Connect with us

The part-documentary, part-reality TV show follows the efforts of Sima Taparia of Mumbai as she sets up clients around the world, often with families in tow, into arranged marriages. There’s Aparna, who needs her future husband to know Bolivia has salt flats; Vyasar, who carries a secret about his father trying to kill his third wife; and Pradhyuman, who concocts elaborate recipes such as peri-peri foxnuts with liquid nitrogen.

These Indian singles, they’re not just like us. But Sima Auntie, as she is known, is in the business of marrying them off anyway, guided by a “biodata” page of likes, dislikes, educational background and a photo.

That’s hardly the most offensive part. Despite trending on every social platform and the streaming service all week, the series has been criticized for perpetuating harmful stereotypes, colorism, sexism, elitism, heteronormativity, the caste system and the shallow, transactional nature of Indians looking for a life partner.
I’m ready to wade into the debate. (Hang on, muting my mentions on Twitter…) As someone who has spent her whole life as an Indian, much of her career chronicling the country and its diaspora, and written two books on global Indians, I think the criticism is misplaced.

Sima Auntie is not the problem. We are the problem.

I fear that the art of nuance and subtlety has been lost on critics. They want a deeper discussion of the rampant colorism on display here (the word “fair” to refer to skin tone is used over and over, without second thought.).

They want acknowledgment of entrenched and intentional endogamy that maintains Indian power structures, rooted in caste and wealth. They want mothers and mothers-in-law to stop meddling and enforcing impossible-to-meet standards.

But this is us. The critics are not wrong but their target is. That the show was filmed before George Floyd died but released after makes this reality even more poignant. Unilever announced last month that it is removing the word “fair” from its Fair & Lovely line of skin-whitening products. The company now says it chooses to emphasize “glow, even tone, skin clarity and radiance.”
Fair & Lovely skin cream is now known as Glow & Lovely. Long controversial, skin-lightening products have come under renewed fire after global protests over racism.

As Americans know all too well, corporate policy is one matter; changing the hearts and minds of family and society is much harder. Herein lies the genius of “Indian Matchmaking.” Maybe Oscar-nominated director Smriti Mundhra and veteran showrunner J.C. Begley know exactly what they are doing; just look at the series’ narrative pacing, music selection and cutaway moments with adorable, elderly couples.

Their decisions are deliberate and calculated and intended to effect change. That’s the role and power of media. They’re not redeeming the cavalier manner in which families perpetuate inequality and outdated thinking. They’re exposing it.

The mirror is being held up and it’s impossible to look away.

Those who are offended by it often prove “Indian Matchmaking’s” point. We mock Aparna for her snobbish, exacting ways as she says not hating someone makes for a successful date. Yet even this criticism is loaded with the unattainable expectations we put on Indian women. Her reference to Bolivian salt flats, also chastised as elitist, is among the scant examples in the eight-part docuseries of a world view beyond, say, a Texas axe-throwing club or a Mumbai nightclub. What she seeks in a partner is intellectual compatibility. Don’t we have that right?
Aparna in Season 1, Episode 2 of "Indian Matchmaking." Everyone's got an opinion on this 34-year-old lawyer who wanted to settle down but not settle.

The spotlight on the derivative manner and ancient customs of matchmaking in India — that far-off country where arranged marriage rivals snake charmers in Western cliched depictions — should force us to reconsider allegedly more modern practices. Like swiping right.

Among the revolutionary bits of advice from Sima Auntie: Focus on one match at a time. Don’t move on till you’ve ruled him or her out. I think of what a friend in New York City once called the “-er” problem in online dating. “There’s always someone hotter, better, taller, richer out there,” she told me, exasperated and single into her mid-30s. She left New York City and quickly found love in a smaller pond.

Pradhyuman (center), who runs a jewelry business, meets with Sima Auntie to spell out his demands. And he's demanding, having rejected more than 150 potential suitors.

It is too easy to look at Indian society as oppressive through the lens of arranged marriage and demand disruption — versus challenging the whole institution, East or West, love or arranged, IRL or online.

Indeed, there are quieter revolutions within “Indian Matchmaking,” such as the number of subjects who are divorced or the products of divorce. Once taboo among Indian families, divorce is explained away by Sima Auntie with the proclamation: “Marriages are breaking like biscuits.” She matter-of-factly assures the clients she will find them matches.

Why? Because Sima Auntie is the ultimate businesswoman and her ability to change is a revolution itself, representing the chameleon-like adaptation of Indians in a connected world. Confronted with nontraditional, challenging candidates to place, she does not give up, instead turning to life coaches, astrologers and fellow matchmakers who might have more modern networks.

Sima Auntie greets Rupam, a divorced mother, to help her try again.
But why, critics rightfully ask, were all the matches heterosexual? India struck down sodomy laws and decriminalized homosexuality two years ago.

Here, I have faith in the undercurrent of capitalism and globalization that runs through “Indian Matchmaking.” After all this hype, there surely will be a second season. And surely Sima Auntie will find someone to help her arrange same-sex couples — as long as she gets her cut.

Source link



Romney faces another crossroads on Trump’s Supreme Court push


Romney’s short Senate career has been punctuated by big moments of distancing himself from the president: marching in a Black Lives Matter protest and penning an op-ed before he even took his Senate seat vowing to push back against Trump when needed. He also occasionally criticizes Trump’s rhetoric, but he’s careful not to get dragged into a back and forth with the president on Twitter or elsewhere.

Yet the party’s 2012 presidential nominee has also largely backed Trump’s appointments and much of his agenda. His voting record is a regular reminder that he’s still a conservative, which his GOP colleagues hope is a sign that he will divorce his differences with Trump from the monumental opportunity the conservative movement sees before it.

“I really don’t know what he’ll do,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). “I think he’s probably wrestling with it just like he has on other issues.”

Romney’s opinion may not be decisive: He’d need one other Republican senator to join him and Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Collins in opposition to derail McConnell’s hopes of a swift confirmation. For now, that would take a surprise defection after vulnerable Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) backed McConnell’s strategy.

But should Romney be the only other Republican to join the Senate GOP’s moderate bloc, it would invite the explosive scenario of Vice President Mike Pence breaking a 50-50 vote on the Senate floor for a Supreme Court nominee, perhaps just days before Election Day.

Romney’s decision may do a lot to illustrate what kind of senator he will be as he finishes his first two years in the chamber. Romney has little of the baggage of his colleagues over past Supreme Court fights or battles over precedent. At a 2018 debate, Romney said Senate Republicans’ blockade of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, set no new standard and did not say how he would handle an election-year confirmation under Trump.

Conservative advocacy groups are keeping a close eye on Romney. The Judicial Crisis Network announced Monday that it was pouring $2.2 million into ads boosting the effort to fill the seat. The targeted states are home to vulnerable GOP incumbents, except one: Romney’s Utah.

But Romney is insulated from immediate political ramifications. His term isn’t up until 2024, and that gives Romney significant freedom to make his own way.

With the filibuster gutted on all nominations after recent rules changes by both parties, Senate Democrats are powerless to stop Trump’s appointment on their own. But many enjoy good relationships with Romney and are counting on him to take yet another stand against Trump.

“He’s shown extraordinary courage before,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I hope he does again.”

Source link

Continue Reading


A Former Government Minister Is Leading Calls By Tory MPs For Boris Johnson Not To Put The Country Back Into Lockdown

Screenshot 2020 09 21 at 18.40.20 npkosb

5 min read

The former minister Simon Clarke is leading calls by Tory MPs for the country not to be put back into a full lockdown amid a surge in coronavirus cases.

The Middlesborough MP made a “plea for proportionality” to Matt Hancock in his first contribution to the Commons since standing down as a local government minister earlier this month.

Speaking to PoliticsHome he said: “I’ve seen constituents commit suicide during the first lockdown. When you get those emails it’s quite sobering about the human cost about what it is that we’re demanding of people.

“And it made me reflect that we should lever do so lightly, and that frankly if there are intervening measures before we get to those – then I would strongly hope we would exhaust all of them.”

Speaking ahead of a statement by Boris Johnson on Tuesday, where he is expected to introduce tighter restrictions to prevent the spread of Covid-19, Mr Clarke warned: “there are very, very significant economic tradeoffs” to such measures.

He is calling for a “graduated tradeoff” of freedom “rather than fire off all our artillery now”, adding it will be “a very long winter if we moved into lockdown now”.

Although he is in favour of local lockdowns he added: “But I just think a suite of national measures which set the economy even further back, and really do impose massive restrictions on people’s quality of life, are to be avoided as such time as they are totally unavoidable.”

Mr Clarke urged his former colleagues to “maintain fundamental liberty for people at this stage of autumn” after suggestions it may take six months to tackle the virus.

With the ‘rule of six’ only recently introduced he called for “other rules kick in before preventing households to mix”, saying “things which cut across basic human freedoms and basic human needs are to be avoided until they are an absolute last-ditch option”.

A growing number of Tory MPs have also expressed concern over what they see as a growing lack of parliamentary scrutiny over Coronavirus legislation. 

Peter Bone MP told PoliticsHome: “I think there’s a growing number of MPs who think you shouldn’t be making these significant regulations without parliamentary approval.”

He said the powers were handed over via emergency legislation but it was when there wasn’t “a functioning Parliament”, at the time, and MPs should not get a chicane to defat, amend and vote on them.

As an example he said the “rule of six” would likely have still been passed, but perhaps amended not to include children or a month-long sunset clause.

Asked whether Number 10 had been ignoring its own MPs, Mr Bone said: “Well I think they get used to it, they got used to in an emergency just doing it ,and they’ve continued. There is a drift within government to a more presidential type of government.

Clarke’s call to avoid lockdown was backed up in the Commons by the ex-transport secretary Chris Grayling, who said he did not believe there is a case for a new national lockdown.

He told the Commons: “Given the huge consequences of this virus for people in our communities on their mental health, particularly the younger generation who are paying a very heavy price, can I say to him that given those regional variations – and in the full knowledge of all the pressures that he is facing – I do not believe the case for further national measures has yet been made.”

Mr Hancock replied: “He’s absolutely right that there are some parts of the country where the number of cases is still thankfully very low and so the balance between what we do nationally and what we do locally is as important as the balance in terms of what we do overall.”

Another former minister – Sir Edward Leigh – said public consent for lockdowns is “draining away”.

Addressing the House of Commons, he said: “The trouble with authoritarianism is that’s profoundly inimical to civil liberties, it is also increasingly incompetent, it relies on acquiescence and acquiescence for lockdowns, particularly national ones, is draining away.

“If you tell a student not to go to a pub, they will congregate in rooms, even worse.”

Mr Hancock said in his reply: “As a Conservative, I believe in as much freedom as possible consistent with not harming others.”

But fellow Tory MP Pauline Latham called for more Parliamentary scrutiny of such decisions, saying: “Could I remind the Secretary of State, I think he’ll be going to a Cobra meeting tomorrow, could he explain to the Prime Minister that we actually live in a democracy not a dictatorship and we would like a debate in this House?”

Mr Hancock replied: “Yes, there absolutely will be a debate in this House on the measures… that we have to use. We do have to move very fast.”

The chairman of the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, Sir Graham Brady, then asked the minister if: “Balancing the measures to tackle Covid with the other health consequences such as cancer patients going undiagnosed or not treated in time and the economic and social consequences is a political judgment?”

He added: “And does he further agree with me that political judgments are improved by debate and scrutiny?”

Mr Hancock replied: “Yes I do and I do come to this despatch box as often as possible. I’m very sorry that I wasn’t able to come on Friday for Friday’s decision but the House wasn’t sitting.”

He added: “The more scrutiny the better is my attitude.”

Source link

Continue Reading


GE: Industrial giant will stop building coal-fired power plants

114551872 gettyimages 624883602 1

Image copyright
Getty Images

In a dramatic reversal, one of the world’s biggest makers of coal-fired power plants is to exit the market and focus on greener alternatives.

US industrial giant General Electric said it would shut or sell sites as it prioritised its renewable energy and power generation businesses.

It comes ahead of a US Presidential election in which the candidates hold starkly different views on coal.

NGO the Natural Resources Defense Council said the move was “about time”.

GE has said in the past it would focus less on fossil fuels, reflecting the growing acceptance of cleaner energy sources in US power grids.

But just five years ago, it struck its biggest ever deal – paying almost £10bn for a business that produced coal-fuelled turbines.

‘Attractive economics’

In a statement, the firm suggested the decision had been motivated by economics.

Russell Stokes, GE’s senior vice president, said: “With the continued transformation of GE, we are focused on power generation businesses that have attractive economics and a growth trajectory.

“As we pursue this exit from the new build coal power market, we will continue to support our customers, helping them to keep their existing plants running in a cost-effective and efficient way with best-in-class technology and service expertise.”

US President Donald Trump has championed “beautiful, clean coal” at a time when other developed countries are turning away from polluting fossil fuels.

In a bid to revive the struggling US industry, Mr Trump has rolled back Obama-era standards on coal emissions. But it has not stopped the decline as cheaper alternatives such as natural gas, solar and wind gain market share.

GE said it would continue to service existing coal power plants, but warned jobs could be lost as a result of its decision.

The firm is already cutting up to 13,000 job cuts at GE Aviation, which makes jet engines, due to the pandemic.

In a tweet, the Natural Resources Defense Council said: “Communities and organizers have been calling on GE to get out of coal for years. This is an important and long overdue step in the right direction to protect communities’ health and the environment.”

Source link

Continue Reading