The Bollywood of 50s and 60s was a genteel place. Leading men were chivalrous, women were pious and beautiful and the songs were written by stalwarts like Sahir, Shailendra and Shakeel. The language still retained a semblance of the pre-partition Ganga-Yamuna tehzeeb and even the villains were classy. Bimal Roy, Raj Kapoor and Hrishikesh Mukherjee made socially relevant and sensitive stories of rural oppression, class conflict and gender inequality. The protagonists (with the glaring exception of the raging bull Birju from Mother India) were Gandhian in their approach – negotiations, protest, non-violence, and reasoning were the weapons of choice.

But Salim-Javed with one dialogue shattered this decorous world – ‘…ye police station hai, tumhare baap ka ghar nahi..’. Amitabh Bachchan with his untamed anti-establishment ferocity was unleashed on the public which was gradually getting disillusioned with political ineptitude and economic stagnation after independence.  The enraged Amitabh Bachchan ditched the spiritual path of Gandhi and embraced the violent atheist Bhagat Singh in his fight against black marketers, smugglers and corrupt government officials.

Enough has been said about the emergence of the ‘angry young man’ and how the brilliance of Salim-Javed disrupted the cocooned gentility of scripts back then. But as I was watching Trishul (yet!) again, it struck me that Salim-Javed not only defined the modern Indian man, but also broke many stereotypes when it came to portraying women.  I don’t think enough credit has been given to Salim-Javed scripts for bestowing economic, social and sexual autonomy to its leading ladies.  Cases in point are some of Bollywood’s most iconic scripts – Zanjeer, Deewar, Don, Sholay, Kala Patthar and Trishul.  Observing women in these movies shows how iconoclastic their roles were.

To start with, lets look at the character of Parveen Babi in Deewar. She is a high-class escort who hangs around smoke filled bars of Bombay’s five star hotels. She drinks and smokes freely, approaches men without misgivings and is making a happy living for herself.  Though an unfair comparison, but the tawaif of the other movies of the era were melancholy souls – they had a deep sorrow and regret which pervaded their poems and relationships. But Parveen Babi is unabashed, independent and content.  More importantly, Amitabh Bachchan knowing her background fully well falls in love with her and asks her to marry him. Her past does not burden her and the movie makes no moral judgments on her choices.

Waheeda Rehman in Trishul is another great example.  She has pre-marital sex and ends up being an unwed mother who is deserted by Sanjeev Kumar who chooses to marry his rich boss’s daughter. But Waheeda Rehman decides to raise her son as a single mother through terrible hardships. But most importantly, she doesn’t self-stigmatize herself or her child. She doesn’t sanitize the story of his birth through falsehoods or apologies. Her child may have been born out of wedlock but not out of sin. Contrast this with Yash Chopra’s directorial debut – Dhool Ka Phool – where Mala Sinha has a child out of wedlock with Ranjendra Kumar. But when Rajendra Kumar turns his back on a shotgun wedding, Mala Sinha abandons her newborn in a forest rather than bear the ignominy of raising a fatherless son. Waheeda Rehman, on the other hand tells her son the entire truth and displays there is more honour in carrying a fatherless child than in renouncing it. Though a staple cuss word in Bollywood, not once is Amitabh Bachchan called a bastard or harami in the movie – even in the fight sequences.

Later on in Trishul me meet two more women who against the grain of the leading ladies of the time, are working professionals.  Rakhi plays a secretary to Sanjeev Kumar. She is professional, ethically unimpeachable and proud of her work. She is surrounded by men at work but her gender does not play any role in her office dynamics. The beauty is that Salim-Javed don’t make much of her gender – it is shown as a natural state of affairs that a woman goes to work and is an equal and integral part of office politics and machinations. Hema Malini, the other leading lady is a director of a real estate company. She is aware of her good looks and confident of her sexuality. Unlike the sanctimonious leading ladies of the time, she enjoys male attention and indulges in witty repartee with Shashi Kapoor. Further, she is betrothed to Shashi Kapoor but goes on dates with Amitabh Bachhnan and even accepts expensive gifts from him. At the same time, she is not deceitful or disloyal and nor is her character laced with any notion of guilt or shame.

In Zanjeer and Kala Pathhar too, we find that the leading ladies can fend for themselves. Jaya Bhaduri in Zanjeer is a poor girl of the streets – but she has a fiery core – she sharpens knives for a living, negotiates deals with local goons and cops and scrapes through her tough life.  Rakhee in Kala Pathhar plays the cathartic foil to the brooding and scarred Amitabh Bachchan battling his demons from the past. But her persona goes beyond that of a hinge to propel the narrative forward. She is a successful doctor treating coal miners in hostile working conditions. And again, that she is a professional is not the focal point of her character: an under-emphasis which actually underscores that a female character can play any role in a movie plot but at the same time her being an employed professional does not detract from the story.

Sholay – immortalized for Thakur, Gabbar and the Jai-Veeru bromance had one of the most sensitive love stories as a sub plot. The widowed Jaya Bhaduri is draped in a white sari and tends to her physically challenged father in law.  But she does not wear her widowhood as a shroud.  As Amitabh Bachchan plays one of Bollywood’s most haunting tunes on his mouth organ in the twilight, and Jaya Bhaduri walks around the haveli’s corridors dimming the lanterns for the night they exchange furtive glances of muted love. There is self-restraint but there is no self-reproach in the feelings brewing between them. Most notably, the patriarch of the house – Thakur is supportive of this relationship. He remarks that society and its norms are formed to alleviate peoples’ loneliness not to aggravate it. This was a significant show of solidarity – especially given how even today hypocritical religious practices prevent widows from participating in several religious rituals.

In Don we find Helen and Zeenat Aman use their sensuality to charm the enemy. As Helen grooves to the tunes of RD Burman’s classic ‘Ye mera dil’ she entices Amitabh Bachchan to keep him busy till the cops arrive. Later in the movie Zeenat Aman to settle an old score similarly seduces the Don to be able to have her vengeance. Leading women were never seductresses – that was the dubious reserve of the amoral vamps – promiscuous and scheming molls of gangsters who made their drinks and lit their cigarettes. But Zeenat Aman and Helen’s use of their sexuality does not diminish or delegitimize the righteousness of their cause. In fact, no judgment is made at all. The narrative flows seamlessly and the viewer is more concerned about the outcome of the seduction rather than the correctness of it. It was a huge leap for Bollywood where till date a woman’s moral worth is tied to her chastity.

The Salim-Javed scripted renaissance of the female lead is also significant because of what followed immediately afterwards. In mid 80s and 90s we witnessed the nadir of Bollywood for which I have a hypothesis. Economics 101 tells you that a monopoly destroys consumer surplus – this is exactly what Amitabh Bachchan’s unquestionable star power had done to Bollywood. His scripts became increasingly hero centric and mediocre. No one cared about the female lead or her need for self-worth in his movies. His later hits like Mard, Sharabi, Coolie, Kaalia, and Nastik had weak female characters who were there just to make up the numbers. When Amitabh Bachchan took a political hiatus from movies to join Rajiiv Gandhi’s government, it created a sudden vacuum. Films with ageing stars like Rajesh Khanna and Jitendra and upstarts like Govinda resorted to low brow family dramas focusing on domestic strife, much like the abysmal TV sops of today. These movies had second rate scripts and often portrayed the woman who worked, wore western clothes, was ambitious or enjoyed a drink as self-centered home breakers. Abstinence, self-sacrifice, mute suffering and religiosity were extolled as virtues for decent women.

Whether this ‘Kaikeyi shaming syndrome’ was a response to the growing back to the roots Hindu revivalism in the late 80s with the emergence of the pernicious Ram Janm Bhoomi movement along with the telecast of the highly sentimental and pedestrian version of Ramayan (by Ramanand Sagar) on Doordarshan – is an interesting hypothesis and needs to be explored further. Coupled with this was the onslaught of liberalization and influence of cable TV. Mediocre film makers used the cultural insecurity against the rapidly invading social mores to stress the superiority of an imagined homogenous value system. And as with any social upheaval, the site for cultural revivalism became the quintessential Indian woman at the center stage of the traditional family unit.

Whatever the causes for the disempowering the female lead in 80s and 90s may have been, their fall also reinforces the enormity of the silent revolution brewing in the Salim-Javed scripts of the 70s.  I think we should credit them with more than creating the angry young man.  They also created the modern Indian woman on screen.

Picture Credits - http://www.bollywoodirect.com/salim-javed-the-dichotomy-of-camaraderie/

It is the age of the Han Dynasty in China. The rebellious Huns have attacked. The Han dynasty retaliates with the largest armed mobilization in the dynasty’s history, by mandating conscription of a man of age from each family in the kingdom.

Enter Mulan, whose father Fa Zhou, is a legendary but aged warrior. Mulan being his only daughter, Fa Zhou is forced to conscript in the army. In order to save her father from an almost certain death, Mulan impersonates a man and serves in the army in her father’s stead. She eventually becomes a legendary warrior, and is immortalized in history as Hua Mulan.

Thousands of years later (literally) in 1998, Walt Disney Productions released the animated feature film ‘Mulan’, marking the beginning of what is now known as the Disney Renaissance. One of the staples for those of us growing up in the 1990s, Mulan is a personal favorite.

But watching it almost 18 years later (yes, we’re that old), the movie brought an interesting angle to some of the most talked about issues of the day. Most particularly, an engaging musical sequence titled, “I’ll Make A Man Out Of You”. It details the training sessions led by a brilliant military commander, trying (and failing for the most part) to train Mulan and a bunch of amateur recruits to be quality soldiers. One of the first lines of the musical numbers is, “Did they send me daughters, when I asked for sons?” followed by, “You’re a spineless, pale, pathetic lot, and you haven’t got a clue, but somehow I’ll make a man out of you.”

For those of us in 2016, the sexist undertones of the song are glaringly evident. Here, men are supposed to be strong and capable, women are supposed to be “spineless, pale and pathetic” to say the least. These gender norms, albeit diluted, exist even today. Women are told that they need to behave in a particular way, like certain things, and have dreams and ambitions within a limited scope. They are asked to focus on possessing certain qualities and skills, and must confine themselves to doing a limited number of socially approved things (unlike Karate chopping bricks like Mulan is training to do throughout the sequence).

But let us focus for a moment on what the men are told. Throughout this song, Mulan is pretending to be a man, just like her entire unit. And the entire unit is being berated for not being ‘manly’ enough, just because they can’t run, shoot and fight like trained soldiers. In the same vein that we confine women to gender roles, we also heap unreasonable expectations and responsibilities  upon men, simply because they are men.

Let me give you a personal example of how this works on a micro level. As an only child, I am aware that I will have to be responsible for my parent’s well-being as they get older. But this time, when I saw a few signs of aging in them, the realization hit hard. They were going to get older, and I would have to take care of them with all my love and resources, all on my own. And then, another realization hit me. Men around me had been made to understand this at an age much younger than my own fairly adult 22 years. I have seen male cousins, friends, characters in textual/visual media being told that they are the ‘men of the house’, the ‘protectors’ of their families, the ‘future’ of the clan, blah blah. While it always irked me, I think I grew up ignorant to the fact that it also placed immense pressure on these men to be a large number of things they didn’t always need to be. They were  forced to take up responsibilities they didn’t have to take up alone, had it not been anathema to share them with their female counterparts. Undeniably, sons are showered with privileges in our societies, but this is the price they pay for it.

Going back to Mulan, the only real daughter in the training of unmanly sons – she humiliatingly, comically fails at each new task. Finally, she is informed by her commander that she is “unsuited for, the rage of war, so pack up! Go home! You’re through. How could I make a man out of you?!”

The message is clear. As a man, Mulan must show certain traits (like catching fish with bare hands from a running stream) and be prepared to represent her family in the army. And if she can’t, she is unsuited for the rage of war. In the same way,  men today are made to feel unsuited for their roles in life, if they aren’t ‘manly enough’.

Of course, gender roles end up being more unfair to women. But I’d like to explore the way they effect men here. A lot of you will remember a soul crushing, disturbing advertisement a few years ago, which traced a journey of a man, since his toddler days. He was told told not to cry, to be brave, to not lose, not to express fear, all because “Ladke rote nahin (Boys don’t cry)”. Apart from the obvious sexism here, which prejudices men, the advertisement  discloses a standard which all men know they have to adhere to since their boyhood.

They are told that they have to fend for themselves and their families as soon as they are adults. That taking care of their parents will ultimately fall upon their shoulders only, and looking out for their wives and children will be expected almost entirely of them. And that, if at any time, they stumble, underperform or don’t live up to these crushing expectations, they will be less of a man.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Men should be allowed to let their guard down and cry, ask for help with their responsibilities, and express fear. Women should be allowed to put their guard up, and demand to be able to decide when they want kids (shame on you, egg-freezing Facebook), to contradict men at work and be the primary breadwinners (and by that I mean out-earn their husbands without hurting the ego of the entire male clan).

But of course, I could tell you that gender roles are bad without telling you about Mulan. What I’m about to say next, though, will require Mulan’s aid. The musical number, entering its home stretch, shows Mulan shamefully leaving the training camp in the middle of the night after being dismissed. She walks past the tall wooden pole which has been erected as a challenge to the trainees to learn climbing. Nobody has been able to achieve the feat yet, although many have tried since the first day. Mulan decides to try one last time, and  keeps trying  all night. When dawn breaks, and her unit wakes up, they find Mulan sitting triumphantly right at the top.

She could have gone back. It was a blessing in disguise! She didn’t have to fight, her father didn’t have to fight, and she could go home to a happily ever after.  But Mulan stayed anyway, because once she had committed herself to a duty as the son of her household, she held herself to that standard. She did whatever she had to in order to bring herself to par and fight.

The bond between a right and a concurrent duty has been introduced to all of us at law school. I think, to a significant extent, it can be juxtaposed to the issue of gender roles. At the outset, I realize that a lot of women are well aware of their responsibilities, and are well suited to the ‘rage of war’, and that’s great. I also realize that a lot of women are simply not given an opportunity or at the other extreme, are made to shoulder equal responsibilities without this gesture being reciprocated by the men in their lives, because society lets such pathetic men get away with it.  This requires a different but equally significant battle. But for a large number of others, who for no fault of their own, do not face the pressure to fulfill duties heaped upon men and suddenly come face to face with this fact at age twenty something, I have a suggestion.

We deserve equal rights, on paper and in reality. We protest and fight for it. But additionally, I think we should also try to demand it in exchange for sharing responsibilities. For many of us, our parents/families/colleagues/the entire society will not impose responsibilities which our male counterparts will have no option but to fulfill. It may be with regards to small things such as relying on our boyfriends to navigate to every new place because we hate Google maps. As mine pointed out, it isn’t as though men are particularly suited to navigating, or particularly enjoy this tedious process. It’s just an expectation we subconsciously unload on them.

Or it could be more significant things. Our brothers may not demand that we equally partake in our parent’s well being, indeed, they might even resist it. Our husbands may not insist that we work and support them equally.  If we decide to take a year off at the age of 35 to take a break, spend sometime with our children, we’ll get a flood of support. Our husbands simply won’t.

But I would suggest that we ignore this leeway, and be a Mulan. That we fulfill equal responsibilities, regardless of whether anyone asks us to. That we encourage these men in our life to share their burdens, and as a result their rights and privilege. Because then, we have an additional leverage to demand equal rights. And we free ourselves and our men from these artificially imposed confines.

And of course, if you are a man, you need only to remember Mulan. She was a pretty unmanly man. As a woman too, she was quite an unwomanly woman. But she got the opportunity that men did, and she was held to the highest standards by those around her. She became a legendary warrior, because she didn’t let either gender norm come in the way of preparing her for the rage of war.  So keep calm, and be a Mulan.

This June, the UNHRC has convened for its 32^nd Session in Geneva. One of the draft resolutions shall, if voted for by the members, be the third resolution of the Council on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI).

The draft resolution has been proposed by seven South American nations. It has four preambulatory clauses and eight operative clauses. Most of the clauses are based on language agreed on in the past. However, interestingly, this draft seeks to “appoint, for a period of three years, an Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity[.]”

This post seeks to look into India’s voting history on the SOGI issue, the possible reasons for such a vote in the past, and the possible factors that might drive this coming vote. Of course, it might be conjecture. But one can only deduce the reasons from looking at factors and events surrounding the various votes.

Voting History and Factors Driving the Vote

Broadly speaking, India has voted in two forums on the SOGI issue; The Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly (Third Committee).

The HRC:

In the Human Right’s Council, the SOGI issue has emerged only been tabled as a resolution three times (2016 being one the third time).

The first such resolution was tabled in 2011. It requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a study on discrimination and violence perpetrated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. India, at this point of time, was not a Member of the HRC and couldn’t vote on the resolution.

The next time this issue was raised was in 2014. This time, India was a Member of the HRC. In the September session of the HRC, a new resolution was tabled for a vote. This SOGI resolution took note of the outcome of the study and panel discussion necessitated by the previous resolution. It requested the High Commissioner to update the study. The resolution was put up to a vote with seven hostile amendments. These amendments were defeated and the resolution was passed. India abstained in this vote.

There were domestic factors which probably drove this vote. In 2013, the Supreme Court of India upheld the very provision the Delhi High Court had struck down in 2009 regarding the criminalisation of consensual sex between sex adults. There was, however, one positive judgment which came out of the very same Apex Court in 2014. The Court recognised the right of transgender persons to determine their own gender, and called upon the Indian Government to ensure equal rights for transgender persons. The Indian judiciary, thus, seemed to be divided on issues related to LGBTI rights. Apart from this, elections to the Lok Sabha were held in May 2014. India had voted in the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) headed by Narendra Modi. Before the elections, the then President of the BJP – Rajnath Singh said that, Sec. 377 had to remain because “ homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported,” However, other BJP leaders like Arun Jaitley, recently, even called upon the Supreme Court for a reconsideration of their judgement on Sec. 377. Thus, even the political party in power, seems splintered on the issue.

It, however, is only possible to speculate that these factors impacted the general policy decision regarding the SOGI issue in the HRC, leading to an abstention in 2014.

The UNGA:

The United Nations General Assembly has never addressed the issue of LGBTI rights as directly as the UNHRC. It has, however, over a series of resolutions urged States to “ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction, to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons…because of their sexual orientation or gender identity…” India has always voted for these resolutions. However, we must keep in mind that the wording of these UNGA texts on ‘Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’ only urges States to investigate crimes, essentially, motivated by hate. The Indian Government cannot refuse to investigate the killing of an individual despite the motivation of such a crime being hatred for the LGBTI community. Therefore, it’s not nearly as controversial as the HRC resolutions which address concepts of both violence and discrimination perpetrated against LGBTI persons.

The Probable Vote

There are 3 types of factors that may impact the way India will vote – the language in the draft, international factors, and domestic factors.

Language in the Draft:

In the upcoming tabling of the HRC Draft Resolution, two informal negotiations were held by the Sponsors of the Draft Resolution. On the first informal negotiation, the Russian Federation spoke out against the text in its entirety by stating that this was a sensitive issue and that the Sponsors should consider withdrawing it. China argued that it was a complicated issue and they had reservations to the “Special Procedures” that the text seeks to bring about. India, while present, indicated that they shared China’s reservations.[i]  Both countries had concerns around the appointment of an Independent Expert (IE) on sexual orientation and gender identity. It was interesting to note that in the second informal negotiation, the Indian delegation was not present.

It is also possible that concerns related to the language of the text may influence India’s vote.

The strongest concern which India could have is in Operative Paragraph 3 and the use of these Special Procedures of the Council for the appointment of an “Independent Expert.” The sub-clauses within these paragraphs give a very broad mandate to the IE. This mandate could be seen as intervening in the domestic sphere where the State is sovereign.

However this may not be quite true as the Sponsors included Operative paragraph 5 which reads:

“5. Calls upon all States to cooperate with the Independent Expert in the discharge of the mandate, including by providing all information requested, to give serious consideration to responding favourably to the requests of the Independent Expert to visit their countries and to consider implementing the recommendations made in the mandate holder’s reports;”

This dilutes the strong mandate, permitting many countries to disallow the IE from pursuing her/his mandate in their countries. So, even if States do vote for this resolution, they have no actual obligation to permit the functioning of the IE within their boundaries.

Therefore, even though there is a strong mandate, the text seems to create a backdoor for those who may not want to comply. This may tempt India to vote for the resolution if it doesn’t seek to do anything about recognising LGBTI rights. However, before we can jump to such a conclusion, it is important to consider other factors as well.

There are two sets of factors which may influence India’s vote on the 30^th of June or 1^st of July on this Draft Resolution – International factors and domestic factors.

International Factors:

On the first level, we must consider three international factors – first, PM Modi’s interest in his Government’s foreign policy, and second, the fact that India is due to present their UPR (Universal Periodic Review) in 2017; and third, States opposed to the SOGI draft resolution.

First, India’s Prime Minister has shown enthusiasm for diplomacy. His own Government calls this brand of diplomacy, “fast track diplomacy”. With all global leaders expressing their grief after the Orlando massacre, PM Modi found it necessary to do the same on Twitter. He expressed his “shock” and offered his “thoughts and prayers” to the “bereaved families and the injured.” Of course, an anti-LGBTI stance would hamper the Prime Minister’s diplomacy. By conveying his condolences for those at a loss in Orlando, he has publically accepted the existence of violence and discrimination faced by individuals based on their sexual orientation, something he could have ignored considering his party’s stance on the issue.

Second, India is due to present their UPR in the June session of 2017 as part of its third UPR submission. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States. It provides an opportunity for all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment of human rights.[1] The last time they were questioned on their policy on the SOGI issue and this time is likely to be no different. An anti-LGBTI stance would present the Indian government in a very unfavourable light during the UPR and dent the global image of this government. Mr. Modi’s desire to exercise more soft power through diplomacy cannot be achieved with a policy that is opposed to an issue which has gained a lot of political traction, especially in Europe and the Americas. If he needs to increase his diplomatic influence, India must not only vote yes for the resolution but, looking ahead, must also have answers to the inevitable question on LGBTI rights on the upcoming UPR  in 2017.

Lastly, a parallel draft resolution has been tabled by Egypt and Russia, as well as a few other States. This draft is titled ‘The Protection of Family.’ Which seems to directly oppose the idea of a family which is not heterosexual. India may alienate States opposed to the SOGI issue, if it votes for the SOGI draft.

Domestic Factors:

We must consider two domestic factors – first, a shift in the views of the Indian judiciary, and second, a shift in the views of the RSS. First, recently, the Supreme Court permitted a relook at the Koushal judgment which upheld Sec. 377 through a (rare mechanism called) “curative bench.” Second, the Joint General Secretary of the RSS (which wields enormous influence with the government) suggested that homosexuality should not be criminalised though it’s a “psychological” problem and socially “immoral”. Domestically, there has been a gradual shift to the acceptance of the LGBTI rights – at least, to the extent of decriminalising consensual sex between adults of the same sex.

So, How Will India Vote?

To answer that, we must take all of the factors in consideration – past trends in votes – abstention in controversial resolutions; the language in the text – a broad mandate of the IE, however, not creating a legal obligation on States; a right wing political party splintered in its views on the issue;divided opinion of the judiciary; a brand of foreign policy and diplomacy spearheaded by the PM himself, and the upcoming UPR submission.

The language in the text, the PMs foreign policy motives and the upcoming UPR submission suggest that India might, for a change, vote for the resolution. However, when we see the views of some in the BJP, and the RSS regarding LGBTI issues, a vote for the resolution may cause the PM to gain popularity in the West, but lose the same within his party, the RSS and many conservative voters. Internationally speaking, a vote for the SOGI draft may alienate those who are known to vote against the SOGI issue and are sponsoring the draft on ‘Protecting the Family’. An abstention would be the most uncontroversial direction that India could take, while balancing all the aforementioned factors.

Therefore, keeping all the aforementioned factors in mind, the vote is eagerly anticipated. Come the 30 of June or the1^st of July, we will know which way the ballot swings.

Too many commentators write about India as if it is an unfathomable land peopled with a peculiarly philosophical alien species. To be sure, this exoticisation and belittling does not happen only to India; it is a common trope applied to anything that isn’t Western, and often anything that isn’t American. I am not a culture warrior who is writing this before my daily shakha meeting, but even as (or particularly as) a bleeding-heart liberal, I find articles such as A Gary Shilling’s “Let Us Count The Ways India Surpasses China” harrowing. India has innumerable problems, but Shilling chooses to write:

“Change comes slowly to India, whose culture is heavily influenced by a Hindu philosophy that doesn’t emphasize urgency. Hinduism teaches that after death comes reincarnation in another form of life, so Hindu followers don’t need to get everything accomplished in this life since they can get more done in later lives.”

And does not stop:

“Say what you want about colonialism, but British control of India for centuries left a vigorous democracy and a parliamentary form of government, which is useful for running a large, diverse country… India also inherited a free press and a legal system from the UK.”

In this alternate universe where the Vernacular Press Act did not exist (even literature that does credit the British with developing a free press in India does so with many caveats and not with sentences that start with “Say what you will about colonialism” as if colonialism were a football team), such articles about America do not get written. And so I decided to fill the gap and write an article about how America has great promise, with tons of context and sensitivity, my enviable knowledge of history rivalled only by my magical reading of every American mind:

Why America Will Grow

The United States of America, a large country in North America, might find it tough to convince the world about its human rights record, but its recovering economy might make it an attractive destination for investment. Notwithstanding reports of torture, discrimination and widespread gun violence across the cities and countryside, investors must not lose confidence in its economic fundamentals.

The Americans are very entrepreneurial, “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” being a common local saying. A vastly under-regulated economy, however, has made entrepreneurship and even jobs very risky. In 2011, the citizenry stood up against vested financial interests that were sending the country to ruin, but these eventually fizzled out when entrenched corruption made sure no one truly responsible for a huge economic crisis that took place in 2008 went to prison.

Another challenge is cultural – Americans are influenced by Christianity, which teaches that all sins are forgiven if one accepts the Lord. This explains the high rate of crime in cities, where one cannot walk peacefully at night for fear of being mugged or killed. This has scared many investors from setting up permanent enterprises in America.

However, change is tangible. Say what you will about America’s many skirmishes in Muslim countries, its alliance with some others has brought a refreshing change in culture. Examples such as Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and Tansu Ciller in Turkey have driven home the lesson that female leadership is possible, and the US is learning quickly. This month marked the selection of Hillary Clinton as the nominee of one of the two large parties in the US. However, Clinton’s status as a previous President’s wife brings up various questions about dynastic politics in this country much criticised for its inequality.

The conclusion we must derive is to wait and watch as America cleans its act. It has great potential to be the top investment destination of the next decade.

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Chelameshwar and Justice Sapre delivered a judgment, which will have a widespread impact on governance of higher education in India – Dr. Janet Jayapaul v. SRM University, in continuation of their “penchant” for education, recently reflected in Haryana Panchayati Rajdecision, delivered by this very bench.

By holding that a deemed university is ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, courts have opened the doors for application of even ‘vertical’ fundamental rights to these institutions. For an outsider to the practice of law, it may sound like an issue of mere technicality and semantics wrapped up in legal jargon. However, this case has a great potential in playing a very important role in infusing constitutional values in administration of these educational institutions. The issues such as gender discrimination, curbing of freedom of speech, right to privacy, etc. within the college environment are no more merely questions of propriety and culture, but also amenable to a claim in a court of law. Therefore, the outcome of this semantic exercise is very real, not just for the purposes of immediate case that the court was involved with, but for long-term educational reform in India.Facts of the Case

The appellant in this case was a professor teaching in the SRM University. He challenged the illegality of a notice served to him relieving him from his services. Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed against SRM University holding that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be filed against a deemed university as it is not ‘state’. From this decision of Madras High Court, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a writ petition may be filed against SRM University and set aside the High Court’s judgment as SRM University is a “deemed university” declared by the Central Government under the UGC Act, 1956.

The decision: Deemed University is an authority under Art.226, and ‘state’ under Art.12

This writ petition was challenged on the grounds that the University is “neither a State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence it cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226”. It seems that the decision of the high court is anyway misplaced and does not follow the existing authorities on this issue of law.

This was also reflected in the expert opinion submitted by Harish Salve, where is stated,

“While deciding such issue is always to test as to whether the concerned body is formed for discharging any ‘Public function’ or ‘Public duty’ and if so, whether it is actually engaged in any public function or/and performing any such duty.” He further clarified that a body need be a state or its instrumentality for being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226: “the expression ‘any person or authority’ used in Article 226 are not confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State but may in appropriate case include any other person or body performing ‘public function/duty’.”

This submission of Salve also confirms with the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru. v. V.R. Rudani, which is also extensively cited by the court in this case, the court had held,

“The term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non- fundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State”. (emphasis added)

The crux of the judgment lies in Paragraph 22. The court holds that Deemed University is “state” within the meaning of Article 12, though the issue in front of the court did not require it to decide if the university is a “state” under Article12. The court had already concluded that ‘providing education’ is a ‘public function’ and, that SRM University is performing that public function. The combined effect of these two findings is that the case already satisfied the requirements for maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The additional finding of the court that SRM University is “state” has wider impacts.

The impact of this decision

According to the decision in Andi Mukta, it seems that since it is “state” under Article 12, a writ petition against Deemed University directly to the Supreme Court should also be maintainable. However, the relevance of the question – whether a deemed University qualifies to be ‘state’ – is not just relevant for the procedural issues such which court to approach. It is also relevant to determine if a body can violate certain fundamental rights (or against whom can the fundamental rights be claimed).

In our constitutional scheme, essentially, there are two kinds of fundamental rights. This distinction is made on the basis of whom it can be claimed against (or who can violate it). This distinction is apparent in the way fundamental rights are worded. For instance, Art.15(2) states, “No citizen shall be…subject to…”. However, Art.14 is worded as such: “State shall not…”. This means that while the second kind of fundamental rights can only be claimed against State (vertical rights), the first kind of fundamental rights can also be claimed against private individuals (horizontal rights). If court had held only that a deemed university is an authority against which a writ petition can be filed under Art.226, the horizontal rights would be enforceable against a deemed university, but not vertical rights. Since the court held that a deemed university is also ‘state’, even the vertical rights will be applicable. This means that several doctrines under Art.14 such as that of reasonable classification (i.e. in any purported action of inequality, there should be intelligible differentia for classification, and it should have rational nexus with the object) and arbitrariness will now be applicable to deemed university. It also means that other vertical fundamental rights, such as rights under Article 19 including freedom of speech can now be claimed against a deemed university.

The contours of these legal claims against deemed universities will depend on how courts decide the future challenges arising due to this holding. However, it can only be hoped that this judgment will convert certain questions of propriety in the governance of higher educational institutions into constitutional challenges.

In Federico Fellini’s masterpiece, La Dolce Vita, the wistful faux intellectual, Mr. Steiner remarked – “I am too serious to be a dilettante, and too much of a dabbler to be a professional.” Lets call him and his ilk ‘serious dabblers’ for the sake of convenience. This sentiment echoes among many of the privileged class of my generation. A class which grew up witnessing economic liberalization, cultural glasnost, breaking of traditional mores of defining ambition, profession, gender and relationships – it was promised that sky was the limit, at least till you ‘grow up’.

And this is the sentiment which lies at the point of departure between the swathes of serious dabblers on one side and the career dilettantes and professionals on the other side.  The protagonist of Tamasha is a true itinerant at heart. He is a wandering story teller fascinated by the tales of war and conquest, love and heart break, of epics and myths. But like Naseeruddin Shah in Monsoon Wedding, Boman Irani in Lakshya and Balraj Sahini in Waqt, our protagonist’s father is a child of India’s partition. Partition was a bitter tragedy which instilled a diehard spirit of self denial, hard work and zealous enterprise among those who started lives afresh. Such enterprise scoffed at wooly ideas of philosophical self discovery – an indulgence reserved only for the unambitious and unworthy. It is no accident that the high-achieving father in the movie is domineering and judgmental – an overpowering authority whose slightest disapproval is like a death knell to the son. In the face of such scathing scrutiny the son gives up.

With the automated monotony of what we call ‘growing up’, his creativity gets stifled and he finds himself in a corporate desk job. He makes soul crushing power point presentations using cliché after cliché to disinterested clients. His gift of inventive story telling falls flat in the face of regimented corporate speak with its punctilious rules of grammar, syntax and economy. His boss, once an entrepreneur, is now a happily risk averse corporate head who likes predictability and a market beating computed annual growth rate of profitability.

The protagonist has convinced himself that storytelling is an inferior calling. He is firmly ensconced in the corporate straitjacket and has throttled his original self. At a subliminal level he knows that the limited liability of the corporate form is causing him limitless pain but he has deliberately rendered even his gentle iconoclasm comatose. Till one fine day an old flame who had once witnessed the free spiritedness of his rolling stone days jolts him out of his hypnotic trance. So a ‘dilettante’ turned ‘professional’ was confronted with the fact that he has become a turncoat. This desperate awakening triggers a disturbing bipolarity in him. He is not sure where he belongs. He is too scared to pursue his passion and yet too revolted to turn up at the gut wrenching guillotine of creativity at work.  How he reverts to pursuing his childhood passion is a delightful process of self realisation and I strongly urge you to watch the movie.

But coming back to the scourge of the serious dabbler. Blessed are those who have a passion, are convinced that they are good at it and have the luxury to pursue it – like our protagonist. Or those who love the stability of a corporate life – the smooth income stream, promotions and bonuses and the appearance of success by association with the entity they work for- like the boss of the protagonist. The ‘serious dabblers’ are ailing. They dislike the ritual of turning up at work. They have read enough facebook posts and buzzfeed articles to know they are not alone in this state of disquiet. This brews a growing discontent and false sense of entitlement that they are cut out for something else – something more meaningful and rewarding which they will stumble across one fine day. But either they lack a passion or the conviction to pursue their passion thereby getting drawn into a vicious cycle of longing and self pity. More often than not, the happy resolution for them is the realisation that they have missed the ‘follow your passion bus’ and are making decent money in any case. So they follow the words of Ramadhir Singh, the pragmatic ganglord in Gangs of Wasseypur – “apni bhavnaon ko dalon apni gand mein..’ (i.e. stuff your feelings up your ass, and just get on with it). But for those who are unable to reach this convenient compromise, life can be like that of the forlorn Mr. Steiner.

Ranbir Kapoor has become the quintessential vagabond – the ‘khanabadosh’ of our times. However unlike his grandfather Raj Kapoor, the original wandering tramp of Bollywood, Ranbir Kapoor’s characters do not come from rural poverty or urban squalor.  They grow up in Golf Links or Pali Hill, have rich parents and privileged childhoods. Therefore the personal conflicts that they face can seem elitist compared to those faced by millions in the country who struggle to live a life of basic human dignity.  It reminds me of the poignant scene in Richard Linklater’s masterful ‘Boyhood’ where the rich white kids of a well off family are struggling to ‘find themselves’ whereas the poor immigrant Mexican kid who did odd jobs to pay for night school finally bags a white collar job and is thrilled to bits. You could either take the father’s side on this one and command the vagrant son to dutifully climb the corporate ladder, or choose to be sensitive and respect the subjective relativity of each ones’ personal demons – the call is yours.

But in this trichotomy of being a dilettante, a professional or a serious dabbler, please avoid being the third. Because it didn’t end too well for Mr. Steiner.

Why is IP regulation required for jokes?

Certain expressions are already copyrighted. The copyright may be claimed over the specific performance (videos) or the collection such as in case of books. However, this post aims at focusing only on the content of a joke. We may, in principle, agree on the premise that when a comedian puts some creative efforts, his creative skills should be protected. Whenever we face an object that can be regulated, law seems to be the obvious regulator. However, the question that arises is, should this regulation be based in law? Lawrence Lessig, in his book, Code 2.0, suggests that essentially, there are four regulators: Market, norms, law and architecture. In this post, I adopt this very framework of regulation discussed by Lessig to understand the regulability of jokes.

Market and evolving architecture of jokes

In early 20th century stand-up comedy, the jokes mainly comprised of one-liners which were considered to be the common property. Later, the creation of jokes itself became more important. This can be attributed to the market where competition required the generation of joke content and not just performance. Therefore, comedians found themselves more invested. This was also affected by several changes in comic markets which furthered the demand for content.  This market demand also changed the structure of jokes in stand up comedy. The jokes, which earlier took the form of one-liners, were now divided into set-up and punch line. This shows the interaction of market and architecture as regulators of stand-up comedy industry. In the following sections, I will discuss the relevance of market and architecture in evolving norms and legal rules.

Evolution of norms in Stand-up comedy

Some of the classic writings on jokes considered the protection purely in terms of copyright. However, the later studies have argued that due to the existence of the norms in the industry of stand-up comedy, there is no need of legal protection. The norms governing the industry, though informal and without any legal backing are effective and extend from ostracism and badmouthing to at times, physical violence.

Earlier, when the jokes were mainly one-liners, the repetition of jokes was more acceptable and the rights of the creator existed in performance rather than in the joke content. However, a study conducted by Oliar and Sprigman shows that with later changes in the structure of jokes, the norms that exist in the industry of stand-up comedy no more recognise joke-theft justified. Further, the norms of the industry no more recognise the jokes themselves as commons. Therefore, these market changes also affected the change in norms of stand-up comedy industry.

Law as a regulator of IP rights over joke

A joke is essentially a literary creation like a poem, story etc. Therefore, at least in theory, it will merit copyright protection. However, the theoretical protection itself is not sufficient to sustain a substantial legal claim. This is because of the idea-expression dichotomy that lies at the heart of copyright. Copyright law protects the expression and not the idea. Another important, though not doctrinal concern is the costs attached with litigation. Sometimes, the costs may just overwhelm the market value of joke. Though not through copyright, the issue of joke stealing has come up in front of courts in several different forms. For one-liners, the tort of passing off may be claimed, if that one liner is an identifier line for the comedian. One such claim was also successfully made in in Foxworthy v. Custom Tees, Inc. (879 F. Supp. 1200 (N.D. Ga. 1995)). In some instances, the cases have also been filed under the claim of misleading advertisement.

No property regulation can ensure the eradication of theft, but it should ensure that enough protection to property is given that investing in property remains worthwhile. At the same time, we should be careful in expanding legal protections to every creative activity. This also works with jokes. Therefore, the essential question that will have to be asked is: whether the regulators other than ‘law’ are sufficient to protect the creativity? As demonstrated above, market, architecture and norms collectively provide sufficient protection to creativity in context of jokes.

(Thanks to the timely vacation and internship opportunities, both of us were lucky to witness the ongoing proceedings in the Aadhar matter at the Supreme Court)

A degree of finality is associated with the decisions of the Supreme Court by virtue of its position at the top of the hierarchy of courts in India. At the end of the day, however, the Supreme Court is final, but not infallible. Judicial remedies in the form of review and curative petitions are available to account for such fallibility, while at the same time, ensuring a certain degree of finality through its strict procedures.

The Supreme Court’s latest order in the Aadhar case (October 15, 2015), however, seems to have created a new nebulous remedy which strikes against this essential characteristic of finality associated with the decisions of the apex court.

The Three Orders

After multiple hearings over the past few months in the Aadhar matters which began in 2012, a three-judge bench comprising of Chelameswar J., Bobde J. and Nagappan J., passed three orders on August 11, 2015. By way of the first order, the bench noted that the matters involved certain “questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution” and were, hence, required to be placed before “a bench of appropriate strength”. In furtherance of the same, the bench directed the Registry to place the matters before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Further in the second order, realising the urgency of the matters, the bench noted the desirability of an expedited hearing. The third order containing interim directions sought to balance the various competing concerns raised by the parties till the ‘bench of appropriate strength’ finally decides the ‘questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution’ i.e. the constitutional status of the right to privacy (hereinafter interim order).

In paragraph 3 of the interim order, the bench, inter alia, restricted the usage of Aadhar cards for the purposes of only two social welfare schemes – namely, the public distribution system and the LPG distribution scheme.

The Interim Applications

Subsequently, the Union flanked by a number of governmental agencies like the RBI, the SEBI etc. filed applications seeking clarifications and/or modifications of the interim order. To put it briefly, they argued that the interim order should be clarified and/or modified to permit the voluntary usage of Aadhar cards for other social welfare schemes as well. However, the Writ Petitioners submitted that such applications cannot be entertained by the three-judge bench and should be adjudicated by the ‘bench of appropriate strength’ supposed to be constituted for determining the “questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution”. In doing so, they relied on an order of the Supreme Court in Modern Dental. After hearing the parties on the interim applications, the three-judge bench passed an order on October 7, 2015 holding that these “applications for modification are also heard by a larger bench” [emphasis supplied].

What is interesting to note is that the Court used the phrase “a larger bench”. Arguably, ‘a larger bench’ can mean one of the following two things – (a) any bench with more than three judges OR (b) the ‘bench of appropriate strength’ which finally decides the ‘questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution’.

A Bench only For Interim Applications

The Chief Justice constituted a five-judge bench, on October 9, 2015, after being concerned about ‘sparing’ nine judges. Things took an interesting turn on October 14, 2015, when at the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice made it amply clear that the five-judge bench was constituted only for the purpose of adjudicating the interim applications. This observation was confirmed in the order made yesterday (October 15, 2015). He further observed during the course argumentation that the final hearing (on the existence of the right to privacy) may be conducted by a larger bench comprising of either seven or nine judges.

Clearly, the five-judge bench was constituted specifically for adjudicating the interim applications. Therefore, the Chief Justice understood ‘a larger bench’ to mean (a), as mentioned in the section above, and not (b). With all due respect, we are of the view that this is not only an erroneous understanding of the order (dated October 7, 2015) but also has far reaching implications on the aspect of ‘finality’ attached to decisions of the Supreme Court. It would have been perfectly fine if this five-judge bench was primarily constituted to decide the status of the right to privacy, and in passing, it also adjudicated the interim applications.

Review in Disguise

Intriguingly, the Chief Justice’s understanding effectively creates another nebulous stage in Supreme Court litigation, distinct from the stages of review and curative petitions.  Further, such a stage is without any basis in law – neither does the Constitution nor the Supreme Court Rules or precedent support such an understanding.

To account for the characteristic of infallibility, two remedies (albeit at different stages of litigation) are available to a litigant.

The first remedy is to file a review petition under Art. 137 of the Constitution read with O. XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. The Supreme Court has the power to “review any judgement pronounced or order made by it” under Art. 137 in accordance with the procedure laid down under O. XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. The second remedy is to file a curative petition under, and in accordance with the procedure laid down in, O. XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. This remedy is available only in cases wherein a review petition has been filed and dismissed by circulation.

The setting up of a five-judge bench specifically for clarifying and/or modifying the interim order is essentially a review petition disguised as a referral to a larger bench. This inference is further supported by the fact that O. XLVII, R. 4 of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013 envisages modification of decisions by way review petitions and not by constituting larger benches.

The meeting started emphatically, as these meetings do, with a counter agitation by the ABVP with guns being pointed towards the sky. Rayees glanced at me as if to reassure me that this was as normal as the a Kashmiri eating beef. I stared, scared, into the blissful distant forests that the Ganga dhaba allowed to with the hope of surviving this protest march. Unperturbed, Rayees proceeded to the dais and began his speech with a solemn oath, he screamed, ‘Today, as Kashmiris, we mark the death of one of the latest martyrs for our cause. When he left to Jannah, he left with the fire that burns in Kashmir. His death adds not only fuel but also anger to this fire of our bloodied valley and country. If we don’t reclaim what is our birthright, no one will. I invite Shaukat Hussain Guru to enlighten us about our own cause against this imperialist, inconsonant, irrational India.’

Shaukat Guru was shortly built for a Kashmiri. His face was affixed with a frown which seemed to have been derived from the unpacifiable anger gathered over the many years in prison for an uncommitted crime. Rayees sniggered and said, ‘Shaukat has said that even he was found to have committed the crime, he wouldn’t feel he wasted his years in prison because his murder would have outraged the valley. He is right.’

Shaukat, sarcastically started, ‘These kafir say in their pledge that In our well being and prosperity alone; lies their happiness. Let it be known that they think our wellbeing is when they kill us. They probably do this because we can’t have a well being here. These encroachers say in their Constitution that they want to promote their own fraternity. How do they do it? They have an inside joke of killing Kashmiris and laugh about it. That’s how they do it. And they still want us to be part of them.’

At this point, the ABVP protestors switched off the electricity to the hall. Rayees got up and told me that the meeting was over.

The next day, I read in the papers that the protestors had punctured the tires of Shaukat’s car and slept the entire night in front of it to cause loss to Shaukat and the Kashmiris. I met Rayees in the office for the last time that day. He started by telling me that the meeting was successful because it got reported in all the right newspapers. Rayees said, ‘You’re a brave Indian. I wouldn’t go near any of my meetings if I were you. The injustice that is perpetrated in my country is unbearable for all of us. My own brother has been in jail under suspicion of being a terrorist, for 3 years and he is 24 years old. We lose our entire future on our collective identity that is not understandable for anyone outside Kashmir. There will be always paternal, patronising Indians, questioning our claim, telling us that we will be no good if there were no India, telling us that Pakistan is waiting to pounce on us. They don’t understand our identity. As a Kashmiri, I want to face these fights with my brother Kashmiris, and help from India and everybody else. I do not want you encroachers to scream into my ear that Kashmir is useless. If we are so useless, then just let us go. We are more than happy to fight our own battles. Remember that you have no claim to rule a people who do not wish to be ruled by you. Let us determine where our hostilities lie.’

Rayees left to Kashmir that night after his father was killed in mysterious circumstances.

Lucknow has always been my second home. After my grandmother’s death, my mom and grandfather shifted from Calcutta and permanently settled there in 1991. My mom says she bought every single light bulb, fan and painting in the house all by herself since my grandfather was busy with work; and did it all while she was pursuing her Ph.D. To cut a long story short, that house was my childhood getaway- where my grandfather spoilt me in absolute violation of the ‘How to handle kids’ Code prescribed by my mom. Over the years, the city grew on me- the regular visits to the zoo, the chaat at Neelkanth, the kebabs, watching the first day first show at SRS and shopping for Chikankari work at the Chowk. My grandfather continued to live there all by himself despite his rapidly deteriorating health, bound by the love of his neighbours and perhaps the peace he felt in the house.

Last week my parents informed me that they had finally managed to convince him to move in with us and that we will be putting up the house for rent. Although I was happy that he will be in our care, I was quite shocked- this felt like an abrupt goodbye. So as soon as my vacations began, we set off for Lucknow. The house looked just the same, except there was board hanging out the front which said “Available on rent, Contact”. Over the next two days, my family toiled through boxes full of paperwork, met neighbours, relatives and several interested tenants, while I mostly slept on my favourite sofa in the house, visited the corners I used to hide in as a child, strolled on the terrace and read the Readers Digest editions found in the store that went as far back as 1961. The night we were to leave, we discovered a huge box with my grandmother’s name written on it. It had her books, her own writings, her Ph.D. thesis, her astronomical charts, and her photos. I realised how our tastes matched as I went through her collection of novels, and how we would have made great friends if we had met. It was strange how cleaning this 24 years old house gave me the opportunity to meet my grandmother for the first time.

Soon it was done- the house was put up on rent, all the papers sorted through and the furniture sold. It was time to say goodbye. I felt quite tearful at the thought that this would be my last visit to the house, and in all probability, to Lucknow. Then I looked at my grandfather. I feared that he would break down, but he showed no signs of emotion. I asked him if he would miss the house. He simply  smiled and then went and sat in the car outside. I don’t know if he had already made peace with the situation long ago, or if at his age one understands the futility of attachment, or perhaps acquires the strength to overcome it. I didn’t shed a tear either. If he didn’t cry at the thought of being forced to leave the house he had built, loved and lived in for more years than I’ve lived on the Earth, how could I?