Opinion: Is India turning into ‘BAN-istan?’

A temporary ban on beef and meat has infuriated many Indians already reeling under increasingly intrusive actions by the government. DW’s Sanjiv Burman looks at what is behind India’s obsession with bans.

First there was a ban only on beef, then it was meat in general – the government machinery swung into action with a vigor and efficiency that would be much appreciated with regard to more serious issues like corruption or the safety of women.

In the last few months, states ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP are increasingly imposing bans on all kinds of things in an effort to regulate people’s lives. In a broader context, one can also observe a clear attempt by Hindu nationalist organizations under the “Sangh Parivar” umbrella to dictate the way they think Indians should live.

As opposition Congress party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi remarked, Indians have been told “what to wear, celebrate, eat, watch, who to walk with in the park, if they can hold hands, what religion people should follow, how to pray and what to teach.”

DW's Sanjiv Burman. Image: DW

DW’s Sanjiv Burman. Image: DW

Apart from meat, films like the BBC’s India’s Daughter have been banned, as have adult porn sites on the Internet. Maggi has been banned as well as a number of books. What is going on? Is this really India? Of course not.

We must note that several Congress-led governments also used divisive and intrusive instruments to regulate life in the country, but they were more for opportunistic reasons rather than for ideological ones.

In a uniquely diverse country like India, various religious, ethnic and linguistic groups have been living in harmony for thousands of years. Whenever conflicts arose, they were dealt with in the spirit of consensus. The religion and culture of the majority Hindus has always had a decentralized character.

A Hindu wedding in the southern state of Kerala could wrap up in 10 minutes whereas a Bengali Hindu couple tying the knot could take hours to complete the ceremony. As the Hindu religion knows no Pope or Khalifa, there is no fixed codex based on one single holy book for all Hindus to follow.

As a result, Indian society has thrived by following its pluralistic and tolerant traditions. Even other religions let down their roots in India within the same diverse framework and helped form today’s secular India with all its flaws and shortcomings.

The concept of “Hindutva” or Hindu nationalism challenges the very essence of India’s narrative. In fact, it is based on a very Western organizational structure with uncanny similarities to Christian missionaries or other religious movements with a clear command structure and agenda – therefore very “un-Indian.”

While challenging the very foundation of secular India it does not only attack minorities but tries to define and dictate the lifestyle of the majority. That’s where the real danger lies.

This “agenda” is carefully packaged so that the Indian government, led by the charismatic Prime Minister Narendra Modi, does not lose its appeal to a broad section of the voters who elected him to office with a comfortable majority.

The same packaging skills were applied when his predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee ruled India from 1998 to 2004. Both the leaders have been projected as statesmen above narrow party politics while the Sangh Parivar tried to consolidate its power in virtually all spheres of public life.

Whenever rightwing supremacy raised its ugly head, the otherwise articulate leader remained silent. Even with a direct platform to address the people like the weekly radio show “Mann ki Baat,” Modi chooses to carefully avoid any such controversial issues that could damage his image as the Prime Minister of all Indians.

But the very modern and strong India Modi is apparently trying to build also includes certain virtues enjoyed by most of the other industrial powers of the world – namely freedom of speech, right of self-determination and limits of state control. Are the citizens of this emerging world power really ready to sacrifice those rights for the sake of a rigid ideology and only embrace prosperity? The reactions in social media to the Hindu nationalist efforts to ban meat suggest they are not, but the jury is still out.

In: DW

U.K. Communications Act: Una larga lista de actos sexuales prohibidos en el porno del Reino Unido

Todos los trabajadores relacionados a la industria del sexo en el Reino Unido están enojados porque el gobierno ha regulado “lo que es seguro o inseguro en el porno en Internet” a partir de la nueva normativa vigente desde el día de ayer: Audiovisial Media Services Regulations 2014.

Muchas de las fantasías sexuales más comunes ahora han sido prohibidas en la pornografía tanto de paga como gratuita.

20141208-banned_porn_practices_in_uk.png

La pornografía producida en el Reino Unido ha sufrido una polémica regulación esta semana tras la aprobación de una enmienda a la Ley de Comunicación de 2003 que establece ciertas medidas respecto a la ejecución de algunos actos sexuales en este tipo de cine. El Reglamento de Medios Audiovisuales de 2014 de este país exige que la pornografía online se adhiera a las mismas pautas establecidas para el género X que se distribuye en DVD, tal y como establece la Junta Británica de Censura en el Cine.

Según este organismo, existen unas reglas que señalan qué tipo de sexo es agradable y cuál no es aceptable en las películas porno, de cara a la protección infantil. De esta manera se prohíben de manera efectiva que las siguientes prácticas sexuales sean representadas por productores de pornografía británicos:

– La palmada
– El azote
– Latigazos agresivos
– Penetración por cualquier objeto “asociado a la violencia”
– Maltrato físico o verbal, independientemente de si está consensuado
– Urolagnia o miccionar sobre la otra persona
– Juego de roles como no adultos
– La restricción física
– La humillación
– La eyaculación femenina
– La estrangulación
– El facesitting o sentarse en la cara del otro
– Juegos con el puño

20141208-rebecca-more.jpg
La actriz porno Rebecca More ha viajado por todo el Reino Unido para tener relaciones sexuales con personas en la parte trasera de un camión. Esto es totalmente permitido.

Discriminación femenina

Estas medidas no impedirían que cualquier usuario pudiera ver un vídeo que incluyera estos actos sexuales pero que estuviera grabado fuera del Reino Unido y no realiza una distinción entre adultos y adolescentes. Según apunta Jerry Barnett, representante del grupo Sexo y Censura, “se trata de un conjunto de juicios morales diseñado por personas que han luchado sin cesar por impedir que el pueblo británico vea pornografía”.

En un artículo para The Independent, la directora Erika Lust señala que “tenemos que pensar qué es ofensivo y qué es peligroso, diferenciarlo de lo que es fruto de la naturaleza humana y recordar qué es más importante si educar o regular”.

Por su parte, Itxiar Bilbao Urrutia, una famosa dominatrix española que trabaja en el porno británico, asevera que esta nueva regulación ejerce una cenusra negativa sobre los actos sexuales que tradicionalmente favorecen más a las mujeres que a los hombres. “Esta legislación es absurda y surrealista. No entiendo por qué el facesitting es tan peligroso si se trata de una postura que ejecutan muchos artistas vestidos completamente. Su poder es simbólico y representa a la mujer inalcanzable, en la parte superior”.

En: elconfidencial

Imagen: A long list of sex acts just got banned in UK porn

Leer más