Nandan has a take on the government shutting down dance bars in Mumbai. He feels that although the ban is needless, not much importance should be given to the theory that displaced bar girls will turn into prostitutes.
Balderdash, I would say. What would these people have done if there were no dance bars? The stewards were hard working waiters at Udupi restaurants (judging by some interviews published in the media) the girls migrated from other cities when they heard about these employment opportunities. They were not dying of starvation there (most of them, I would believe). They came here to make big money, which they will not be making. Tough luck. Shit Happens.
The Bar girls and stewards earned more than enough when they were not banned. Enough to provide for a major part of an individual’s life.
Comments
8 comments. Leave your comment »
?!
Jan 9th, 2006 at 7:04 am | #
Balderdash is bout right. The rights or wrongs of banning the dance bars are not the issue. Neither can the fact that they may go into crime/prostitution really be a factor in deciding it.
The tone of the post is however extremely derogatory and complacent.
The bar girls did not earn too much and splurge. One Tarannunm does not a category define. They are people who are in a profession to earn a living, as much as the can , in manner they are capable of.
It is quite possible that several are forced into prostitution. Try running away from home to a city with stars in eyes, compromising with traditional norms to earn as a bargirl. And then finding that gone.
Will remove some of the smugness in the post.
Vulturo
Jan 9th, 2006 at 7:10 am | #
?!,
Er, I don’t understand. Do you mean to say that you are Nandan commenting under a pseudonym and will remove the smugness yourself, or asking him to do so, or asking me (?) to do so
Neha
Jan 9th, 2006 at 7:20 am | #
Vulturo: I think ?! means that Nandan’s post is smug.
Anyhow – I have to say that the post reeks of elitist knowledge of ground realities. But that’s my well.. subjectivity speaking!
(Gotta be careful you know!)
?!
Jan 9th, 2006 at 1:10 pm | #
V.
Nandan’s post is smug. Your comments column would have a wider audience.
?!
Jan 9th, 2006 at 6:32 pm | #
Waqas deserves a separate post.
Pal, the gent did some missile programs, finally made it to President without succeeding in that endeavour.
So, you, me and the Prez.
Moderators, pliss not to delete his comment. I’ll latch on to the replies. (AND fwd them to APJ).
Vulturo
Jan 9th, 2006 at 11:50 pm | #
Neha:
I do not neccessarily agree with Nandan’s post, but do think that it is a fresh perspective on things.
Nandan
Jan 19th, 2006 at 3:16 am | #
Err…sorry guys for coming here so late.
1. ?! and I are two separate people (a la Michael and Janet)
2. Am still not clear about ?! removing my smugness..surely s/he doesn’t want to convert me into a bar dancer/steward as punishment??
3. I have approached the issue more from a labour market/government barriers and options available perspective than a so-called humanist perspective. There are many perspectives one can take: a bird’s eye view or a worm’s eye view…I chose the bird’s eye view.
Also, even from the human point of view, I would think of this as a problem faced by a group of migrants. Again, let me reiterate that my major objection is to the simple and probably lazy conclusion by many people that banning dance bars is an automatic push into prostitution. I do NOT support the ban on dance bars. But I do not think it is an absolute tragedy either.
Nandan
Jan 19th, 2006 at 3:34 am | #
Also, I do not think my tone is derogatory towards bar girls. If anything, it is a response to the excessively bleeding-heart statements of the media. But again, that is my perception.