01:40 - 28.04.07
Sacred Cows and other Illusions
Yesterday I was thinking about the diverse way various countries conduct business, based on the "compare and contrast" seminar that was offered by that one law firm. Today I was thinking about the same issues through the lens of the incident that generated the arrest warrants set out for Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty after a slip of judgement by the two. I really admire Mr Gere and enjoy his acting. He seems to choose roles which address temptation and moral choices that lead to unique outcomes, compared to the usual Hollywood fare. "Shall We Dance" being the last movie of his that I watched. Given that factor, it was all the more surprising to see him choose to do something that is taboo in East Indian culture. I don't usually comment on celebrity reportage, because most of what is offered adds no value to the sum of one's knowledge. This is a rare case. This international political incident was considered extremely provocative, yet came out of "innocence" and good intentions being in the wrong time and place. Unfortunately the consequences may be quite severe, even if it is only a "fringe" group of religious extremists who are expressing outrage. It seems that it is that fanaticism - regardless of the faith system involved - that is causing most of the world's misery today. One can't just dismiss it and this one small incident seems to sum up the core of the problem. You see, it reflects an intractibility or blindness in the broader society that harbours each fanatic contingent which allows those groups to have such a disproportionate impact and influence on the rest of their country and, indeed, the world. I think when one is uncertain about one's own understanding of their inner faith/spirituality, then that sliver of doubt creates a space where those fanatics can insert their own madness in a way that allows them to manipulate even the most level-headed person or government.
There is a large contingent of East Indian immigrants living in my community. They have been settling in this area for as long as housing has been a-building. They are my neighbours, co-volunteers, fellow parents, and voters. In every day life they are no different than me in our shared concerns. We have a lot of common ground from which we have work together to build a better community. We want the best education and social fabric possible for our children, safety and beauty in our community and respect for how our taxes are spent by our government. That is the basis upon which we usually share our mutual geographic community. It is only rarely that the differences between us are so extreme that there is no common ground for discussion, but when those conflicts arise, there isn't even a shared language with which to negotiate.
For example, during one election campaign where I chose to be involved directly, the number of volunteers from the mainstream community was matched by an equal number of volunteers of East Indian heritage. During that campaign there were two instances where customs and beliefs caused major concern about the safety of associating with our fellow candidate supporters even though we considered ourselves friends from long association in other community volunteer work. In one case the East Indian workers carried out a political smear against one of the other candidates that was openly and flagrantly illegal. The rest of us were very embarrassed by the behaviour and couldn't understand how the group could justify what they had done. The candidate - a lawyer - called a committee meeting of the whole, as soon as the misdeeds were discovered. He made it clear that he did not want any dirty tricks used as part of his campaign and would bar anyone who engaged in them from further involvement in it. He continued on to state that he would also co-operate with any police investigation that might arise from said activity. After he had left, one of the volunteers who had been part of the misdeeds turned to one of his partners in crime and said very quietly "What is his problem, we didn't kill anyone". One of the other women who I was working with said "Oh come now, that's not even funny". The original speaker responded that their group had just returned from working on a political campaign in India and that murdering an opposing candidate was the only action considered unacceptable there - "and we are the biggest democratic nation in the world". The problem is that each nation has it's own unique interpretation of "democracy" that might be considered illegal or immoral anywhere else that definition was applied. The leader of that group of volunteers had my deepest admiration for the way he acted as a bridge between the homegrown Canadian community and the immigrant community from India. He finally managed to smooth ruffled feelings on both sides of the equation. The balancing act between integration into the mainstream culture(remember India was a British colony too and thus shares many social factors present in Candian culture too)and maintaining the unique heritage of that community is like walking on the edge of a sword.
The second incident during that campaign was very upsetting and not even that moderator could find a point where discussion could occur. One day a news story on the radio reported that a young married couple of East Indian descent had been gunned down in a strip mall not far from the campaign office. The culprits gave themselves up to police immediately after. They were male relatives of the young woman. She had married her new husband without the approval of her family. It was deemed an honour killing. The volunteers of East Indian descent in the campaign office at the time couldn't understand why the murderers had been taken into custody, let alone why they would likely be sent to jail. "Discrimination, pure and simple, it is our tradition". The woman who had spoken up during the earlier incident said "Well no, actually murder, regardless of the reason, is illegal in Canada and the penalty is jail time." The argument presented by the East Indians was that theirs was an ancient culture long pre-dating the political existence of Canada and therefore had the right to supercede any Canadian laws. The response was that the political entity of India had only existed since 1949 and was therefore younger than Canada and also that each human being, regardless of place of origin had an ancestral history that could be traced back to the beginning of the human race. Each individuals' forebears and ancestors probably engaged in a number of cultural practices that would be considered illegal or immoral in the present day. Imagine my Scots relations fighting buck nekkid, for instance. The whole intent of establishing a non-discriminatory justice system in Canada was to ensure that each human brought to court was afforded the same treatment - that includes women of east Indian heritage who lived in this country. They aren't discriminated against for their right to protection under the law, because of their country of origin. The point was made quite firmly and frequently that if one chose to reside in this country, then one was expected to know and respect the laws and culture of this land. No grounds for agreement was found in that debate that went on for the balance of the campaign. Different "realities" and values stood as an ineffable barrier between the two groups.
So what does that have to do with Mr Gere's misstep at the AIDS rally in India? Western nations may want to dismiss that small splinter group of faith based fanatics in India, but they have enough credence in their country to have the issue brought up through existing legislation by the legitimately constituted and democratically organised judiciary of India based on the values of their country. Remember Mahatma Gandhi was an Oxford trained lawyer. Principles of British jurisprudence, eh wot? The requirement that visitors to our country respect our laws, has to be applied in a reciprocal manner when we visit their countries. Even though both Ms Shetty and Mr Gere are respected actors each in their own theatrical community, they are bound by codes of public conduct that are so different as to be unintelligible each to the other, even though on the surface there isn't a lot of difference, from a western perspective, between the two entertainment industries. How so? Well even though Bollywood movies appear to be mostly studies in seduction set to music, from a western perspective - think of the Kama Sutra, one rarely sees the actors touching each other. Body language is so expressive that very little is left to the imagination. A lot of Westerners in their own minds, interpret the scanty clothing and explicit body language - especially of the east Indian actresses - as an implicit consent and invitation to intimacy. Some males in this culture impute that to mean that East Indian women are free for the taking. Part of the problem is that the plots of some of the movies include social and faith based practices that aren't even part of the awareness of Western communities and so the real meaning of the story is lost and simplified into a sexualized interpretation. A reciprocal view of Westerners - especially of women - seems to be held by East Indians based on the physical contact and, to their minds, scanty clothing worn by western actors. Think Lady Chatterly's lover and it's clinical dissection of sexuality. Not that I know anything about either culture's deviancies, of course. The truth though, is that what is taboo in one culture and what is acceptable are almost reverse images of each other. Each society judges the other's moral codes based one their own lens. Neither culture has the maturity or grace to step into the reality of the other with attempts at understanding or compassion, even though the similarity in the teachings of each's mostly faith-based morality dictates that one should treat their neighbour as they would be treated themselves. Hmmmm. There are some, such as actor Aishwarya Bachchan in her latest movie about spousal abuse, who are exploring common themes of community problems arising from our most intimate relationships that may allow some common ground to be created where maybe reasoned discussion might be a point with which to begin. We'll see.
Although it is a small incident in the grand scheme of things, two fine, upstanding people are now compromised. I have great concern for Ms Shetty's physical safety, since her disgraced "honour" can be perceived by some in India to have brought her, her family and her country into international disrepute. When one considers this single incident, it is easier to understand how international realtionships are so often conflicted, even when all parties harbour the best of intentions when engaging with other nations. Sometimes we don't give diplomats and politicians who have the gift of Statesmanship the credit they deserve for peacefully navigating through the dangerous shoals of intercultural and interfaith relations on behalf of our countries. What is even more disappointing is that, as nations, we still are more likely to place our trust and support in those who would rather exploit the differences to increase their own power and authority by demonizing, attacking and assaulting the "other".
Now that I've likely offended your sensibilities dear diary, I guess I'd better get to bed. Sometimes bringing issues out of the shadow that most other people don't want to address is hard on a body. I have a headache.
�
�
