For Democracy in India: The Constitution is not a charter of servitude
Issues related with various rights, resistance, justice movements, people’s struggles. Awareness mongering to the hilt. Giving voice to causes that need it, bringing to attention things that may be missed. Countering propaganda, undermining discrimination. This area tries to fix the world, one starfish at a time.
The Hadiya case has quickly turned into a war of political interests between Hindutva and Islamists. Prima facie, the issue is simple. A woman choses to convert to another religion and marry a man of her choice from that religion. Enter evil parents. The marriage is anulled. Hadiya is becomes a prisoner. Clamour grows with the Hindutva pride seeing exploitation, while the anti-Hindutva prejudice seeing nothing but a matter of choice. I don't see the issue as that simple, and for once, I agree with all parties. I definitely applaud the courage of Hadiya in sticking to her choice and taking it all the way. While I restricted myself to stating this, all was well. The problem arose when I also understand the perspective of the father as well as the courts. In my view, this is a complex issue with several factors that need considering. The high voltage drama around the issue has ensured it is largely reduced to accusations of love jihad and scoffing at the accusations with complete inability of both extreme stands to actually understand the issue beyond the lens they are habituated to.
For me, this is not a religious issue in the sense of Islam or Hinduism or whatever, but it is similar to countless instances of women (and men too) being infatuated with a belief system to the point of cutting off their previous life. It isn't a matter of choice of religion or choice of husband, but a matter of a series of choices that literally amount to abdicating her entire family, name, identity, residence, marital status and more. It is a series of extreme and life changing decisions in rapid succession. This is where the case is a cause for concern. She is literally abdicating the person she used to be in order to embrace a completely new way of life. It is clear that she is convinced about this. It is equally clear that those cheering for her are convinced that it is the right thing. But if you take off the lens of specific religions, where have we seen similar behavior?
Well, we have seen women leave their families and join the Sanatan Sanstha (a Hindu extremist organization). When their concerned parents tried legal means to get them back, the girls informed them that they had joined the Sanatan Sanstha by choice. They accused their parents of abuse. A more recent example would be when the parents of two sisters in Bombay filed a complaint against Sunil Kulkarni who ran an "organization" called Shifu Sankriti for entraping their daughters who.... found his cult and left their parental home. They accused Sunil Kulkarni of entraping their daughters, giving them drugs, sexual exploitation and what not. The daughters rubbished their claims in court and accused the parents of domestic violence. Other parents too have made similar complaints, but those who followed him have not spoken against him. Sunil Kulkarni is not Muslim, none of those accusations were proved. He was arrested anywayand is still being denied bail. The girls of the college in Dera Sacha Sauda had released videos endorsing Ram Rahim and angry with the state over his arrest. I'd post a link, but that is one sad video I wish I could unsee.
While it is tempting to see this as an issue of religious choice or prejudice against minorities or love jihad, the fact is that there are patterns to people suddenly immersing themselves in a new faith they find. And sometimes the patterns are suspicious enough to raise serious questions on whether the person is acting of their own will. This is not limited to any specific religion or cult. However, it usually happens when there is some kind of fundamentalism or cult going on. Merely being interested in and following religion does not lead to an abdication of family and loved ones, home and routine life and a complete immersion in the new lifestyle. Hadiya didn't just embrace Islam, she changed her name, her dress, her educational goals, she got involved in an Islamist organization, and she quit her family, stayed with several new acquaintances in quick succession. When legally challenged, with the assistance of her new associates, she came up with another Islamist to marry! A parent who wouldn't be alarmed by something like this is hard to find. This is not merely a change of faith or interreligious marriage. For something like this to happen, the mind is completely captivated by the promise of the new faith and completely disinterested in existing life and loved ones to the point of losing all realistic view. In that sense, the NIA is not altogether wrong when it speaks of indoctrination subverting consent. The bigger problem is that the NIA seeing it as happening only as the pet bogey of love jihad, when, in fact it happens across religions, cults, politics and even love marriages with gullible minds absorbing visions of utopia and giving up anythign that would deter from chasing that infatuation. Anything that drastically changes life while looking at limited aspects of a situation based on information promoted is suspect.
For that matter, even if an atheist were to suddenly turn hostile with family over suddenly discoverign that there is no God, it would still be a suspect state of mind during which they probably should not take life altering decisions. One of the wisest pieces of relationship advice comes from the polyamory community, to enjoy a new relationship, but to not make any life altering decisions while under the influence of NRE (New Relationship Energy). Something like this applied to matters of changes in beliefs - whether political or religious would mean to learn more, engage, enjoy more, but not burn bridges with existing life in rapid succession to rely solely on new choice for all matters - even those unrelated to it.
That said, what should be done about such subversion of free choice is anyone's guess. Many people indoctrinated continue to live what is to them a normal life. Many times indoctrination can be inadvertent rather than deliberate (happens in most homes where kids learn to think in black and white prejudice). While being indoctrinated may be unfortunate, there is no objective way to assess it and thus acting on such an evaluation always runs the risk of violating rights. Even if it is a mistake, it is that person's mistake to make, after a point. Also given how highly charged these kind of situations can be, there is great potential to both frame people as well as get away with indoctrination if it is the "right" kind of indoctrination.
But I am glad this case hit the courts. Hadiya must indeed have the right to choose her way - even if it is wrong (which in my belief it is - drowning in religion/religious politics, in my view is always suspect). But I am glad that the process kept the space open for her to pause for breath and think things through very seriously. At the end of the day, it is her life, her choice.
It would, however be useful if people who claim to endorse human rights contributed to creating a larger picture instead of abdicating all responsibility to prevent exploitation (that is what brainwashing is, fundamentally) in their eagerness to present an unambiguous and ringing endorsement of whatever the cause they are showing off. Whether minorities or women's right to choose or opposing Hindutva propaganda, or whatever. Because at the center of such situations are very vulnerable people living in a virtual reality. It may be their right to live in that reality, but well wishers watching their six wouldn't hurt.
Finally, Hadiya's father is not a Hindutva activist but an atheist. The court gave her into his custody with guard and restrictions. Nor was his case against Hadiya's husband - he really doesn't have the power to order NIA investigations. It may be worth looking at what actions are being attributed to him just because he dared question the holy cow of free choice. He can approach the courts, but the judges do have minds of their own and are not obliged to obey.
DeMonetisation did not promote the uptake of digital transactions
Driving India towards a less-cash, digital payments economy was one of the aims claimed by the Prime Minister when he invalidated 86% of India's circulating currency. The reasoning was that India was a largely cash-based economy; if circulating cash was reduced, people would rapidly move towards electronic, or digital payment systems for their commercial transactions. That at any rate was the hope.
Did it happen?
Rupa Subramanya thinks it did. She claimed as much in a blog in the Hindustan Times. She accepts that the original aim of taking out black money has not been met, given that almost all of the Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) hav now been returned for exchange or deposit. But she goes on to say that her research shows that the secondary aim of pushing the country towards digital payments and away from a cash based economy has been achieved. To quote from her article:
....several key components of digital payments such as Point of Sale Debit and Credit (PoS) purchases, National Electronic Fund Transfer (NEFT), Immediate Payment Systems (IMPS) and mobile banking, are way above their pre-demonetisation trends
The bottom line of the research conclusively demonstrates that there was a structural break after November 2016 with a permanent increase in digital payments and decrease in the relative importance of cash. Whatever you may think of the original goals and whether they succeeded, it’s clear digitisation is one demonstrable success story of demonetisation.
She expresses the use of digital payments not in absolute terms but as a proportion of total M3 Money. However, though she says she has published her findings, they are not in peer reviewed journals. Rather the findings are published in research papers for the Observer Research Foundation - a think tank. I haven't seen these papers and therefore cannot comment on the methodology of the research. In any case she does not cite a source, nor does her article present the full results of her analysis. Her data source, though is the same that I have used earlier in a series of tweets and in a twitter Moment. This is the Reserve Bank of India's Database on Indian Economy.
I believe her conclusions are premature, they may even be misleading or wrong, based as they are not on absolute value of payments but on payment volumes as a ratio of M3.
I present here my own much simpler and more intuitive analysis of the RBI data set and draw very different conclusions.
Data and Methods: The RBI dataset consists of monthly transaction amounts for each of several different modes of digital transactions. The data goes back to 2004 and the latest available data is for August 2017, 10 months after DeMonetisation. Rather than look at just at the figures a few months either side of D-Day (DeMonetisation-Day if you are a fan or Disaster-day if you are a critic), I suggest it is best to look at the entire period. Since these are time series data (defined as data collected consistently with a defined periodicity - in this case monthly) the most obvious and simple technique would be to chart the data against time, draw a vertical line at D-day and look for a change in the trend . If D-Day did indeed result in qualitative sustained change in aggregate behaviour the change in trend would be obvious. I used the statistical programming language, R and the charting package ggplot2 to draw and annotate the charts. These statistical programmes are widely used in academia and business.
Results: The results of my analysis are best presented as a series of charts. They speak for themselves.
The key point to get is that by looking at the entire time series for each of the main digital payment modalities, two conclusions leap out immediately.
One, that in the first few months after D-Day there was a spurt the volume of payments made by digital means.
Two, for some payment modalities, they have subsequently fallen back to levels that were seen well before D-day. In particular retail electronic clearing, and plastic card volumes are effectively back on the same trend growth they always were since long before D-Day. Mobile banking transactions in particular were going up steeply in the months before D-Day was even a glint in anyone's eye; they went up even more steeply after D-day - and here's the crucial point, they have more latterly dropped right back. If we superimpose what we know about the re-introduction of new currency notes this looks like a perfect fit. As cash was re-introduced into the system, people began giving up on mobile banking transactions.
Another set of charts looks at the volumes (i.e number) of transactions.
Here there appears to be a small shift upward that, despite some month on month fluctuation appears to be settling down at a level clearly higher than anything seen pre D-Day. In the case of mobile transactions it is small-ish numbers and starting from a very low base; in the case of digital transactions its a step change from about 1.4 billion transactions a month to about 2 billion. But the volumes transacted appear not to have shifted much at all - it is in keeping with long-running trend and it is certainly not a step change.
Undoubtedly, there has been a steep growth in the number of Point of Sale outlets, as shown here:
Starting from a very low base, this is only to be expected given the huge Government push including cash incentives and subsidies for the take up of POS machines. The extend to which these have penetrated much beyond the largest urban centres and the plushest retail outlets is the big question. The last chart above is based on data published by NITIAayog
Conclusions. My analysis leads me to conclude that any effect of DeMonetisation on the use of digital payment systems has been transient, small and short-lived. Some change has occurred (POS terminals for example) but the fact that both retail electronic clearing and card usage is back on what I call 'trend growth' (i.e. on the same trend as obtained before D-day) would suggest that there has not been a structural change that can be confidently ascribed to DeMonetisation.
Post-script discussion. In all the commentary on Digital Payments insufficient attention has been paid to a most fascinating report that was published on Oct 5 by Visa India. Amitabh Kant, CEO of NITIaayog, wrote the foreword to this report. Nobody who read the detailed figures or had taken in the measured recommendations in this report would have supported a sudden, cataclysmic and disruptive withdrawal of 86% of the currency, certainly not with the intention of promoting a digital payments economy. Among the key findings of the report are:
Cash usage costs the economy 1.7% of GDP (Note: borne largely by the State)
According to a 2014 World Bank survey, only 0.38 percent of women above 15 years old used the internet to make payments compared with 2.04 percent of men; 3.25 percent women had used a debit card versus 5.25 percent of men.
The cost of a point-of-sale (POS) terminal in India ranges from INR 8,000 to INR 12,000. The annual operating cost is INR 3,000 per terminal. Low transaction volumes especially outside of Tier 1 cities, make it unviable for banks to expand their footprint into such segments.
RBI and the Govt of India already had a plan to transition to a less-cash economy.
If India invested a total of INR 58,000 crores (USD 8.6 billion) over the next five years through tax rebates, it could not only expedite the pace of payment digitisation but also save about INR 70,000 crores (USD 10.4 billion) in that period through a reduction in the cost of cash with a potential to save 4.7 lakh crores (USD 70 billion)
If we invested 60,000 crores and undertook a series of reforms and regulatory changes cash use could come down in 2025 from 1.7% of GDP to 1.3%.
In particlar see exhibit 7 of the rport which details the benefits from a sustained programe of policy changes as well as investments to improve the infrastructure for digital transactions. Effectively, a 5 year programme of sustained policy implementation and investment would potentially result in a growth of digital payments for Personal Consumption Expenditure from 4% to a whopping 36%, a drop in cash need from 11% of GDP to 10%.
That was possible only because China was a Communist dictatorship and Mao held absolute power over both Party and the people of China. He decided it was a good idea and the Great Leap Forward happened.
Black Money was a major problem, declared the Prime Minister, and it called for a dramatic, decisive and bold step. Effective midnight 8th Nov 2016 the 500 and 1000 Rupee notes would be raddi ('worthless pieces of paper' to use the PM's words). New notes would be issued, including inexplicably a 2000R-Rupee note; and people left holding the old notes would be able to exchange them at banks or deposit them for credit to their accounts.
The others, especially the poor, suffered the most. Day-to-day commercial transactions seized up. Shopping for groceries, taxi rides, buying a train ticket, paying the utility bill - all the routine stuff of everyday life became hard. Given that the notes that were declared illegal made up fully 86% of the currency-in-circulation, and that for all but the richest urban citizens India was still predominantly a cash economy, this was hardly surprising. Daily wage labourers lost livelihoods;victims of domestic violence lost the money they were hiding from violent partners; small businesses saw customers turn away; smaller businesses and street traders could not afford to take up the offer of Point of Sale equipment. The rural sector was worst hit;agricultural markets collapsed in a state-ordained market failure. 
But there was also widespread support for a ‘decisive strike against the rich and the corrupt’; in the days of chaos that followed, support for the Prime Minister hardly wavered. The cause was a noble one and people were prepared to make personal sacrifices for the national good. In time the economy would pick up, more of the informal cash-driven sector would be persuaded, cajoled or dragged into the formal, digital-transaction banked sector, the tax take would rise and India would become a modern rich economy. Trillions of rupees would not be returned to the banks by rich crooks and the ensuing windfall would be put to good use in building up national infrastructure. That, at any rate, was the hope.
It remained a forlorn hope. None of the claimed benefits materialised.
The process of re-monetisation with the new notes gradually picked up and by the 1st anniversary the total currency in circulation was back to 85% of what it used to be. Cashless transaction rose in the early days after Nov 2016 as people were forced to use alternative means of payment but have since fallen back to previous levels as currency became available.
What advice and analysis went into the formulation of the policy? Were experts consulted at all?
What was the role of economic and finance policy institutions like the Reserve Bank of India and NITI-Aayog? Did they play a role in the formulation of the policy and its implementation or were they relegated to serving as mere apologists for the ill-effects of a decision taken by an autocratic Prime Minister?
Why did Cabinet not protest at being ensconed in a room without access to mobile phones as the decision was announced?
Was it not the role of Parliament to hold the Government to account?
Will there ever be an independent cost-benefit analysis of the decision?
Deaths attributable directly and solely to the scrapping of notes was always going to be difficult. That a number of deaths occurred in queues is undeniable. Were they caused by the need to stand in queues? That's more difficult. Arguably the distress, the economic harm, the job losses and the lost wages/livelihoods and savings took its toll on ordinary people. The exact number of deaths became a political ding-dong that diverted attention from the bigger question of the wisdom of the policy.
We'll never know for certain that the final decision to go ahead and DeMonetise the currency was entirely Mr Modi's. There has never been a proper enquiry. All the indirect evidence points to it being either solely or largely his decision and his alone. Much later on it emerged that the RBI Board met on the morning of the 8th Nov and agreed to a Govt proposal but the delay in publishing this resolution leads to the suspicion that it was a hastily put together fig leaf. See: this and this . There's also speculation that a war on cash was one of the suggestions put forward to Mr Modi by an engineer and keen campaigner for tax reform Mr Anil Bokil of the Pune basedArthaKranti Foundation. Its worth noting that these ideas have no traction among mainstream economists.
Seethe writings of P Sainath on the effects of the noteban on rural economy of India. https://ruralindiaonline.org/articles/demonetisation
SwarajyaMag.com is an online journal that is openly and avowedly right wing and a keen supporter of the PM's party. In an unexpected op-ed piece on June 14 2017, R Jagannathan the editor declared Demonetisation to be a failure but argued that the critics were right for the wrong reasons. Their criticisms, he argued was led more by animosity towards Mr Modi than by any special economic insight. But even I, as an amateur student of economics, argued in my blog of 16 Nov 2016, a week after the decision to demonetise, that it was aflawed policy that would do nothing to root out black money. I argued that DeMonetisation would cause tremendous hardship and loss to large numbers of people, that it would not deliver its claimed benefits, that there were other better targeted means of combating black money. It was, I argued neither necessary nor sufficient to make a serious dent in black money. At that time, it is important to note, the stated aim was to eliminate black money. The push to a digital cashless payments system came later on.
The earlier, almost gleeful, expectation was that as much as 3.5 to 5 trillion rupees worth of high denomination notes would not be handed back in and would be a free windfall for the Reserve Bank of India which would see a dramatic drop in its liabilities. This would be a huge bonanza in the form of a one off dividend from RBI to the Govt. This euphoria evaporated when someone pointed out that a decline in liabilities affected the balance sheet but would not lead to a profit and the RBI act required it to pay a dividend only out of annual profits from banking activities. In the event the actual dividend that RBI paid out to the Govt in 2017 actually fell by almost half compared to the previous year. The losses arose out of scrapping the old notes, printing new ones, and the extra logistics costs of shipping the new notes out to where it was needed.
I published a twitter threadand a moment with analysis of month-by-month time series data right up to August 2017 of the amount of money that flowed through non-cash digital payments systems. These include bank-to bank systems, like real time gross settlements used by businesses, paper-based payments systems (bank drafts and cheques), retail electronic payments, credit and debit card payments, and mobile banking payments. These charts show that any effect of DeMonetisation has been at best short-lived. There has been a growth in the number of point of sale terminals but from a very low base, and a growth in the number of subscribers to mobile phone based payments systems.
The GDP growth slowdown has been widely commented upon. The standard Govt response has wavered between arguing that DeMonetisation was necessary medicine for a a backward economy built on cash-fuelled corruption, and a counterattack that the slowdown is not due to Demonetisation but was in the making long before Nov 2016. As arguments go both are own-goals and ill-serve the Govt's credibility.
The Harvard Business review paper argues that the 4 lessons to learn are
Choose your experts carefully. Mr Modi may have been influenced by a few cranks posing as economic experts with not so much out-of-the-box ideas as off the wall thoughts.
Dont ignore basic data. All the evidence was that only 6% of black or illegal wealth was held in cash. Not attacking the sources of corruption - politicians, real estate, and big businessmen meant tha instead of a targeted approach we had an assault on everyone - honest and weak included, in which the rich and corrupt got clean away.
Consider human behaviour. People found a way out of the cash crunch both to manage their poor honest lives and to squirrel away whatever illegal cash they held. Digital transaction was already growing as fast as it could given the infrastructure available, so as soon as new cash came into the system any spurt faded away.
Beware of digital silver bullets. India came 41st out of 42 countries just ahead of arch-rival Pakistan in the infrastructure needed to support a digital payments eco-system. However 'bold' and 'decisive' an executive ordz er cannot replace patient attention to detail.
A man who imposes sexual activity on a woman without any indication that she is attracted to him, in the face of blunt refusals or knowing that she definitely does not like him, is a rapist. But without this explicit clarity, there are a lot of grey areas where men and women can communicate very differently and a lack of consent is not very clear. It isn't as simple as saying a no is a no.
While we are willing to accept a victim coming in with an accusation of rape much after an incident she reluctantly consented to in has happened, we are less tolerant about the ability of the man who must judge in the heat of the moment to determine whether the refusal is something that will resolve with persuasion or violate. And the sensitivity of men differs wildly, much of it determined by individual life experiences - we do little to help men learn.
It is an age old debate - how much no is no when it comes to sex. There is a side that thinks all "No" is a dead end. There is another that pretty much refuses to recognize any form of "No" as being an actual refusal. Neither are practical. As always, the more adamant force is applied to a process, the less there is sensitivity to nuance. It isn't enough to simply dump responsibility for changing a status quo on one side of a difference. Particularly when that side is less vulnerable to the problem to begin with.
There are many shades of "No". To me, for someone to be called a "rapist" an important condition is that the alleged rapist must know that the other person does not want them - particularly in cases where consent has been implied till that point.
Consent is a grey area traditionally
Asking for anything is culturally stigmatized. Someone asks you if you want tea, you are conditioned to refuse. This is a relatively minor thing. But you are taught that politeness means you don't outright accept something you desire. The more intimate and high stakes your desire, the closer you play your cards to your chest.
For many "traditional" people, by the time a relationship is ready for sex, the moment for consent has long passed, because any physical touch already is consent in a society not given to casual physical touch between genders.
When a woman says No, she doesn't always mean it
Now consider the conditioning women go through all their lives, where a woman who is eager for sex is seen as someone less respectable. There are few women or even men who would outright agree to sex, even while they are giving all kinds of green signals otherwise. Remaining available, participating in increasing contact, "accidental" contact, remaining accessible for sexual contact - and even pretending to be surprised if it happens, till the elephant of increasingly intimate contact cannot be looked around - are all normal happenings in courtship.
People pretend accidental contact that they can back off from if the other person doesn't seem receptive rather than outright ask for sex. Rather than come across as forward or risk a refusal, they simply initiate and see where it goes. Because here is the thing, we also see asking for sex as inappropriate if it gets refused. Men become creeps, women become sluts.
And this is culturally accepted and immortalized. "Jaane do na. Paas aao na" is a sexy song that gave many men sleepless nights when the film Sagar released.
The whole duet is spent with Rishi Kapoor asking Dimple Kapadia to come closer and her refusing all the way. She refuses. Says don't touch me. I can't do these things, etc. It is actually a romantic song where both of them are attracted and in fact gave men an education on what an aroused woman looks like before the age of the internet! The film Sagar would be vastly different if Dimple Kapadia later realized Rishi Kapoor was a lousy lover and remembered that she'd been second thoughts all through and in fact, refusing. It would take an exceptionally sex-illiterate person to conclude a lack of consent from that song. And if Rishi Kapoor took those refusals at face value and didn't proceed, that would be one hot, frustrated woman there and Kamal Haasan would be one happy man. Never really understood what she saw in Rishi Kapoor with super sexy Kamal Haasan there for her.
This song is actually quite realistic among the masses, where there is a lot of intimacy that goes on under the cover of normalcy or even expressed disinterest without actual prevention till the relationship reaches a point of inevitability. It is vulnerability in a judgmental world. It is hard to talk about budding feelings in the bright light of day. Not many can do it. I doubt if even among the feminists there would be very many who can claim to have explicitly spoken of attraction and a desire to initiate a sexual relationship before intimacy.
Is it wrong? Only if you think communication is strictly verbal. But there are fifty kinds of non-verbal signals that are freely given. Spending more time exclusively with someone, standing closer to them than others, casual affectionate physical touch not shared with others... it all communicates consent in a language beyond words and paves the way for more.
But there are far more mundane reasons for blurred consent. Refusals that have nothing to do with sexual willingness, but are related to other factors - for example, tired - which often change with seduction. Or a risk of discovery - which can change a refusal into flat out excitement for some, depending on how aroused they are. They can also be deeply distressing, even with a regular and beloved partner if a woman does not find the risk of discovery exciting.
Whether to persuade and get a phenomenally hot sexual experience or to respect an area of discomfort? This needs education on sensitivity and communication that cannot be plastered over with "no is no".
Traditional and biological sexual factors add confusion
Then there is a further complication. Sexually, men often enjoy the "chase" and women often enjoy being overruled on consent - when they feel safe. That men enjoy the chase shouldn't be that hard to infer from the very troublesome manifestation of sexual harassment. It is predatory behavior. The harassment is where women are clearly not on the same page - because women do require to establish trust and a catcall or grope isn't exactly it. There are a few women who feel flattered by catcalls even if they would not admit it openly. The feeling of being publicly desirable. They often are also those who place high value on male approval overall. While they may not openly enjoy it, you can get that insight in indirect ways - for example when they speak of disparage women as someone who wouldn't turn heads or wouldn't be harassed or molested or raped because they aren't attractive, etc. Where they clearly see unsolicited approaches as a mark of desirability, even though respectability demands that they cannot be known to enjoy it.
I once knew a girl nicknamed Sexy in our friends circle and while she acted all protesting about a nickname that sounded like a sleazy catcall, she would be the one to tell people who didn't know what her nickname was!
There is also a fundamental difference in how men and women interpret intimate conversations that create misunderstandings. Men generally do not speak of intimate physical experiences with the ease women do. Just look at the number of open discussions about menstruation or female sexuality on social media and compare them with how many times you have seen men talk about their penises at all. Men reserve personal talk to extremely confidential relationships - if they talk about intimate issues at all. An intimate subject being discussed conveys extreme trust to men, while women happily talk about intimate subjects even on public forums.
Very often a woman's candid talk can imply an intimacy she does not mean to men, particularly men who are not very familiar with casual interaction with women and don't know that this is normal for women. Something I always advise inexperienced young women is to not share one on one conversations involving features of your/his body with men you aren't interested in. It doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to you. Of course, there will be individual exceptions, but the norm is broad enough to be useful insight.
A verbal refusal or protest can come from anywhere from an actual refusal to hesitation to commit to stating desire. And there can often be contradictory messages in behavior, with the non-verbal message often being the more accurate of the two.
Some women fantasize about being overpowered
One of the strongest endorsements of consent comes from BDSM, which allows for a safe word to call a halt to the sexual activity - ironically, often criticized for "cruelty". And the safe word actually can allow for erotic sexual play that involves refusing sex and the refusal being overruled if the safe word is not used. How could enslavement, pain being inflicted be desired? Obviously, the consent being explicitly moved to the safe word ensures that this isn't rape, but it definitely is rape fantasy if the play explores areas of consent being overruled.
Increase of women viewers of porn and a lot of outspokenness about porn and terms like feminist porn coming up have not led to any discernable change in standard porn content. So the increased number of women appear to be fine watching erotic content that is criticized from a feminist perspective for being disrespectful about women? For objectifying them, for not holding consent in higher esteem? Women too watch that and get off on it?
Actual research done in this area (led by a woman) shows startling results: 52% of the women had fantasies about forced sex by a man: 32% had fantasies about being raped by a man: 28% - forced oral sex by a man: 16% - forced anal sex: 24% - incapacitated: 17% - forced sex by a woman: 9% - raped by a woman: 9% - forced oral sex by a woman. Overall, 62% reported having had at least one of these fantasies.
Does a woman's response to a dominating man convey mixed messages? Is it possible that men either instinctively or from experience experiment with overruling consent as a part of sexual play? It certainly seems possible if one were to look at such data. There is plenty more research on rape fantasies, for the interested. No point derailing into all that. Particularly since fantasies are not consent for reality.
The man must be made aware of an unambiguous refusal
In my view, because of all these reasons, it is not enough to say "no" and pretend sexual interest did not happen, there is a need to ensure that the "No" is communicated. A man must be made aware of an unambiguous "no" and women must be educated about conveying it. Being willing to a point and then refusing, only to capitulate with some persuasion makes it very difficult to differentiate between a refusal that is momentary and overcome with persuasion and an actual refusal with further sex happening against the consent of the woman.
A common reason to capitulate is because the woman values the presence of the man in her life even though she doesn't want sex. She doesn't want him to turn to someone else. Sad though it may be, it is a hard choice, but a choice must be made with responsibility. Agreeing to sex but holding it against him is not ethical. It is also important to understand that once the genie of sex is out of the bottle, your relationship is not going to return to the comfort zone easily - if at all ever.
Not so hard to understand if men and women are BOTH people
Let us reverse the roles for a bit to make it easier to understand. If men seem more eager than women to seek sex, women can want sex for far longer than men, because biology. Women do pressurize no-longer-interested men into sex. Is a man who grumbles about it after being seduced into participating again a rape victim? Technically, yes. If we are talking of consent as a moment by moment thing where changing your mind on sexual interest is a right, a man who rolls over and falls asleep should be protected from the still horny woman.
In reality? It will be quite a few nights like this before a responsible lover learns to get his partner off first before racing for the finish line or the woman learns to insist on it. Without that pressure, he will never learn. In any case, a man can't be raped as per Indian law. He is this mythical creature who always wants sex, so there is no question of lack of consent - and countless relatively inexperienced partners of sexually active women will attest to the fact that they do get pushed beyond their comfort zone. If a woman is under social pressure of the male gender, the man's entire masculinity and existence as a man can be at stake in such moments. A man who can't "perform" on demand is a most embarrassing thing in terms of social conditioning.
A rather headstrong teenager slapped her lover awake when he fell asleep after climaxing while she was still horny and frustrated. Embarrassed at having fallen asleep and intimidated by her fury, he fumbled his way through that night and broke off with her the next morning, by which time she was horrified and embarrassed by her own behavior. "You can't force me" were his exact words, repeated over and over through the conversation.
She kept apologizing and begging him to forgive her. She had thought he had lost interest in her - as in he dumped her after sex. It was rape all the same - technically. A more humane term would be a learning experience for both of them. Neither of them were aware of crucial factors beyond their own experience. The girl didn't have an idea that men can need temporary time out after a climax. The man was not aware that women climax at all.
If a horny and clueless teenager can do this, an adult experienced woman can definitely pressure a man into "performing" beyond his endurance with a lot more expertise and knowing exactly how to do it. Not all men have the sexual resilience or skill to ensure that a woman also finds each sexual encounter satisfying. Till they learn, it can be extremely high pressure to deliver sex long after they have maxed out or more often than they are sexually able. One day it will make them better lovers. Or it may simply lead to a horrible sexual relationship they hopefully escape some day.
If we insist on reluctant agreements under pressure being up for evaluation as rape in hindsight, then we have to begin with the ethical stand that men too can be raped in this manner - are we willing to do that? Is it ethical to consider consent under pressure as rape only for women? Also, is it correct to blame a man for rape if there is consent under pressure even, unless there is an explicit threat or unfair pressure knowingly applied by the man? Can a man know all the factors that will run through a woman's mind before she agrees in order to know that the consent is not freely given?
There has to be some point where we have to take consent/participation at face value and it is the responsibility of each person in an adult interaction to make their peace with their choices. And to give consent with awareness of its implication and refuse it if not okay with it.
Saying NO and making it stick
Both men and women would be served better by widespread awareness of tools like safe words and emphatic "NOs" without mixed messages - where a refusal is a flat out refusal and no persuasion is welcome that leave absolutely no room for misinterpretation. This is important for both responsible adult communication as well as practical safety for women.
To say no, but continue other intimate touching, or remain accessible for further touch or escalate "I really like you, but..." type emotionally laden conversations, sends a mixed message that is very commonly interpreted as yes. If that is your intention, fantastic. I encourage you to attempt an eager "yes", because any responsible lover will wait for you to get there. If you are undecided, it is better to voice that and explicitly state a temporarily refusal or "find out as we go along" type consent so that the man knows to check for your comfort, than give mixed messages that can take the situation outside your comfort zone rapidly or to blindside with a refusal. This is the honest communication - stating your status clearly. Of course, if you've been yes till something turns you off, blindsiding cannot be helped.
The most important thing to educate people on is that they are not responsible for disappointing those interested in them gently at the cost of their own well being. If they are not interested in being intimate with someone, it is best to do a flat out NO. Alternative intimacy will neither satisfy an interested wo/man, nor will it convey a refusal. It will convey that you are interested in them, not yet enough for sex, but you're open to possibilities. Such possibilities will almost inevitably be explored, because such is the nature of horniness - it seeks a climax.Ironically, the chances of getting consensually laid in the future improve vastly in borderline situations if you can disengage and take care of your horny solo without imposing it on anyone before they are ready.
A person coerced into sex against his/her will has been wronged. But it does not follow that the wrong was deliberate unless that is also established. Sometimes bad judgment is just that. Sucks and wrong, but not a crime.
Nothing short of a climax satisfies a horny person. If that is not what you want, the best and kindest thing you can do for all concerned is to flat out refuse and stop all interaction. If you are not able to do this, you need to ask yourself what you are achieving by prolonging the risk.... and address it appropriately rather than slide into compliance. It is appropriate to be hostile instead of placatory when you want to push someone away. The fewer grey areas in such refusals, the fewer the mixed messages.
If there is structural or social power being exploited to take coerce someone, then the process of "NO" must also involve informing the structure of the exploitation of the power granted by it. Whether it is informing an organization about the inappropriate advance or a friend's circle about the camaraderie of a trusted group being misused to prey on someone. This vastly reduces the pressure on the target. It also allows for protective actions by others, like ensuring that the two are not left alone.
This needs to be a part of sex education.
apologies for the long read - it is a rough chapter from a book I'm writing. Was not able to shorten it gracefully.
On the 1st of September 2017, farmers of the Akhil Bharatiya Kisab Sabha called for an indefinite mahapadav or gherao of the various District Collectorates in Rajasthan. Like the farmer protests in Maharashtra, these too were sustained bouts of anger over neglect by the government. The farmers had very basic demands related to the very survival of agriculture itself. Proper implementation of the Swaminathan Commission recommendations,the greater allocation for MGNREGA, higher wages and more days of work, social security, MSP was another key area, removal of the absurd law on restrictions on cattle trade sinking the prices of cattle and protection for cattle traders, pensions of Rs.5000 for farmers and agricultural labourers over the age of 60. Here are their demands:
It is shameful that as farmer desperation and suicides increase and even suicides rise among the children of farmers, the government and their elite rent-a-pens remain indifferent and even dismissive to the plight of farmers. However the citizens of Rajasthan are not. The demands of the farmers found wide resonance among various groups of people who supported the protests in solidarity. Hundreds of members of the Kiln labour Union drove to Krishi Mandi, Sikar on red tractors in solidarity with the mahapadav. National leader of Jan Kranti Manch, Pooja Chhabra also reached the Mandi to convey solidarity. Veer Teja Sena of Sikar has pledged to support the struggle at every step. The Bakra Mandi Vyaparis have shown their support to the movement along with a contribution Rs. 11,000. Shaheed Bhagat Singh Law College, Sikar, bestowed Rs. 10,000 to the mahapadav. Sangliya Dhuni, a ‘saint’who claims to be a farmer at heart, gave monetary support and 2 quintals of wheat.
Dilip Mishra of the Auto Rickshaw Union expressed the willingness of auto drivers to go on strike in solidarity if called upon, as did milk suppliers. Milk Transportation Union of the state contributed Rs. 21,000; while the Amul Corporation Union gave Rs. 11,000 to the agitation. The Bus City Union took out a huge rally in support of the mahapadav. Dancing with the DJ, going through the city, the rally was welcomed by the citizens with flowers. The MR union put up a free medical camp to oversee the health of farmers in the rally and the ambulance union took out a rally in support of the mahapadav. [Source: Newsclick]
Protests raged for days with blockades at 300 points, as the government did what governments do. The internet was blocked in Rajasthan to prevent news from getting too much attention. However, this did nothing to dampen the flood of people out on the streets for their very sustainability. Protests continued to grow as the farmers declared the government of Rajasthan dead and carried out a mock funeral.
Finally, and unsurprisingly, like the protests in Maharashtra, the government was forced to bow to their demands. Amra Ram, Kisan Sabha leader and ex-MLA from CPI(M) speaks here about their victory.
And their press release thanking everyone for support in their victory.
AIKS Congratulates Rajasthan Kisans for Historic Victory!
The peasantry in Rajasthan under the Kisan Sabha banner have won a significant victory after their resolute struggle lasting 13 days. Since 1st September, 2017 lakhs gheraoed the different District Headquarters on the call of Rajasthan Kisan Sabha for a Mahapadav. For 3 days there was also Rasta Roko across the State bringing about 20 Districts to a standstill. Only ambulances and essential services functioned. The peasant movement received unprecedented support from all sections of the society making it a truly people's movement. The insensitive BJP Government led by Vasundhara Raje Scindia was forced to bow down and accept many of the demands of the peasantry after 13 days of struggle and talks with the Kisan Sabha leadership. The talks went on in 4 phases from 1:00 PM on 12th September and ended on 14th September at 1:00 AM.
The BJP Government was forced to agree to loan waiver of up to RS.50,000/- which is expected to benefit 8 lakh farmers, assurance that State government will write to the Centre seeking implementation of Swaminathan Commission Recommendations on MSP in a time-bound manner by working out modalities, purchase of groundnut, green gram (moong) and urad at MSP at all District Headquarters within 7 days, withdraw hike in electricity rates for drip irrigation, payment of SC/ST/OBC fellowship with arrears immediately, relaxation in restrictions in sale of cattle, protection of crops from stray cattle and wild animals, increase of pension to Rs. 2000/month agreed in principle, insurance claim for failure of canal irrigation and stopping harassment of traders and farmers by the police. After agreement on these issues and on a mechanism to implement decisions AIKS President Com.Amra Ram announced withdrawal of the Mahapadav and reopening of roads that were closed for the last 3 days. Kisans across the State celebrated the victory with slogans, songs and dances.
AIKS thanks all who stood in solidarity with the movement. This inspiring victory shall inspire similar struggles across the country.
Message from Com. Drm. Ashok Dhawale, Vice President AIKS
Heartiest congratulations to all leaders and activists of the Rajasthan Kisan Sabha and to the fighting peasantry of Rajasthan for their massive 13-day struggle and the impressive victory that they won in prolonged talks with the state government.
राजस्थान किसान सभा के सभी जुझारू साथियों को महाराष्ट्र किसान सभा के सभी साथियों की ओर से लाल सलाम.
- Com. Drm Ashok Dhawale Vice-President AIKS
Special mention must be made of the excellent coverage of the protests by NewsClick. Where most media carried token coverage at best, they have photos, videos and interviews from the ground as the protests progressed.