Where will she sit?

by Bee

I hear . . .

media reports that Indians are tossing and turning in bed at night obsessing over where Carla Bruni will sit on Republic Day (January 26).



Carla who? She's the ex-supermodel girlfriend of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Check out this article in the International Herald Tribune.

Indian bureaucrats are apparently in a whirl and a tizzy in anticipation of the presidential visit. They are scratching their heads wondering whether to give Ms. Bruni "spouse treatment", or simply treat her as another member of the delegation.

Some highlights:

Civil servants are struggling to know how to handle both the delicate minutiae of seating plans but also the deeper question of how to avoid criticism from right-wing parties that see themselves as defenders of Indian morality. Bureaucrats are at pains to resolve the matter without causing offense either to their French guest or to conservative groups within India.

Sarkozy has been invited to India as guest of honor for the annual Republic Day parade, a prestigious invitation, designed to seal warm ties between the two nations. ..

During the parade, Sarkozy will sit on a raised platform, alongside the Indian president, the prime minister and the Indian political and military elite, as thousands of soldiers in full ceremonial regalia march past.

The question of whether Bruni will sit next to him has not yet been resolved. Her overall treatment will depend on whether she has been classified by the French as an official companion or just as a member of the delegation, the ministry official said.

An official companion would be offered "spouse treatment," given a program of visits and usually be provided the wife of a senior diplomat with similar interests to her own to accompany her. She would also get her own motorcade."

The Indian and international media are lapping up this diplomatic 'dilemma' with a spoon.

And there's the official in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs who says:

"This is a sticky question for the French government, but if it's true that they are getting married, then it might not be a sticky question anymore."

I see . . .

the subtext in the media's portrayal of the issue:

1. Everything boils down to one piece of paper: a marriage certificate..
2. These Indians are so backward and have a Stone Age mindset.
3. The right-wing fundies rule the roost. They have the power to stir up as much drama as they wish to.

I don't care . . .

if Sarkozy and Bruni have a marriage certificate or not.

I don't care if Ms. Bruni sits on that podium on Republic Day next to him. Or on his lap.

I don't particularly care for either of them. What does concern me is the defilement of the of the Indian President's chair by a really corrupt politician.

Coming back to the marriage certificate, why is it anyone's business if someone else is married or not, and how they got married if they did? Society, apparently places a big premium on that certificate, 'cos your tax cuts, immigration status, ability to adopt a child, etc. depend on it.

Don't have a marriage certificate? So sorry, but you need to get one. Why? Don't know, but you need to get one.

Why does it trump a nomination form, for instance, when assets are distributed? That's just the way it is. You need to get one.

But in many states in the U.S., gays can't get married. So what if one person gets injured in an accident and the partner wants to make medical decisions on his/her behalf? So sorry, he/she can't 'cos there no marriage certificate. If that was a heterosexual couple with a marriage certificate, he/she could.

You're gay? Not only will we insist you need a marriage certificate for this that and the other, but we won't let you get married.

I don't believe in the institution of marriage. So why did I get a marriage certificate, you ask? To sort out an immigration issue.

If I was lesbian and wanted to sort out that same immigration issue, I would have no recourse, since lesbian marriage is not recognised in many countries.

It's all about social control.

So a few months ago, before Sarkozy divorced his wife, if he had visited India and sat on the podium next to his wife, though both of them couldn't stand each other, it would have been fine.

The bureaucrats wouldn't lose sleep, and the journalists would be trying to milk something else for headlines. Now, they are so traumatized because Sarkozy and Bruni won't go ahead and get that piece of paper, already.

For the media, especially, it's so hard to deal with. Farmers commiting suicide in the countryside is not sensational enough.

I don't understand . . .

this quote from the article by "Chitra Danger, director of the Center for International Protocol and Etiquette in Hyderabad":

"Indians are high sticklers for protocol," she said in an interview. "The very idea of a head of state visiting India in an official capacity with his girlfriend is in very poor taste and shows extreme insensitivity to our older, more traditional culture."

Center for Protocol and Etiquette? Really? Well I got news for ya.

There's a new institute in town. It's called "Center for Unravelling B.S. by Those Claiming to Speak on Behalf of One Billion Indians."

As its founder, I declare henceforth, that Ms. Danger (I digress, but isn't that a cool name? "Hi, I'm Ms. Danger") needs some catching up to do on Indian culture.

The Hindu god Krishna had several wives and one true love - Radha - who was married to someone else. Millions of Indians worship the Radha-Krishna duo and aren't as uptight as she makes them out to be.

Well, there may be a few who mind, but they are welcome to go sulk in a corner.

Seriously, who decides what's in poor taste and 'insensitive' to traditional culture? What is culture anyway? Is it a monolithic entity?

It's not Ms. Danger's fault. They asked her a question, she responded. It's the media that has decided that it wants to portray Indian society as backward, and will find someone who will say what they want to hear.

I re-read . . .

the bit about

... how to avoid criticism from right-wing parties that see themselves as defenders of Indian morality.

How about ignoring them?

Civil servants tread around eggshells in order not to set off the Hindu right wing nutjobs and mullahs who are the custodians of culture and 'morality'. Our taxes pay for their salaries to appease these fundies, who come out of the woodwork to flail their saffron and green undies and create violence if they don't like something. No explanations required, 'cos it's 'religious feelings' that are offended. Nice.

The fundies have caused a lot of damage in the past. However, that's what the police and army are for. It is not the duty of bureaucrats to guess what will hurt the religious right's delicate feelings, and try to assuage them.

The BJP spokeswoman claims that her party has no problems with Bruni accompanying Sarkozy. In this instance the press decided that it was an issue with the religious right even before any objections were raised, and the BJP sanctimoniously gave its "permission" for the visit.

So let's assume the BJP or anyone else had objected to Bruni's presence on the podium. Who cares? Well, the media does, 'cos it's much more difficult to talk about real issues that concern the average person. Like corruption. Or crime. Or poverty.

As this whole fiasco demonstrates, in many cases, it is the media that acts as the culture police, while attributing it to the 'right-wing'.

Ask the average Indian on the street if he/she cares where Ms. Bruni sits. I'm not sure he/she does. As a matter of fact, amidst all the pot-bellied political types with "I-just-sucked-a-lemon" expressions, it's nice to have someone who's easy on the eye.

But the bureaucrats and the media care where she sits, and therefore everyone else ought to.

This is democracy on its head.