If I were to maintain a list of “Brain-dead Ideas advocated by Indian Ministers”, Renuka Chowdhary’s call for “Pub Bharo would end up right at the top. Here’s why:

  • Let us start off with the premise that the call was made to deter the so called moral police from creating trouble on Valentines Day. since that’s the only sensible premise I have got here.
  • Now, since I cannot deterministically predict what the moral police is going to do, and neither do I think Ms  Chowdhary can, there is a possibility that the moral police does decide to create trouble.
  • Does Ms Chowdhary, a Union minister, have some plan B regarding the security of all these people who have “Bharo”ed the pubs? As, in, can she assure it? In my opinion, NO.
  • So is she hinting the following?
  • “All ye young boys and girls. Go fill up the pubs. That should deter the moral police. If it doesn’t, then I am sorry, I cannot assure your security and safety. But since you have “bharo”ed the pubs, you have higher numbers on your side. So take law into your own hands  and teach these moral police a good lesson.”

Responsible thoughts to come from a union minister, no?


About gautshen

A jack of many trades of which , Linux Kernel Programming puts food on the table. Also pursuing his PhD in the area Theoretical Computer Science at the Chennai Mathematical Institute. Is an avid reader interested in the Hindu traditions and philosophy. Loves Bicycling and Good Music. Name is Ranjal Gautham Shenoy.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Brain-Dead

  1. Bharata says:

    I am sure this lady doesn’t bother about the consequences. Based on her utterances on various TV shows on this subject, I am tempted to believe that this lady wants to aggravate the trouble and use it as an opportunity to do more such talk shows and gain further mileage amongst the liberal, right-minded, pub-goer audience.

  2. Prerna says:

    Heh, This is funny…
    One would expect any minister (esp someone holding a union cabinet position ) to alert the administrative machinery about possible signs of trouble & take all precautionary measures when hooligans threaten to disrupt law and order..
    Instead,the lady has no qualms in accepting that the government can’t control a bunch of troublemakers, and that ppl need to fight it out in the open themselves..

    Is this what we elect our leaders for ?

  3. Karthik says:

    So your theory is do nothing about it and sit at home on your computers?

    Unless you stand up and fight, nothing is going to happen. I completely agree with her idea. To hell with security. If I get beaten up, so be it. Atleast I DID something about it.

    Go out there and save your freedom.

  4. Hariprasad Nellitheertha says:

    Sitting at home in front of the computer and doing nothing is much much better than rushing to a pub!

    Democracies – India and other countries – afford a lot of freedom even over matters that are socially and culturally “sensitive”. Indulging in excesses in order to protest some foolish action by a non-descript organization can hardly be termed as protection of freedom.

    Worldwide, drinking is accepted as a problem – socially and medically. But, democracies allow it as it is a matter of personal choice. That does not mean the “state” can encourage the same – even to protest someone’s violent opposition to it.

    Tomorrow, some cheap outfit will launch a violent campaign against tobacco products or smoking. Under the pretext of freedom, we cannot encourage our youth to take to smoking or Gutka big time – just to prove a point to “senes” and “dals”.

    Constitutionally, it is ok for two (unmarried – both) people to indulge in sex or live together. World over, this has negative social connotations. If some group starts a campaign to protest live-in relationships, it is definitely inappropriate on the part of a Union minister to give a call for people to indulge in free sex or ask youngsters to embrace live-in relationships en-masse.

    Any action to curb our freedom must definitely be protested. But not at the expense of violating the value-system of the society. Our social and family structures will break down completely if we go this way.

    Regards, Hari

  5. Sita says:

    What value system are we talking about.That of beating girls in broad day light for getting together over non-alcoholic beverages.If we support a system which allows girls to go to school,colleges or seek employment,why should umbrage be taken for them meeting friends at a restaurant.While I dont agree with the tasteless underwear campaign,I don’t mind the pub baro one,though a Union Cabinet minister should not be calling for it. It is not about women drinking alcohol,though it is made to seem that way.It is about women’s right to public space and women’s right to talk to other people regardless of the other’s gender,religion and caste.There is and can be no two opinion about alcohol being bad for everyone regardless of age, gender and economic criterion.

  6. ego says:

    The beating of the girls by a bunch of goons is a horrible act. No one is denying that. Such goons should be brought to justice. Our laws currently have provisions for bringing them to justice.

    In this context, opting for non-constitutional measures of protests such as pub-bharo, or the pink-chaddis to obtain justice either reflects on our disregard towards the constitution or our ignorance of the provisions available within it.

    I can still understand a bunch of people who have no clue about these provisions directing their energies towards such campaigns. We’re a democratic-republic, but democracy prevails nevertheless, and they have the right to pursue what they think is the best solution for the social problem (yes, woman beating is a social problem and not a cultural one)

    But what is not acceptable is the same being done by a union minister. It’s simply unacceptable that a union minister shows disregard to the constitution and gives such irresponsible statements. I have addressed this issue in my subsequent post

    Should we feel that the provisions within the constitution are not sufficient, the union minister could have raised this issue in one of the houses and there could have been a debate. But looks like the powers that be, including our intelligentsia, the media and the officials in the government want an instant solution to this problem, and don’t want to take up the responsibility for a stable long-term solution. And it is this attitude that I deplore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s