An under-the-hood voyeurism

How many times have you noticed that sneaky pair of eyes of that auto-driver turning away the moment you happen to meet the stare? Have you thought that the rear view mirror the driver is (mis)using for feeding his depravation is actually illegal, serving no other purpose but to feed a depravation?

You might be familiar with this: (Sorry but apparently the Amalga file uploader is not working)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1249789&id=1033497876

There are usually two types of mirrors in a rickshaw- both attached to the edge giving left and right rear views. The third kind is the voyeur mirror, or usually used as one. This one is affixed near the windshield so that the driver can have a comfortable view of the backseat passenger. A litmus test for this- if you can see their eyes in any of the rear view mirrors, they can see yours, and much more. Says Naushad Sekh, an auto driver, "It's all a matter of how corrupted one can get. But then, jo jaisa bharega, vaisa paayega (As you sow, so shall you reap)." Naushad has no such voyeur mirror and has no intention to either. "I treat my fares as Gods. How can I turn a dirty eye to my God?"

People like Naushad do exist, probably a lot. But there are also creative ones like Jeetendra Yadav who's been driving since last five years. "I know what you are talking about," he cuts you short. "But sir, driving a rickshaw is not a profitable occupation. There have been times when passengers have sneaked out when the auto is waiting at a traffic jam or a signal without paying the fare. So we keep these mirrors to keep a check on those passengers."

But what about the ladies then? "Sirjee," another driver who is sitting unnoticed by now, save for the smoke circles he has been conjuring, speaks up. "There was this time when I was taking a couple from Seepz to Andheri West. The couple was engaged in some dirty things, I could hear them. But I decided mind my own business. It was then that a traffic cop stopped us," he pauses to take a drag, "and fined me."

You are shocked. At least, you put up a nice act. "The traffic cop detained them and asked them if I had warned them," he says. "They said I hadn't. They fined me 120 rupees at Suryanagar police station. Vulgarity always bothered me, but now when I have to bear the brunt of others, I have started to not engage fares with couples. Many a time, I've made couples get down."

Jeetendra is silent all the time.

It's the couples' fault too. Many a time. But then that's not the point. The point is the perversion of the auto drivers. "Yeah," they agree. You wait for them to say something more. They don't.

"I know for one that this is not in legal," you coax them.

"In the license tests, in motor driving schools, they haven't told us anything of that sort- that you are not supposed to keep such mirrors."

"Suppose they crack down up on you like the recent one on drunk driving?" you question.

"Then we'll remove them. What's the big deal?" Jeetendra volunteers. You wait for his hypocrisy to sink in him. It doesn't. At least he puts up a nice act that it didn't.

Voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder. It involves observing the unsuspecting person, turning him into an object of desire. "Yes," confirms Dr. Jyoti Maheshwari, a psychotherapist. "What happens is these people are from the remote parts of India where sex is not openly spoken about. Lack of proper sex education manifests from a curious adolescence to a perversion in adulthood. They develop a personality related to sex and anxiety, often developing an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Child abuse might also be a reason."

That lack of sex education is the cause is also echoed by Dr. Anshu Kulkarni, a psychiatrist. "Voyeurism in this case is about sensationalizing a mundane life. I personally believe that all such sexual aversions can be prevented if sex education is given everywhere, to everyone, if sex is not equated with taboo."

There have been people who have suffered that. Couples mostly refuse to confess, realizing their own part of mistake too. "But," says one half, "there have been times when I am just leaning on his shoulder and I see the driver staring."

Boisterous singles are not abound too, who admit to being used in this way. But those who are, fiercely vent out against such acts. "It is almost like they are undressing you with their eyes," says a fiery journalist.

"There have been experiences, my own, that the driver is checking me out through the mirror, almost ignoring the traffic ahead," says Ankita, a law student. "It happens even when I am 'politely' dressed. I want to wear a simple top, without being gazed at. Is that too much to ask? Sometimes it’s as bad as feeling you were wearing a burqa instead. Doesn't that endanger my fundamental right of expression?"

But what does the law have to say about this? Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, section 161 states that 'Every motor vehicle shall be fitted internally or externally with a mirror so placed that the driver has a clear and distinct view of the vehicles approaching from the rear.' However, for a layman, the law ambiguously oscillates between the latter part as an implication and consequence. As the Thane RTO deputy head Subhash Vare puts, "The law states what to do and doesn't state what not to do." But however, the RTO dissuades the drivers from such mirrors. "We tell them to remove such mirrors, even fine them if necessary. Now that you have brought it up, we will, of course, pay an extra attention to such acts not happening."

You want to believe them. You so want to.[url][/url]

Red wrote:

And I think this should go to the Blogs section and I'm sure you've already posted it in YOUR blog but still... make your own section the Blogs section and vent your angst!
LOL

Arre no! My blog is strictly for fiction, if you remember.

Red wrote:

Well, I've noticed something regarding this too.
In most auto-rickshaws (at least the ones over here) I've noticed that the back end is covered with (almost always) an entirely black sheet and/or a black sheet with a translucent plastic window made in it. The funny thing is that the driver cannot see anything behind him even if he turned his head around to check on the traffic behind him let alone with a rear view mirror. It's pretty much useless for that.

I know! That's why the article, right?

Red wrote:

........Says Naushad Sekh, an auto driver, "It's all a matter of how corrupted one can get.....
...."Yes," confirms Dr. Jyoti Maheshwari, a psychotherapist. "What happens is these people are......
..... almost ignoring the traffic ahead," says Ankita, a law student. "It happens even when......

Omkar, either I've failed to notice the way you used to quote people before or that internship is actually getting to you.
LOL
You even quoted ANKITA!
He he he.

Dude, this is the article that I wrote for the newspaper! I copy pasted it and even wrote the edited stuff here. That's why the new style of quotes!
And yep, that's our Amalga ki Ankita. I made her famous by giving her some print space

P.S. Those others who didn't get what me n Red are talking about here, I work as an intern journo in a newspaper. That would also explain my long absence from the forum.

"There have been experiences, my own, that the driver is checking me out through the mirror, almost ignoring the traffic ahead," says Ankita, a law student. "It happens even when I am 'politely' dressed. I want to wear a simple top, without being gazed at. Is that too much to ask? Sometimes it’s as bad as feeling you were wearing a burqa instead. Doesn't that endanger my fundamental right of expression?"

Gah, if there is one thing I'm sure of is that guys will check girls out anywhere. Anywhere. Even while walking on the streets. And exactly how does checking someone out endanger their fundamental right of expression?

There are usually two types of mirrors in a rickshaw- both attached to the edge giving left and right rear views. The third kind is the voyeur mirror, or usually used as one. This one is affixed near the windshield so that the driver can have a comfortable view of the backseat passenger

It's there so that they have a comfortable view of the rear traffic that's why it's called a rear-view mirror(exactly what the law states which you have somehow twisted to fit your point of view). Have you seen the inside of a car? Would you say that most car drivers are perverts as well? I know some of them block the rear window with something but that doesn't mean they're all perverts. The exhibitionist couples, they know what they're doing and they know they will be watched. They have absolutely nothing to complain about.

It's the couples' fault too. Many a time. But then that's not the point. The point is the perversion of the auto drivers. "Yeah," they agree. You wait for them to say something more. They don't.

I don't understand. Should the auto drivers block their eyes and ears while the couples engage in dirty things? I just can't see how you can imply that the auto drivers are perverts here. It's not like they're spying on them in a private place.

"I know for one that this is not in legal," you coax them.

"In the license tests, in motor driving schools, they haven't told us anything of that sort- that you are not supposed to keep such mirrors."

But they are legal. You just told them a lie. And asked to respond to that by assuming this is true. Why are you doing this?

As for the whole article, it reads like some tabloid-published sensationalist propaganda on a very, very slow news day. Hyperbolic quotes and a whole lot of assumptions.

Ah, sweet. A debate is always welcome. You might want to work on the tone though. It's not exactly what I'll call would make for a healthy debate.

clonic wrote:

"There have been experiences, my own, that the driver is checking me out through the mirror, almost ignoring the traffic ahead," says Ankita, a law student. "It happens even when I am 'politely' dressed. I want to wear a simple top, without being gazed at. Is that too much to ask? Sometimes it’s as bad as feeling you were wearing a burqa instead. Doesn't that endanger my fundamental right of expression?"

Gah, if there is one thing I'm sure of is that guys will check girls out anywhere. Anywhere. Even while walking on the streets. And exactly how does checking someone out endanger their fundamental right of expression?

In more than one ways, Red is right. But there's a difference in ways of checking out too.
You know what right of expression means? Expression is a way of manifesting oneself. It involves the way of talking, body language and the way of dressing up. When any one/all of them are endangered, it amounts to violation of the right. The case here- personal safety is endangered by the way you dress up. If you remember, there was this case that sprouted up many years ago about this bus driver and the conductor hauled up for raping this lady, a last passenger. The court gave a minor punishment to the offenders saying that the lady seemed 'provocatively dressed'. That was when the debate of violation of right to expression started too.

[quote="clonic"]

There are usually two types of mirrors in a rickshaw- both attached to the edge giving left and right rear views. The third kind is the voyeur mirror, or usually used as one. This one is affixed near the windshield so that the driver can have a comfortable view of the backseat passenger

It's there so that they have a comfortable view of the rear traffic that's why it's called a rear-view mirror(exactly what the law states which you have somehow twisted to fit your point of view). Have you seen the inside of a car? Would you say that most car drivers are perverts as well? I know some of them block the rear window with something but that doesn't mean they're all perverts. The exhibitionist couples, they know what they're doing and they know they will be watched. They have absolutely nothing to complain about.

Oh reeeeeeeallly? Have you ever seen the back side of an auto? Did it ever cross your mind that I would, before hauling my ass to RTO's, lawyers and all, confirm this BASIC fact that the traffic is visible or not? Mostly, all that the autos have is a small 20 cm by 5 cm of tinted glass on the back. Even if the glass isn't tinted, there is no possible way a driver can view the rear traffic through rear view mirror in the center reliably, passenger there or not. One more thing, if it is so obvious, why didn't the several auto drivers I interviewed point out THAT 'fact' to me?


[quote="clonic"]

It's the couples' fault too. Many a time. But then that's not the point. The point is the perversion of the auto drivers. "Yeah," they agree. You wait for them to say something more. They don't.

I don't understand. Should the auto drivers block their eyes and ears while the couples engage in dirty things? I just can't see how you can imply that the auto drivers are perverts here. It's not like they're spying on them in a private place.

True, but you being an offender yourself can't point out others' fault. That was what I meant when I said 'that's not the point'. First you stop crapping in public places then you complain about the stench. Besides, couples canoodling is a different issue which, for the record, I'm against. Open up a new topic if you want to discuss that.


[quote="clonic"]

"I know for one that this is not in legal," you coax them.

"In the license tests, in motor driving schools, they haven't told us anything of that sort- that you are not supposed to keep such mirrors."

But they are legal. You just told them a lie. And asked to respond to that by assuming this is true. Why are you doing this?

Now this is a blatant accusation, my man. Let me put before you the whole law.

* THE MAHARASHTRA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989

161. Mirror.— Every motor vehicle, other than a transport
vehicle not being a motor cab or a motor cycle having not more than
two wheels and to which a side car is not attached, shall be fitted
either internally or externally, and every transport vehicle, other
than a motor cab, shall be fitted externally with a mirror so placed
that the driver has a clear and distinct vision of vehicles approach-
ing from the rear :
Provided that, the State Government may by general or special order, exempt any transport vehicle or class of transport vehicles from the provision of this rule on such conditions as may be specified in the order, if it is satisfied, that having regard to the construction of such vehicle or class of vehicles fitting of a mirror does not serve any useful purpose.

I consulted lawyers for interpretation of this law. Here's what they have to say (I have written that as '...the law ambiguously oscillates between the latter part as an implication and consequence.' which you conveniently avoided citing in your argument)

The law clearly means IF the driver has a distinct view of the rear, ONLY then can the affix such a mirror- that's what the 'so placed that' means. The interpretation of the RTO official have also been mentioned by me, after all they are the enforcers. So legally its illegal, though practically, RTO isn't bothered much about it.

clonic wrote:
As for the whole article, it reads like some tabloid-published sensationalist propaganda on a very, very slow news day. Hyperbolic quotes and a whole lot of assumptions.

Quotes are genuine. Blame the 'hyperbole'(your personal opinion, strictly) on the quoters. I, personally, think whatever they've said is a justified simmering rage against the loathsome practices. I wasted two whole days on this report if you mean this was a product of a bored mind. And by the way, this is published in a goddamn newspaper with a legacy of last 80+ years- The Free Press Journal.

I refuse to acknowledge any of your arguments.

@Omkar First of all, a major thanks to you for giving me some print space and making me FAMOUS!!
@Red Excuse me, being a female who has fallen prey to voyeurism. I have EVERY RIGHT to be quoted. Besides, why are you getting in my way of becoming 'famous'??
@Clonic Are you a guy? i think so. Omi has defended most of his opinions better than I can. I am just answering your questions on the authenticity of my quote. If you are a guy, you'll never understand the difference between 'checking out' and 'staring cheaply'... because basically. even if you prance around in your underwear, girls won't really stare at your privates. And I think jst because I am a girl, I have to think twice before wearing something I like. That is limiting my freedom of expression and my right to life. Fundamentally, I'm allowed to wear WHATEVER I want, as long as I do not cross the limits of decency.
What else do you have to say about the quote being a hyperbole?

Red wrote:

Ankita wrote:And I think jst because I am a girl, I have to think twice before wearing something I like. That is limiting my freedom of expression and my right to life.

Ok, so you wish you could wear ANYTHING you felt like even if it is in violation of those laws which were made to uphold the dignity of women and morality in general?
I'm shocked. Please tell me I interpreted it wrong.

You did, and you know that too. Coz we are sensible people here Red, let's not stick up on each other on trivialities. Besides, in next quote, she has mentioned 'dignity'.

But I like your idea. i think I'll open a new thread for the dignity thing.

Ankita wrote:... because basically. even if you prance around in your underwear, girls won't really stare at your privates.

Red wrote:Hey! Hey! HEY!
Speak for yourself, DO NOT GENERALIZE! =P
If there's a guy wearing (only) his undies standing on the road in broad daylight, I'm more than SURE that any girl would look straight down. Chicks are human beings after all, there's nothing you can prove me wrong about ehm.. ehm... instincts.
Then again, you lot probably wouldn't "stare" much as the scantily clothed man would be dragged to the nearest police station by constables.
Then again, it all depends on how "HOT" you might wanna define the guy to be.
If what you were saying was in reference to clonic, then I wouldn't know. But how's about that guy, whatshisface who was in that Twilight movie? How many of "your kind" wouldn't stare?
(apologies for deviating from the topic but I just couldn't help messing things up, it's fun)

I beg to differ Red... Sorry but I don't think girls are prone to 'instincts' like that. The female counterpart of Playboy never really took off just because women aren't into voyeurism. (Of course, I am talking about the general majority) Moreover, in a country where women are becoming sexually liberated for the first time, it's hardly feasible to suggest women have voyeuristic tendencies. Majority of my female friends don't even watch porn. If they cant see it on screen, you think they would be bold enough to see it in broad daylight?

Red wrote:Well, let me ask you one thing.... is a naked man not an amusing thought to you?
I mean a guy, good looking, say... an UNDERWEAR MODEL, in a billboard.
Haven't you ever wished you'd meet a guy like that?
Date him perhaps? Fool around a bit?

Sorry to disappoint you Red, but I don't think I would... God those billboards are obscene... How can a guy pose for a pic like that? And then you expect us to judge their contest of **** measurements?
And yes, this is highly irrelevant to the topic!!

In more than one ways, Red is right. But there's a difference in ways of checking out too.
You know what right of expression means? Expression is a way of manifesting oneself. It involves the way of talking, body language and the way of dressing up. When any one/all of them are endangered, it amounts to violation of the right. The case here- personal safety is endangered by the way you dress up. If you remember, there was this case that sprouted up many years ago about this bus driver and the conductor hauled up for raping this lady, a last passenger. The court gave a minor punishment to the offenders saying that the lady seemed 'provocatively dressed'. That was when the debate of violation of right to expression started too.

Do you think their personal safety is endangered only in autos? The ruling is bonkers, but how does this prove that staring endangers one's freedom of expression?

True, but you being an offender yourself can't point out others' fault. That was what I meant when I said 'that's not the point'.

Wait, how are the auto drivers offenders here? And even if they are offenders, why can't they point out others's faults?

* THE MAHARASHTRA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989

161. Mirror

It doesn't say anything about the mirrors being illegal when there isn't any clear view of the rear traffic.

even if you prance around in your underwear, girls won't really stare at your privates.

:rolleyes: What if I am naked, will girls take a peek then?

And I think jst because I am a girl, I have to think twice before wearing something I like. That is limiting my freedom of expression and my right to life.

Just because you're a girl? Really? Or just because you think all guys are voyeuristic perverts for even daring to look at girls? And, I hope you're kidding, but your right to life?

Well, I don't know about conflict of rights but... I know for one thing that chicks don't like UGHLAY(pan chewing,one eyed,sex deprived,old men) guys ogling them. I mean if a decent looking guy checks them out, no problem. But if an ugly guy checks them out, it's as bad as sexual harassment.

Poor ugly people. We should just confine them in their houses so that the girls can wear whatever they want while the pretty guys check them out. The ugly people can find solace in the fact that some girl won't drag them to the police station for sexually harassing them.