Why did we cry foul at Yesudas?

Larry Platt was just nobody until he sang “Pants on the ground” on American Idol in 2010. This civil right activist, then 62-year old, became a celebrity overnight. The song later went on to become huge hit on iTunes as well, because a large number of Americans hated low-waist jeans.

Later, the state of Louisiana in the US outlawed low-waist jeans, imposing a fine of $500 on lawbreakers. Many girls—like boys --- then used to expose their inner wear in low-rise jeans. It is known by the nickname--- whale-tail. Imagine how a whale’s tail looks like!

At the time, Rolling stones once again revived the old band. It’s 71-year-old lead singer Mick Jagger, to suit the changed times , appeared in teens attires. That includes outré stylish jeans and T-shirts. While many found it very interesting, some people didn’t like it. They vented their ire over internet to what they said his aping of youngsters. That sounded like teens were a particular breed and others had no right to wear their dress. It was all in a mess.

Just a week ago, 74-year-old Indian musician K J Yesudas was in the eye of a storm. He reportedly resented women wearing jeans. While Larry Platt made song against low-waist jeans, Yesudas didn’t resort to his musical skills, but just openly spoke his mind. And that was hardly as strong as Larry Platt’s song. Still, the Indian legend’s words travelled beyond national borders---making a storm in Indian social media and newspapers--- reaching UK, USA and Canada.

In Europe, the news was received with curiosity and balance. In India, it took to be very personal when many on internet attacked the singer. It prompts us to ask if he has no right to opinion.

It is easy to cry foul in the face of anybody today. No matter how far away the other person is, thanks to social media. Certainly, the singer might have seen how disrespectful people could get. Even many of his ardent fans termed his opinion, “inappropriate”. That was a gentleman response.

A leading Indian magazine compared his comment to khap panchayat’s diktat against women using mobile phones. How irresponsible a remark it was! There were some acrimonious cries (It means nothing but angry comments). One man said online, “he should have minded his business, no need of making opinions on controversial issues.” A lady (one can assume so from the name in the comment) used some unprintable words. That was more shocking than the comment by India’s living legend. One person pointed his dagger at the singer’s family. He wanted to know what kind of personal freedom women in his family could have.

In short, all this hullabaloo seemed to say one thing “the legendary singer has no right to personal views, and his views can be aired only if they were made suitable to general taste”. Now as the incident is distanced by a week it is time we took a re-look into it. Because, all anger is spent. Many, who called him names and cried foul at him, may be waiting for another controversy. He reportedly said women wearing jeans is against Indian culture, and what should be covered should be covered. Let’s keep the Indian culture point away being too complex a topic for a debate now. Because culture can’t be defined through dress alone.

His other point was worthy of attention. “What should be covered should be covered”. That is what wearing dress means—cover the stuff you don’t want to expose. Everybody who cried foul at him would wear dress outside their bathroom every day. All of us have this sense of nudity, and want to cover stuff we are shy of exposing. What is wrong in his comment then? Are all these name-callers want to walk stark naked or do they want to enjoy others nudity? How far would they permit showing or watching skin? Would they prefer to live in nudist communities?

Now look at what happens around us. Girls are increasingly exposing their skins. Of course exceptions are many. Don’t they know that there are civil laws that never permit you in indecent dress? It is obvious from the singer’s comment that what he meant to question was low-waist jeans. If he were opposing jeans, he wouldn’t have said “what should be covered should be covered”.

Moreover, people who attacked him missed a big point. He is not a moral police or religious leader or Khap panchyat ruler, or an influential politician. Yesudas, what people fondly call him, is celestial singer. Being more popular than many leading actors, he is a sort of cultural icon. And Yesudas has every right to initiate a debate about something he found disgusting. Others have right to their stand. And he wasn’t ordering people to shun jeans. No he simply expressed his views. You can either differ or concur. Funny somebody filed a case against him. What good would come out of it?

The foul cries have destroyed a big opportunity for a healthy debate. In its stead it turned out to be a toxic affair. Sad thing is these poisonous remarks came from people who pretend to be modern. They wield modern technology, and they have access to knowledge, and they believe they debate social issues on social networks. They are not capable of doing debates. They lack the basic values of how to carry out a debate, and how to respond to differing views.

May be they are still on the trees hanging by their tails holding iphones!