And discovers a "wonderfully indegenous form of entertainment"!
Not really, but almost. Here is the column from Sunday's DH. In her words
He tells her how "these girls come from the poorest families" and how "nearly, every girl here has a story to tell that is so sad it makes you cry." He also appraises her of their dire situation: "they earn barely enough to keep body and soul together." The writer even meets a few of the "girls" who explain how they are supporting large families. In a touching conclusion the writer sings a paean to the dance bars - "wonderfully indigenous form of entertainment" - and calls for the government to promote them instead of banning them.
Ignorant me. I"d thought dance bars were ever so slightly disrespectable, no doubt by lines like this from a column by a columnist named - wait - Tavleen Singh!
I'd also thought the dance girls were making a tidy sum every night because the same columnist wrote this in the same column :
Why does she work the visit to the dance bar into the column anyway? She has made her main point - let the dance bars be - in her previous column quoted above without the visit - except for how wonderful entertainment it is.
If she wanted to be "On The Spot" she should have given more points of view. One dance bar is not a good sample size for "1300 bars in the state" and one dance bar owner's view is not the complete picture. Did she expect him moreover to tell her that he is in it just for the money, and the sad backgrounds of the girls are a convenient backdrop to the whole thing?
Where is the interview with the police and government? We hear nothing from them apart from "his excuse for the ban is that the bars encourage corruption and criminality." Why does he think so?
The latest issue of Tehelka has some answers. We learn that the CM "cites a high crime rate and complaints from neighbourhoods where dance bars exist for the closure". We also learn that the prosperity of the dance bars is supported by the police "who allow bars to stay open after the 1.30 am deadline, and ignore trafficking, conducted in a few bars, for a fee". Further, "policemen collect bribes equivalent to the amount of annual tax the owner pays. Forty percent of the bars are owned by the police, and by Patil (Dy CM)'s own admission, policemen ask to be posted in dance bars neighbourhoods". So there is some truth, after all, to the "excuse" that the "bars encourage corruption and criminality". True the deputy CM is putting a morality spin to it for political gain. But why lose the big picture?
As to the sad stories behind every girl and large families that they support, I know of a big retail store where the same situation prevails and the owner overworks his employees like hell. I think exploitation thrives on these sad stories and large families - especially where women are concerned. What will the women do after they are forced to quit, a question raised here?
Last word to Tehelka:
Not really, but almost. Here is the column from Sunday's DH. In her words
He led me towards the door from behind which the music was coming and when he opened it I felt as if I had been suddenly transported onto a Hindi film set in the middle of the dream sequence.It's not really Bollywood but a dance bar. He is the owner of the dance bar which will remain unnamed due to his "fear of repercussions". The gist of the column is that Ms Tavleen Singh goes to a dance bar and meets the owner. She tells him upfront that she
... wanted to write a story that supported the cause of the dancers because I believed that their right to livelihood was being violated by the Maharashtra government.He "relaxes visibly" - and why not? It would've hardly surprised me if he had done a quick jive - and orders juice as well as buttermilk for the inquiring journalist in search of the truth irrespective of her convictions.
He tells her how "these girls come from the poorest families" and how "nearly, every girl here has a story to tell that is so sad it makes you cry." He also appraises her of their dire situation: "they earn barely enough to keep body and soul together." The writer even meets a few of the "girls" who explain how they are supporting large families. In a touching conclusion the writer sings a paean to the dance bars - "wonderfully indigenous form of entertainment" - and calls for the government to promote them instead of banning them.
Ignorant me. I"d thought dance bars were ever so slightly disrespectable, no doubt by lines like this from a column by a columnist named - wait - Tavleen Singh!
If a girl is over the age of consent she has a right to earn a living any way she chooses...why should she want to be a maid servant for less than Rs 3000 a month? ...Besides, can a government ban on dance bars really work? ... Will there not develop the speakeasy situation that existed in Maharashtra when there was prohibition?Dance bars and prohibition mentioned in the same breath? Both must be bad, bad vices! But no, Ms Tavleen says dance bars are wonderful.
I'd also thought the dance girls were making a tidy sum every night because the same columnist wrote this in the same column :
... if a dancing girl can earn between Rs 500 and Rs 25,000 a night why should she want to be a maid servant for less than Rs 3000 a month?Where did she come up with those figures when all the time they are living hand to mouth?
Why does she work the visit to the dance bar into the column anyway? She has made her main point - let the dance bars be - in her previous column quoted above without the visit - except for how wonderful entertainment it is.
If she wanted to be "On The Spot" she should have given more points of view. One dance bar is not a good sample size for "1300 bars in the state" and one dance bar owner's view is not the complete picture. Did she expect him moreover to tell her that he is in it just for the money, and the sad backgrounds of the girls are a convenient backdrop to the whole thing?
Where is the interview with the police and government? We hear nothing from them apart from "his excuse for the ban is that the bars encourage corruption and criminality." Why does he think so?
The latest issue of Tehelka has some answers. We learn that the CM "cites a high crime rate and complaints from neighbourhoods where dance bars exist for the closure". We also learn that the prosperity of the dance bars is supported by the police "who allow bars to stay open after the 1.30 am deadline, and ignore trafficking, conducted in a few bars, for a fee". Further, "policemen collect bribes equivalent to the amount of annual tax the owner pays. Forty percent of the bars are owned by the police, and by Patil (Dy CM)'s own admission, policemen ask to be posted in dance bars neighbourhoods". So there is some truth, after all, to the "excuse" that the "bars encourage corruption and criminality". True the deputy CM is putting a morality spin to it for political gain. But why lose the big picture?
As to the sad stories behind every girl and large families that they support, I know of a big retail store where the same situation prevails and the owner overworks his employees like hell. I think exploitation thrives on these sad stories and large families - especially where women are concerned. What will the women do after they are forced to quit, a question raised here?
Last word to Tehelka:
If it (the government) really cares about exploitation of women, it should regularise and legalise not just bargirl dancing, but prostitution. What will follow will be issues of governance : health care, state support, right to work and life.And as to the complaining neighbours - who wouldn't complain in their place - they could be made happy by moving all the dance bars to the outskirts of the city. Maybe the crime would go down too.
No comments:
Post a Comment