Everybody Tells Me Everything
by Ogden Nash

I find it very difficult to enthuse
Over the current news.
Just when you think that at least the outlook is so black that it can grow no blacker, it worsens,
And that is why I do not like the news, because there has never been an era when so many things were going so right for so many of the wrong persons.

This really defines the attitude of many of my countrymen/women towards gay and lesbian people. The issue in question is about the release of a new "progressive" film about lesbianism, called Girl Friend. The filmmaker defines it that, while the ultra right wing protectors of India's culture and tradition, the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, [not the link on top!]), are rampaging theatres across the country in protest of the film. Below is some info about the film and also an open letter to the filmmaker!


Subject: Girlfriend Protest
From: "Humjinsi Cluster" <humjinsi@hotmail.com>

Dear all,

This is an urgent and serious matter. Tejal and Sheba saw the
premier
of the film 'Girl Friend' yesterday. The film portrays Isha Koppikar as
a
sexually abused, violent, obsessive, killer, psychopath lesbian. The
film
claims to address the issue of 'lesbianism' but operates from a totally
homophobic, hetero- patriarchal viewpoint. It will do
unspeakable damage for the movement and simply put, it is downright
dangerous for those of us trying to survive in an already hateful
world.
The movie tears away the anonymity of lesbian existence; the word
lesbian is actually used in the film and the image created is a ghastly
and revolting one. The character is not a lesbian, she is a woman
hunter, a man hater, there are so many things in the film that are
absolutely despicable that one cannot even begin to describe them.

The absolute folly is that this movie is going to show in movie
theatres
all across the country. So while the film capitalizes on the lesbian
angle
(there is even a sleazy bedroom scene) the axe comes down so fast and
so
hard on the lesbian (she dies a gruesome death, which is
obviously retribution) that there is not even a sliver of doubt. Women
who
hate men become lesbians- who are bloodthirsty, abusive killer- who
finally bring on their own annihilation.

We have to take a stand and make a statement against this film and we
have
to come up with strategies to make a strong protest. We urge all of you
to
make time and suffer through the film this weekend so that we are well
aware of what we are up against.

Tejal has reviewed this film for MID-DAY. What she has to say and that
reflects how the rest of us feel as well, is written below. Do go
through it as well.

We urge everyone to come together. We will continue posting minutes of
every meeting and action taken.

In Solidarity,

Shruti, Tejal, Sheba, Aditi
Humjinsi

o o o o o


FROM THE FIRE INTO THE FRYING PAN

Dear Mr. Karan Razdan (director of Girlfriend),

This was supposed to be a film review. If the Shiva Sena and the
Bajrang
Dal go on a rampage yet again, to protest your film 'Girlfriend', ask
for
the film to be banned or sent back to the censor board, I might even
forgive you.

But I know, that six years after Deepa Mehta's film 'Fire' was
released,
the right wing will see no reason to protest your film because your
portrayal of a lesbian as 'a psychopath' sexually abused, man hating,
murderer and killer&acirc;€™ fits just fine into their hetero-patriarchal
agenda
of portraying lesbians & gays as freaks, abnormal and as people who
must
die at the end of the film, so they are aptly punished for their
unnatural existence.

On the out set, it must be stated that the ''Lesbian' issue is a hot
topic; it attracts audiences, creates a curiosity and definitely
impacts
the box office collections. I mean, if you were to tell me that you
made
this film because you care so much about lesbians and the issues
affecting them, that you wanted to bring this issue into the public
realm,
into every Indian household, surely you mean it as a
devasta
ti
ngly, nasty joke!

Your film is a presentation of the worst possible misnomers (I
consciously refrain from using the word 'stereotype') about anyone who
may
be attracted to a person of the same gender. The male, macho but normal
(read heterosexual) hero has no qualms about playing a
hyper-exaggerated, sissy, gay man when he needs to seduce the simple
minded, generous at heart, 'one-night' lesbian, but basically reformed,
heterosexual heroine, Amrita Arora. The straight heroine who is being
continuously misled by the lesbian villain must be saved by the
good-boy-hero. In the end, values of heterosexual love, marriage and
'normal' families must be upheld. The character of Tanya, acted by Isha
Koppikar is nothing short of a 'lesbian animal' aided as it is by the
background score to help us see her as a wild, almost cannibalistic
man-eating/man-hating woman who dares to behave like a man, a Sahela.
All
this of course is explained by the simple truth that she was
sexually abused as a child simultaneously implying that what makes
women
&acirc;€˜this way&acirc;€™ is possibly, abuse at the hands of men!

After watching a film like this, it is impossible for anyone to think
of
'women who love women' as normal human beings with two hands and two
feet,
who may be a friend, a sister, a mother, an aunt, a neighbour, a grand
mother and least of all a caring lover.

It must be pointed out that under the section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are looked upon
as/considered criminals, existing against the order of nature. Hey! and
if
you thought it was just about 'those guys & their lifestyles', let me
remind you that anytime you have non peno-viginal penetrative sex, you
are
as much of a criminal and can be put in the prison for 7 years or
heavily
fined or both.

Mr. Razdan, the next time you say that you are taking a neutral
position
in this film and portraying the case of just one lesbian, let me remind
you precisely, that the fiction you are choosing is a cleverly
developed
and thought out story that carries a clear message. This message is a
dangerous and retrogressive one. It is a message that endangers the
life
of any woman who may look or behave boyish, any woman who chooses to
experiment with her sexuality, and any woman who asserts her right to
different choices, even those women who are good friends and hold hands
when they walk down the street.

Welcome to the world of blatant hate crimes based on your sexual and
gender orientation!

As men or women, homosexual or heterosexual, films like these take us
many
steps backwards. More than two decades of work done by Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender groups, feminists groups, human rights groups,
women's groups and progressive artists groups, is going to suffer as
this
film is commercially released in every part of India from small towns
to
big cities.

Every time I hear of another lesbian suicide, another girl who hanged
herself for being teased about her 'best' friend, another hijra woman
raped in police custody, another woman sent for shock treatment and
aversion therapy to cure her of her homosexuality, another couple put
under house arrest by their parents when they find out about their
same-sex love, I will think of this film and I will be reminded of the
power that Bollywood wields in creating a mass consciousness of one
sort
or the other. In this case, it will be a conscious, articulated,
homophobia.

Thank-you very much Mr. Razdan, but we, as progressive citizens are not
interested in lip-service. I can assure you of one thing: the
homosexual
community in this country would much rather live in quiet anonymity
than
be mis-represented in such a ghastly, contorted fashion. Even a little
bit of research on your part would have revealed that
there
are at
least
three active lesbian and bisexual women's groups in Bombay city alone
and
hundreds of 'women who love women' leading their lives openly and
happily
but that's only possible when one makes a film on a hot issue (like
lesbianism is in India) when you foresee beyond profits and
publicity and see, real lives and real people who will live the
consequences of your doing.

It&acirc;€™s time that we stopped separating the issues that films address and
their impact on the audience/citizen within a given socio-political
context/environment. It is also high time that we stand in protest
against
any film that causes damage to the rights of any minority group.

Tejal Shah
(The writer is a visual artist and the co-founder, organiser and
curator
of Larzish - tremors of a revolution, International Film festival of
Sexuality & Gender Plurality, India since 2003)

BBC News, 14 June, 2004
'Girlfriend' causes India storm
By Jayshree Bajoria


The Telegraph, June 16, 2004
Two Women - Editorial


The Times of India, June 16, 2004
The XY-rated Film: Thought Police are Oxy-morons
Bachi Karkaria


see also the the URL for the official website on the film:

my long hibernation has resulted in me losing my belly button. i cannot find it. here's a lil love song for the newly dissapeared:

Oh my lovely button
where have you gotten
my lifes rotten
oh my belly button!

P.S: extreme poverty and many chocolate chip cookies have contributed to my slowly losing my mind too. But more on that later...
Liz, im in town, I shall call tonight! Do not fear I am here (Tagline of famous Hindi film)

Hey terry

Just read your post on POTA. I think its a horrible thing too. I agree completely. however, Sonia gandhi is not the daughter of Indira. She is infact the daughter-in-law, the wife of Rajiv Gandhi who was assasinated while he was Prime Minister. Also, Sonia has decided not to take up the Prime Ministership, owing to the fact that she is Italian and that there was a whole lot of objection to that from some Nationalistic assholes who wanted to uphold the "tradition and culture of Indian (read Hindu) society."
Also, Sonia's party is the dynasty-like political party, the Congress. They are hardly left-of-center. They are as right as right can be, only slightly less jingoistic than the present government.
thats it.. sorry to bore you with the many details but its just that Indian politics gets my gut everytime, just as i suppose you guys feel the same about your government!
as an aside, i love arundhathi roy.

There's a beautiful old Hindi song, which goes...
Mein zindagika saath nibaatha chala gaya
har fikrako duweh mein udaatha chalagaya....

meaning...
I have walked along with Life,
let my worries float away with the smoke of a cigarette.
truly, so much is lost in translation! Its beautiful though. Reminds me of the many nights at bars in India, drinking Kingfisher Beer and smoking my favorite Gold Flake cigarettes. And then ofcourse driving many miles to go to the dhaba(outdoor, rustic food place serving authentic Punjabi food.) There are no tables and chairs in these dhabas, just old cots with woven ropes and the smell of the ovens and the amazing night skies, naked and open.
I really do have a better perspective of my life in India now. For many years having everything I wanted was not enough, I wanted to get out of there, see what life had to offer me.... ok, I've seen it for the past year now and i long to go back now. its not merely about feeling displaced and lonely, it is rather the smells, the sights i crave. miss my friends, my family. this newfound perspective includes some career decisions too. more later... doston, alvida khudaphis!

mapping threads so bare
i lay in a maze
that casts a shadow threatening to drown
suck me in, drown me, don't leave me
i need to die now so i do not wake

Tourists and Torturers
By LUC SANTE

Published: May 11, 2004


ARTICLE TOOLS


E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles








READERS' OPINIONS


Forum: Join a Discussion on Op-Ed Contributors






TIMES NEWS TRACKER



Topics
Alerts

Iraq




Photography




Sante, Luc








o now we think we know who took some of the photographs at Abu Ghraib. The works attributed to Specialist Jeremy Sivits are fated to remain among the indelible images of our time. They will have changed the course of history; just how much we do not yet know. It is arguable that without them, news of what happened within the walls of that prison would never have emerged from the fog of classified internal memos. We owe their circulation and perhaps their existence to the popular technology of our day, to digital cameras and JPEG files and e-mail. Photographs can now be disseminated as quickly and widely as rumors. It's possible that even if Specialist Joseph M. Darby hadn't gone to his superiors in January and "60 Minutes II" hadn't broken the story last month, some of those pictures would sooner or later have found their way onto the Web and so into the public record.

Leaving aside the question of how anyone could have perpetrated the horrors depicted in those pictures, you can't help but wonder why American soldiers would incriminate themselves by posing next to their handiwork. Americans don't seem to have a long tradition of that sort of thing. I can't offhand recall having seen comparable images from any recent wars, although before the digital era amateur photographs were harder to spread. There have been many atrocity photographs over the years, of course &acirc;€” the worst I've ever seen were taken in Algeria in 1961, and once when I was a child another kid found and showed off his father's cache of pictures from the Pacific Theater in World War II, which shook me so badly that I can't remember with any certainty what they depicted. I'm pretty sure, though, that they did not show anyone grinning and making self-congratulatory gestures.

The pictures from Abu Ghraib are trophy shots. The American soldiers included in them look exactly as if they were standing next to a gutted buck or a 10-foot marlin. That incongruity is not the least striking aspect of the pictures. The first shot I saw, of Specialist Charles A. Graner and Pfc. Lynndie R. England flashing thumbs up behind a pile of their naked victims, was so jarring that for a few seconds I took it for a montage. When I registered what I was seeing, I was reminded of something. There was something familiar about that jaunty insouciance, that unabashed triumph at having inflicted misery upon other humans. And then I remembered: the last time I had seen that conjunction of elements was in photographs of lynchings.

In photographs that were taken and often printed as postcards in the American heartland in the first four decades of the 20th century, black men are shown hanging from trees or light fixtures or maybe being burned alive, while below them white people are laughing and pointing for the benefit of the camera. There are some pictures of whites being lynched, too, but these tend not to feature the holiday crowd. Often the spectators at lynchings of African-Americans are so effusive in their mugging that they all seem to be vying for credit. Before seeing such pictures you might expect the faces in them to express some kind of collective rage; instead the mood is giddy, often verging on hysterical, with a distinct sexual undercurrent.

Like the lynching crowds, the Americans at Abu Ghraib felt free to parade their triumph and glee not because they were psychopaths but because the thought of cens
ur
e probably never crossed their minds. In both cases a contagious collective frenzy perhaps overruled the scruples of some people otherwise known for their gentleness and sympathy &acirc;€” but isn't the abandonment of such scruples possible only if the victims are considered less than human? After all, it is one thing for a boxer to lift his hands over his head in triumph beside the fallen body of his rival, quite another to strike a comparable pose next to the bodies of strangers you have arranged in quasi-pornographic tableaus. The Americans in the photographs are not enacting hatred; hatred can coexist with respect, however strained. What they display, instead, is contempt: their victims are merely objects.

It is conceivable that such events might have occurred in a war in which the enemy looked like us &acirc;€”certainly, there are Americans to whom all foreigners are irredeemably Other. Still, it is striking how, in wartime, a fundamental lack of respect for the enemy's body becomes an issue only when the enemy is perceived as being of another race. You might have heard about the strings of human ears collected by some soldiers in Vietnam, or read the story, reported in Life during World War II, about the G.I. who blithely mailed his girlfriend in Brooklyn a Japanese skull as a Christmas present. And the concept of the human trophy is not restricted to warfare, but permeates the history of colonialism, from the Congo to Australia, Mexico to India. Treating those we deem our equals as game animals, however, has been out of fashion for quite a few centuries.

Of course the violence at Abu Ghraib was primarily psychological &acirc;€” hey, only a few people were killed &acirc;€” and the trophies were pictorial, like the results of a photo safari. Some commentators have made a point of noting this very relative nonviolence, contrasting it with the lynching of the four American military contractors in Falluja last month. This line of argument is notable for what it leaves out: there is a difference between the rage of a people who feel themselves invaded and the contempt of a victorious nation for a civilian population whom it has ostensibly liberated.

That prison guards would pose captives &acirc;€” primarily noncombatants, low-level riffraff &acirc;€” in re-enactments of cable TV smut for the benefit of their friends back home emerges from the mode of thinking that has prevented an accounting of civilian deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war. If civilian deaths are not recorded, let alone published, it must be because they do not matter, and if they do not matter it must be because the Iraqis are beneath notice. And that must mean that anything done to them is permissible, as long as it does not create publicity that would embarrass the Bush administration. The possible consequences of the Abu Ghraib archive are numerous, many of them horrifying. Perhaps, though, the digital camera will haunt the future career of George W. Bush the way the tape recorder sealed the fate of Richard Nixon.


Luc Sante, who teaches creative writing and the history of photography at Bard College, is the author of "Low Life," "Evidence" and "The Factory of Facts."

take this with a pinch of swati y'all.
im feeling sentimental and all now. some friendships were forged over the weekend and im feeling some happiness. the church, i feel for you and you make me laugh. the queen, you are the best. holly, it was great talking with you.
now i feel i should die because this, my friends, just read like an eulogy

i wrote and complained to authorities about the bus driver episode. they were very bothered and are taking action now. and now i feel terrible cos i don't want the bus driver to lose his job or something. farfetched, perhaps i give myself too much importance?

JP,
something i wrote for you!

the church walked away to warmed hands and warmer toes
the queen stayed and offered some
while the colonised looked on