than possessing an allegedly better vocabulary than most others, or having a pretty stamp on your CV. Some people are only Stephanian in the narrowest sense of the term— having completed their education from the prestigious institute. But that is not what being Stephanian is all about. It is much more than that. “Not to lose the blues”. Photo by Allen Leom Lepcha. The college’s motto ‘Ad Dei gloriam’ (Latin for ‘to the glory of God’) is not merely a frontispiece for the Christian ethos of the institution. It is an encapsulation of everything that the college stands for, believes in and tries to inculcate in its students. And what the college stands for is self-transcendence. How exactly does one transcend oneself? By being compassionate to fellow human beings, to the flowering trees beside the chapel, to the many dogs to whom the college is home, to the souls and songs of the less privileged who work in the college, to the pigeons and the squirrels who run around indulged in their own antics, like every other one of us, yearning for love. When one sees a certain junior member (can’t name him for obvious reasons) in college walking with a group of visually challenged members, all of their faces serene and beautiful, talking to them and laughing with them, then one knows what it means to be Stephanian. Not the greatest of the DebSoc debaters can convince me that Mr. Aiyar is a worthier Stephanian than this person. While a lot of people spend their three years in college building impressive C.Vs and securing their careers, some people take time to appreciate the little things that give joy only to those who look for them. The college chapel at night. Photo by Sachu Sanil Chemmalakuzhy (Batch of 2015). Things like the heart warming excitement and innocence of the new litter of puppies growing up by the Science Dhabha, the moonlit foliage of the Ashoka trees and the holy silence in the chapel lawns at midnight.  It does not matter how much money you make after graduating from college or how many years you occupy a cabinet office in the parliament of the nation. All that matters is that you smile and make others smile along the way.

Ignoring the ‘fratricidal’ FIFA wars over Sepp Blatter, the officials at EA Sports gave the masses something unprecedented earlier this June. The internet woke up (as if it ever sleeps) to witness gaming spheres and women activists, sportswomen and feminist leaders brawl over the inclusion of 12 international women’s football teams in the upcoming FIFA 16. FIFA has been one of the most played video game since its launch and after the introduction of improved game-play and graphics in FIFA 12, its sales have sky rocketed. Due its increasing popularity it was bound to face many critical arguments- one regarding its exclusively male character. Despite Ubisoft’s claims that women are too hard to render, EA Sports has somehow done the impossible and digitally modeled more than 200 of them, “each a recognizable simulacrum of a real human person who is very good at playing football”. The female football World Cup is currently being played in Canada (which might be a factor). It’s great news for the female footballers who can’t wait to score in the game as ‘themselves’. England captain Steph Houghton’s interview to BBC is going viral. And at the same time insensitive jokes are being inflicted upon them by the ruthless (predominantly male) netizens. Thinking of what the game would actually look like they have come up with such innovative crap. ‘Your player has been ruled out for 9 months due to pregnancy’ or ‘Player unfit. Having period!’ are just some of the ‘innocuous’ remarks that illustrate their intolerance. In defense, the netizens-in-question blurt out that they’re tired of feminism altogether. The world online is scary today. To be extremely frank, the aggressive ‘feminist- anti-feminist’ debates are making it scarier. This very movement which ‘aims at achieving equal social, economic, political, cultural and personal rights for women’ is diving into almost every aspect of the real and virtual order. The intensity is absolutely legitimate and positive however, the moves the so-called ‘fanatics’ of the ideology are taking are being met with unwelcoming responses by some elements that perhaps belong to the ‘antithesis of feminism’. (The term being used to represent and at the same time sooth the ‘anti-feminist’ people who refuse to be called anti-feminists.) Then comes the ‘gamer’ point of view which- in this debate- unfortunately- is the least cared for at the moment. Gamers despite enjoying the enhanced virtual experience of FIFA have been complaining about several areas of the game, for example, the primitive manager mode, goalkeeper control, tournament settings issues and more. At this point of time, when EA ignores all these aberrations and goes ahead adding females who are relatively unknown angers quite a few of the gaming lot. Then there are people who suggest it’s an American move- according to them, the U.S. women’s football team (ranked 2nd) has been doing exceedingly well recently and so its neighbouring game developer (the Canadian EA sports) did the needful. The prime motive behind this is quite explicit. EA suggests the inclusion of the 200 or so women players would increase their ‘female-following’ which is negligible at the moment to a seemingly high extent. Some pundits opine the ‘girls-in-a-boys-game’ isn’t going to work out. Well, that’s as regressive as it sounds. The sport of football has forever been regarded as ‘manly’- which presently means ‘like men’. One can only hope it doesn’t get forced to mean ‘of Men’. There’s no doubt that male gamers would be the core consumers of FIFA 16. However, the hidden intention of the game is to instill a love for the little bit “‘equality’ that has just found an opening” in the gamers similar to their love for the beautiful game. And there seems no harm in adding top 12 women’s football teams in a game where an international men’s team ranked 141 already exists. Yes, I am referring to our very own country.

“She feels good when they split all expenses, but also when he buys her flowers. Inside the modern feminist lies an archaic desire.” –Kruttika, for Terribly Tiny Tales Presently, feminism is more popular than ever. With burgeoning coverage given in social media, popular culture and colloquial conversation, the educated class at least isn’t ignorant of the concept. But the question is how many actually understand it? A vast majority of people understand feminism as a shift of power from the male sex to the female or empowering women to rise above men or simply a battle of the sexes to put every connotation in a nutshell. All these, unfortunately, are either partially or wholly incorrect in explaining feminism. It is a shift of power, of agency but not merely from male to female but to a harmonious balance between the two. Feminism is not matriarchy, as it is often portrayed as; all it entails is equality between sexes. It means doing away with the whole premise of ‘gender’. Finally, feminism is anything but ‘anti-male’. In fact most of social media paints feminists as male haters as if that’s some fundamental eligibility criterion to qualify as a feminist. The opening quote beautifully builds the theme of this article- feminism isn’t about making women unemotional and belligerent in social dealings, it is just about obliterating discordant chords between the genders. Feminism is not just barring or protesting against reserved seats for ladies in public transport, rather it is protesting against the understandably ‘pink’ stickers demarcating the reservation, as if the colour pink was divinely bestowed upon the female sex as an identity. Feminism is not to say that girls become physically more proactive and outdoor oriented, rather it negates ridiculing a boy for being emotionally or physically weak. It’s not just against women living in their husbands’ homes after marriage, but also making it perfectly fine by societal standards for men to do the same. It doesn’t mean that women shouldn’t wear make-up or be obsessed with her appearance rather it gives the woman the sole right to decide how she wants to look like. It brings into light the sexual violence cases inflicted upon men, which patriarchy had skilfully closeted for years. It is definitely not just the right of women to wear short clothes, but it is also not judging women who decide to not wear short clothes. Since the basic premise of feminism is equality between sexes, men need it as much as women do. It does away with foolish stereotypes which come as free packages with gender roles. Nowadays, a new term has been doing rounds – ‘meninism’- implying the counterpart of feminism for the male sex. The reasons often quoted in favour of that are awfully frivolous- from freedom from holding shopping bags to opening doors for women. However, ironically enough, these aren’t even products of feminism. The last thing a feminist would want is someone to open the door for her. This whole concept of reverse sexism, if it actually exists is the boon of the age old vice- patriarchy. It preaches chivalry (encompassing stupid things like paying at dates, sacrificing seats for women and being the supposedly stronger sex) whose primary  foundation is that women are the weaker sex and hence need protection in terms of ‘charitable acts of apparent respect’. Patriarchy as a social evil is so deeply rooted that it perniciously eats into the independence of both the sexes. Most religions shamelessly uphold this concept and it’s been perpetually perpetrated. It paints an inflexible boundary of expectations for both the sexes, and is so deeply ingrained in the minds of everyone that it is impossible for anyone to break free. And feminism attacks this. It gives an agency to both men and women to operate beyond these boundaries. To understand feminism is not very difficult. We just have to let go of patriarchy 3D glasses to see what it is and what it is not. At the end of the day, in my understanding, feminism is hardly a fashion accessory, to be an ‘in thing’. It is realising and respecting every other person’s independence and choices. #feminism