The super blood blue moon - and my observations that has nothing and all to do with it.

 My cousin, Vissal and I scurried around, craning our necks up to see over and around buildings, powerlines, antenna dishes trying to catch a glimpse of the ‘super blue blood moon.’ I clambered up to the water tank, the highest point in Vissal’s 3-storied house and managed to just look into the balcony of the next-door apartment – no moon, just a washing line. As we both rushed and scampered, binoculars and camera in hand, around the tightly crowded spaces and lanes around the house, looking almost simultaneously up for the moon and down to avoid open holes on the broken and uneven pavements in ‘Kacharakanahalli’ near Hennur in

Bangalore, people walking, driving and riding around, looked at us, perplexed and amused at what we were trying to do.

No moon! What the hell? Were we going to miss the event of a lifetime – a once-in-150-year phenomenon of nature? Come on, said Vissal. Let’s go find some open space, can’t see anything here,’ and he yelled to Ambi to get the keys of his car.  And off we went, on a quest determined to find this elusive moon.   For some reason, I felt like TinTin, on one of his adventures. 

It was 7pm. we had 31 minutes to find an open space and set up our telescope to see the moon. We zoomed out of our lane and screeched to a halt against the onslaught of the customary Bangalore traffic pile up. As we inched along, all of us tried to look out of our windows, hoping to catch a glimpse of our moon; we probably would get to see the next lunar eclipse by the time we negotiated this traffic to find an open space to see this one. 

Long story short, after a harrowing 20-minute drive, all along searching for our elusive sight, we finally found a reasonably open space by the side of the road and found our super blue blood moon too.

While standing by the roadside, what I observed and ruminated about my experience, was not about the glorious sight I was seeing through my binoculars.  The sea of humanity around me continued careening, weaving, honking as they negotiated their way, some back home, some to their workplaces as they started their day with the other side of the world. Almost no one spared a glance upward – to most, it was just another day of beating the rat race, the traffic, the minutes left in the day till they started all over again the next day. It amazed me that such a phenomenon would provoke no interest, not even enough to just spare 15 minutes or maybe even an hour or two in their otherwise routine humdrum of a lifetime. Agreed that this experience was not going to contribute in any way to our daily quest for better job or better pay, bigger apartments or cars or fund kid’s education. But have we all become some anesthetized against taking joy from such pleasures, to stop and wonder at a phenomenon that reminds us of our insignificance in the universe?  Is it a wonder that we don’t appreciate or respect earth, except as a resource to fuel mankind’s greed?

We had to drive around for 20 minutes to find a spot open enough to just have a fairly expansive look at the sky. I remember visiting Vissal and Ambi 20-25 years ago; we walked over large tracts of open grounds to get to the nearest shop -  the nearest house was a few hundred meters away. Bangalore was a city known for its parks, open spaces, cool weather – not much of it survives anymore. Today, 3-4  spots around the city were designated, open and large enough where people could converge to observe the moon.  

Superstitious as Indian’s are known to be, eclipses – lunar and solar, would have provoked a ban on going out (aka – to shield oneself from its harmful rays), eating anything before, during or a safe period of time after the event. Theories (none scientific) abound on reasons for it. Such a pity that people choose to hide from it instead of appreciating the science and magic behind it.

I’m happy, honoured and humbled by the marvel that I witnessed yesterday. I know that those who took pains to appreciate it feel the same.  

ALLEGEDLY speaking

The week last saw the media whip up a frenzy as almost all newspapers, TV channels and online news sites carried the story about the molestation of a Malayalam actor, Bhavana, by her ex driver.  Kerala political heavyweights took up the cudgel, the film fraternity stood in solidarity, activists kindled and rekindled feminists flames, women all over the country quaked in new fears of safety, news anchors screamed rhetoric, panellists basked in reflected spotlights.   

Yet the one thing that struck me time and again, in all of the news articles and headlines was the word ‘ALLEGED’ that preceded the word molestation or rape.  Going back or scanning through numerous other such stories that surface with increasing regularity in our ambit, I found that almost in all instances, this 7 letter word almost unfailingly tagged in front of the words that described the act.  

The dictionary defines the word ‘allegedly’ as said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality. ‘Said without proof’- how is someone supposed to bring to light the ‘proof’ while making a complaint of rape? Maybe by saying, ‘Excuse me, but could we take a selfie first, please?’

Maybe it’s a legal prerequisite, I haven’t checked the law. But why is it that journalism requires the words rape or molestation to be couched in a safety net by preluding it with the word ‘alleged’? What does that imply? That it would require investigative journalism before the hearsay can be thumped down as truth and they can go forth and publish without any contradictions that may surface later? 

I know there is a question of ethics of reporting and boundaries, especially when it comes to a topic as sensitive as rape. It is essential for journalists to "devote their resources and their skills to presenting the fullest version of the truth [they] can deliver, placing the highest value on information [they] have gathered and verified [themselves]. Yet, in this context, how would it be possible for journalists to do that? But by treading cautiously and couching behind diplomacy, doesn’t this vilify the victim? Doesn’t the word ‘allegedly’ somehow purport that the victim is being untruthful?

Bhavana is being lauded for fearlessly bringing forth her ordeal. For stepping forth into the spotlight while most in similar circumstances would hide in the shadows of fear and shame. For taking a bold stance against her perpetrators. Yet, to me, every time the word ’allegedly’ marches forth before the words that described her ordeal, it’s not only a step back in her fight, but worse, it gives the benefit of doubt to the ones that committed the act.

Against the onslaught of safety, molestation, abuse – both verbal and physical, gender parity, and a whole gamut of insensitiveness, wouldn’t this be another shackle that buckles her down. Can the media step forth and give 'the woman' the verbal strength of allowing the words ‘rape or ‘molestation’ to stand trial without the crutch of being ‘alleged?’