mthambi

There is an argument to be made for not having cheerleaders during a cricket match on aesthetic grounds. But that needs to be decided by the organizers/teams/fans etc. There is no role for the govt/police.

It is true that there might be govt set obscenity standards. But they have to be applied objectively and uniformly (just like any other law). I don't think girls in mini-skirts should be considered obscene, and I think you are likely to agree. So the govt cannot say girls in mini-skirts performing before a cricket match is not okay but okay during a show. If you allow arbitrary application of obscenity laws by the govt, you are asking for corruption.

-Manu

mthambi

There is an argument to be made for not having cheerleaders during a cricket match on aesthetic grounds. But that needs to be decided by the organizers/teams/fans etc. There is no role for the govt/police.

It is true that there might be govt set obscenity standards. But they have to be applied objectively and uniformly (just like any other law). I don't think girls in mini-skirts should be considered obscene, and I think you are likely to agree. So the govt cannot say girls in mini-skirts performing before a cricket match is not okay but okay during a show. If you allow arbitrary application of obscenity laws by the govt, you are asking for corruption.

-Manu

gamercube

Define "cultural liberation". Does it involve aping western culture for the sake of being called "civilized" by them?

__________________
Hasta la Victoria siempre!

Tronic

No it means, keeping your nose out of other people's business. Some morons shouldn't comment on what others should or shouldn't watch. Anyhow, just goes to show the types of incompetent monkeys we have in politics; trying to make an issue out of cheerleaders, while there are people starving on the streets.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

mthambi

A culture tolerant of different kinds of clothes, lifestyles (including burkas and mini-skirts for example).

1947

i never said India should be culturally liberated (or aping the west in your terms) for the sake of being called civilized

to tolerate lower castes working better jobs
to tone down the opposition towards these cheerleaders
to allow the show of affection in public
to tolerate conversion of religion to allow catholics to eat beef
to let males and female in a internet cafe sit in the same cubicle rather than be pulled out and berated by a uneducated policeman
the list goes on and on

the list above isnt a stereotypical veiw of india its just what i have seen in my time around india
im indian myself though i now live in australia though india has more freedom than most asian nations there is still a lot india has to achieve to a become freer nation

1947

thank you for actually understanding what i said

gamercube

Any obscenity laws should be definitely applied uniformly. However, if you've seen pictures of those cheerleaders, you'll see that what they're wearing can could hardly be called miniskirts-they're probably micro-micro-minis. Obscenity laws should be applied not only during cricket matches, but wherever applicable, including shows organised by the Hindi film industry (I dislike the word "Bollywood").

But asking the government to completely stay out of it is not feasible-public display of vulgarity falls within laws set by the government, so they cannot keep out of it.

gamercube

I disagree. These "some morons" are elected officials who have the right to impose the laws enacted by them and previous governments. If you don't like what they're doing, protest against the law, not the enforcement of the law.

Are the two issues mutually exclusive? What does the starvation of people have to do with cheerleaders flouting anti-obscenity laws? You're going down a slippery slope here-giving absolute priority to one (admittedly important) issue and implying that others do not even exist could open up a whole can of worms. The starvation issue is important, and the governments are taking steps to combat it, but that certainly does not mean that we neglect all other issues.

gamercube

To tolerate lower castes getting better jobs? That hasn't been an issue ever since reservations have been introduced about 40-50 years ago. A former President, K.R. Narayanan, was a Dalit himself.

Catholics can eat whatever they want-heck, even some Hindus eat beef in India, I don't know what you're talking about.

The rest of your points pertain to public displays of affection-maybe laws need to be relaxed on this regard, and maybe not. It depends on what most Indians have to say-laws won't be arbitrarily changed to fit some western perceptions of freedom just to appear to be "freer" to western nations than other countries in this part of the world.

1947

recently there was or were furore's over lower caste's cooking for school kids with threats of lynching though its not as public as before deep seated resentment does lurk around every now and then

im an indian catholic was living in karnataka for months there were beef shortages purely due to fear of reprisals by Hindu hardliners who were trying to ban it

i dont see whats wrong with displays of affection in modern society except its limited to a certain level we dont want it to become public orgies but just to allow couple to be free of social Norms when they are in the public eye

the incident with richard gere was probably one of the big flashpoinsts in the volatile area of indian society he kissed shilpa shetty nothing too intimate and before we knew it people wanted his head on a platter

mthambi

I wouldn't personally mind those clothes (Infact I would prefer it if they wore it on the streets -- free entertainment). Anyway I would agree that if the majority population decides that it is not okay and it is applied fairly, objectively and uniformly, then it would be difficult to object, because the standards itself are subjective and cultural.

How do you balance majority rule against the rights on the individual? Remember India is a liberal democracy. That is, there are individual rights (like free speech, right to a trial, religious freedom etc.) which cannot be overridden by majority opinion. Are the right to choose your clothes a part of free speech?

-Manu

1947

its just xenophobia (culturally) under the guise of protecting our morals and our children

1947

anti-obscenity laws are only for a period of a couple of hours eliminating poverty is a long term permanent goal .
anti-obscenity laws are just a way of imposing one's cultural views without publicly discussing the subject
eliminating poverty isnt going to get much attention so one can't make a point or voice a political opinion that would be as popular as anti-obscenity laws

mthambi

I am really annoyed by the laws in India against religious conversion (by inducement they say). As long as the religious conversion is not done by *physical* force, I don't see why the state should get involved. Even if a church/temple/mosque gave money to somebody to convert them, it is still a private transaction between adults. I am assuming that the person converting values the money more than his religious identity. This should be perfectly legal.