How does exposing one's upper body indicate respect to others?

 2022 was the year of the woman. Dictionary.com's word of the year is "woman."

In the United States, arguably the wealthiest country in the world at any time, the year's events, including elections, highlighted women's rights as a core issue at stake. Halfway across the globe in Iran, women have risen against the perceived oppressive practice of keeping their hair covered in the name of a different religion. But we all know the issue is bigger than reproductive rights or God wishing a woman to keep her head covered. It is about using religion as a pretext for one half of the human race to control the other. Therefore, I found the story of the upper garment revolt from southern India fascinating: how Christian missionaries helped women of lower castes gain the fundamental right to cover their breasts.

Please take a moment to read Maddy's blog linked here https://maddy06.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-breast-tax-and-upper-cloth-movement.html about a sordid aspect of history from my home state of Kerala, India.

Although the caste system was never intended to be rigid when initially conceived in Vedic India, it became an immutable barrier to progress over time. It was the norm in medieval India in southern Indian princely states for only women of upper castes to cover their breasts. Women of inferior castes had to keep their breasts exposed in deference to those above them in society. Those who dared not comply received humiliating punishments.

The East India Company and Christian missionaries assisted these oppressed women in fighting the system, but on condition. They had to convert to Christianity.

Some argue that women in these areas had always chosen to walk around half-naked. That the British were doing them no favors. The Brits forcefully imposed their morals and standards on the natives. Maddy's blog article and other articles make the same argument. There was no shame in keeping the upper body exposed until women were ridiculed by their sisters who had converted to Christianity and started believing in the modernity of keeping one's breasts covered. 

So is flashing one's naked body insulting and therefore punishable by law as we believe it now in civilized society, or allowing women to walk around half exposed, the more advanced way of living? What we believe is decent and acceptable changes with time. And every society probably believes ( perhaps mistakenly) that they are the most advanced humans alive.

Judging any individual's actions from another era is challenging because humans are guided by existing societal norms.

I would argue that this discussion would be moot if a core issue were not at stake: a woman's right to choose what to do to her body.

As long as that choice is compromised or even up for debate, we are no better today than we were centuries ago.

 

Is honesty important in close relationships?

 Does " I want you to be honest with me" conflict with the sentiment " I want you to support me unconditionally"?

This is the crux of the debate in Stephanie Murray's piece in the Atlantic on Dec 12th titled: Should friends offer honesty or unconditional support? It is a worthy read.

She argues that while some advocate for complete honesty, we have a culture of passivity. Friendship is a choice and, therefore, expendable. In other words, people tend to hold back on being forthright with their friends even where red flags are abundant, justifying silence by offering the alternative: being there for your friend when their bad choices blow up in their face, and they need support.

She ends with this sentence: ( she is referring to being honest if you are looking only for close friendships)

"But if it’s friendship of the closest sort that you are after, it’s a risk you’ll have to take."

I will be honest. I like honesty to the point that I wonder if my obsession with the truth comes off as brutal and unsupportive. It has been a challenge for me since childhood. As a cancer doctor, I have been trained to use professional but compassionate language at work. 

It is part of my daily work to discuss how much time someone has when diagnosed with advanced cancer.

 I don't use the crystal ball analogy some doctors use ( " I don't have a crystal ball to predict") because I find it incredibly patronizing. Of course, the patient knows you are not a tarot reader or some gypsy lady. So I keep it short: "It is hard to predict, but in my opinion, based on how you are doing now, it could be...."

I grew up with intensely critical parents.  I have fine-tuned my ability to distinguish between constructive feedback and gaslighting from envious individuals. This has resulted in an inbuilt lie ( or B.S) detection system. So it was surprising to recognize that most people find it hard to accept unpleasant truths. But then I realized: most folks do not have overcritical parents. Our need for societal acceptance has decapitated our instincts-- that embedded GPS within our souls meant to guide us away from danger.

Which is where good, honest friends should come in. But if our friends too are motivated by acceptance, what then protects us from the dangers of our blind spots?

Are we facing this barrage of disinformation because of our culture of passivity that focuses on the listener having a "pleasant "experience, even if ultimately harmful? One can point fingers at this culture in the emergence of social media and the internet to provide ratings to people and businesses. 

I was once at a yoga class where the participants discussed one of the core principles of yoga: non-attachment, something I knew of, growing up in India.

A lady in her mid-forties openly acknowledged that she had issues because of her relationship with her son, which others, including the boy's dad, had described as unhealthy. The concept of 'non-attachment 'triggered her. Her opposition to this ancient principle of living was forceful and passionate.  

When this woman completed her oral arguments in defense of her excessive attachment, she had forgotten why she was in a yoga class.  But what I found disappointing was the yoga teacher's passive nodding as if in agreement. She did not challenge this woman or tell her that the core principle of non-attachment was not up for debate. Rather it was her choice whether to adopt that principle. And the reason for this passive and dishonest approach was simple: it was a business. The yoga teacher may have wanted the participant to write a good review about the business, so she did not feel the need to expound on that topic, even though a yoga teacher or guru has a fundamental duty to impart knowledge. Or the teacher was a product of the culture of passivity, preferring instead to let the participant take as much as she wanted from the class.

This was, of course, a class in the US. I wondered if a guru in India would have passively accepted a student arguing that attachment was an acceptable quality to practice en route to attaining a yogic lifestyle. Probably not. Don't get me wrong: anybody is welcome to have an opinion. You can believe that ivermectin cures COVID and that attachment to people and material objects makes you a yogi or even a yoga teacher.  Your beliefs may make you happy in the moment, but they won't get you where you want to reach.

One of my former colleagues told me about his two daughters, aged 8 years and 4 years, fighting and how the younger one seemed adept at gaslighting.

Half in jest, but probably coming from submerged childhood pain, I laughed and told him:

" Make sure you are fair to the older one. Don't let the younger one get away because she is cute or small or whatever justification parents use. Or else your older one will turn out like me. A rebel who speaks her mind."

He laughed and said: " I would not mind a daughter like you. There is nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in and speaking your mind. With you, I know exactly what I am getting. And I would trust you any day over someone who keeps quiet when things go wrong."

I was surprised at his remark because no one had ever seen my honesty as a strength. Or at least said so. For that one friend who felt this way, probably a hundred have moved away because they have no appetite for that kind of bluntness.

But because it is friendships of the closest kind I am after, that is a risk I have always been willing to take.

P.S: This article has nothing much to do with history or medicine. But history has taught us that passivity among the majority unknowingly contradicts honesty in those few willing to speak. It can compromise large chunks of society when faced with existential threats.  Just look at our recent pandemic!

The sexually transmitted disease known as " The Ship"

 This winter would be our third with COVID. While it has not entirely disappeared, and the threat of another deadly variant ravaging the world remains possible, masks have slipped off as the virus recedes.

Humanity has been plagued by pandemics. Many remain treatable, although restricted to certain groups of individuals, often lacking in education and healthcare access. This is particularly true of sexually transmitted diseases. Perhaps, for this reason, monkeypox failed to elicit the terror COVID did.

I have been thinking about diseases that have lingered for centuries.

Here is a question: Which disease did the Russians call " The Polish disease" and the Poles call " The German disease?"

If you guessed "syphilis," you are correct!

In my home state of Kerala, India, syphilis is referred to as "kappal" or "ship." The natives believed that sea-faring European traders brought syphilis to the land.

Here is an excerpt from " A brief history of Syphilis" by M Tampa from the Journal of Medicine and life.

From the beginning, syphilis has been a stigmatized, disgraceful disease; each country whose population was affected by the infection blamed the neighboring (and sometimes enemy) countries for the outbreak. So, the inhabitants of today’s Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom named syphilis ‘the French disease, the French named it ‘the Neapolitan disease’, the Russians assigned the name ‘Polish disease’, the Polish called it ‘the German disease’, The Danish, the Portuguese and the inhabitants of Northern Africa named it ‘the Spanish/Castilian disease’ and the Turks coined the term ‘Christian disease’. Moreover, in Northern India, the Muslims blamed the Hindu for the outbreak of the affliction. However, the Hindu blamed the Muslims and in the end everyone blamed the Europeans.

Read the full article here

The one thing without which I cannot function

 I know what you are thinking: the answer to that must be love, correct?

The grammar puritans frown at the double negative. Tut! Tut!

If the pandemic has taught us one thing, it is this: we can survive and be happy with a lot less than we think we need.

Last year, I developed a condition that we presume is a side effect of the COVID vaccine. I still advocate for vaccination; no questions about that.

Due to this side effect, I must avoid certain foods, including caffeinated products. As someone who started my day with a cup of tea, this has been a difficult transition. Yet, I can confidently say that my diet has been healthier in general. 

When I go through challenges in life, I ask myself: what lesson is the Universe trying to teach me?

And my answer to this was: know that I can live without things I deem "essential". I experienced symptoms for many months, making me empathize with those with long-standing illnesses. 

As my symptoms continue to fade, I feel energized. This morning, I asked myself: should I ever go back to my earlier routine of a cup of tea in the morning?

In one of her interviews, Sudha Murthy, philanthropist, and Chairperson of Infosys, said she does not drink tea or coffee. She said she has no addictions. 

Now that life has forced me away from my lifelong habit, should I go back to my one cup of tea in the morning addiction or break free forever?

What is the one thing without which you cannot function? The answer is you can keep going without most of the things on your list. Life's flavor simply changes when you exclude its essences.

The heart within the fort

 

Taj Khan was appointed by the first Mughal emperor Babur to manage Chunar fort, the gateway to the east of Hindustan. He was an experienced military man who never wavered in his loyalty to the Mughal throne. Yet above all, Taj Khan cherished his nikkah to Zohra,  lovingly renaming her Mallika or queen. Through his first wife, he had several sons, wastrels who had no ambition beyond capitalizing on their father's position. They indulged in excesses and, at times, atrocities that required Taj Khan to admonish them. As is often the case, the sons concluded the cause of their falling out with their father was their stepmother Zohra. They hated her with enough venom to fell a thousand elephants. Zohra was two decades younger than Taj Khan. Zohra was a woman whose accomplishments in art, music, and poetry were equal in her transcendent beauty and immense family wealth. Taj Khan loved her with a fervor a man may only hope to encounter in a lifetime.

After a brief illness, Taj Khan died, leaving Zohra in charge of the fort. News of Taj Khan's death reached Sher Khan, the Afghan general in charge of the nearby province of Bihar. 

Sher Khan had a long history with the Mughals. He served Babur's Mughal army and left abruptly when he realized that Babur saw him as a potential future rival for the throne of Delhi. Sher Khan returned to his native land of Bihar and set about strengthening his position in the area. After Babur's death, the second Mughal emperor Humayun ascended the throne. Sher Khan pledged allegiance to maintain peace and continue fortifying his position. Soon it became apparent to everyone that Humayun was a pleasure-loving monarch who could not keep revolts from breaking out all over the kingdom.

If Sher Khan despised anything, it was a leader who failed to lead. A leader who did not understand his essential duty: to serve those relying on him.

Meanwhile, a cold chill enveloped Zohra. She had loved her late husband with all her heart. She took solace in knowing she carried her wifely duty with steady keenness. Although Zohra did not bear him any children, Taj Khan, during his lifetime, made it clear that he did not expect Zohra to bear him any children. Zohra had loyal supporters among the masses who knew her as a generous and kind lady. It became apparent that her stepsons would move to murder her and pillage her wealth. Humayun was too weak and preoccupied with worldly pleasures to instill any fear of repercussion. In time, if her stepsons did her no harm, the Mughals would appoint a new governor for Chunar fort. And Humayun would likely allow Zohra a safe journey to a place of her choice. But she knew her stepsons well.

Zohra's most loyal servant Mir Ghalib and his wife sought an urgent visit with her.

" All our lives are at risk. We do not mind dying for you, but a woman like you does not deserve such a fate at the hands of these unscrupulous villains. We have a suggestion. Please understand we take this liberty at such a time of sorrow, only for our concern for your welfare."

Zohra nodded, asking Mir to continue.

" A woman like you needs protection from an exceptional man. In all of Hindustan, there is none as capable as Sher Khan. We have it from reliable sources that he is meeting with a local chieftain nearby. Shall we send missives to him?"

What happened next?

P.S: Names have been changed or modified per the author's discretion