I agree with what you said about Indian being socialised to conform to their immediate environment. Thanks for pointing that out. I gleefully retract that comment about the innate superiority argument that I made. Thanks for pointing that out.

“Unless you have some special inside knowledge about the situation, why do you think that your interpretation of the rules trumps their obvious literal meaning?” – Because I can think of multiple instances of locals’ commonplace actions that would discount the guidelines and no one, including foreginers, would be reprimanded for that.

I think if tourist families will be so confused about what should be a matter of simple observation, they don’t belong there in the first place, and if guidelines are their primary source of information and not the law, I got no sympathy for that. As for impressions, I think a lot of foreigners aren’t leaving “good” impressions on the locals, so who cares what the tourists think of the locals? They don’t like it they don’t have to visit it.

An Israeli couple being married in India have found that you may not kiss the bride – the pair were fined $22 for indecency for their wedding embrace. A court in Rajasthan imposed the fine after Alon Orpaz and Tehila Salev had decided to get married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Pushkar. Priests were offended when the couple kissed and hugged during the chanting of religious verses. The apologetic couple said they were unaware public kissing was banned. The couple, who had met in India while travelling separately, paid the 1,000-rupee fine for “committing an act of indecency” to avoid a 10-day jail sentence. [Link]

As for the “rules” I find your attitude very confusing. You keep insisting that they can’t possibly mean what they say, because that would be absurd, but you disagree with me that the rules are absurd. Unless you have some special inside knowledge about the situation, why do you think that your interpretation of the rules trumps their obvious literal meaning? Why are you reading a hidden meaning “between the lines” rather than what is written in the lines themselves? And if the rules are so easy to misunderstand, don’t you think that tourist families will feel like parents and children of opposite sexes shouldn’t hold hands in India? Is that a good impression to leave?

Barbossa: … the Code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl…

You say :why say “even to help a woman out of a car” unless you want to impose the same sort of rules that would prohibit me from hugging my mom or my sister in public?

Exactly! The fact is that it would not be invoked if you hugged your mom or sister in public. Try it. It’ll just prove that the guidelines are poorly worded.

The kissing incident was the catalyst to the guidelines. And it is not the only culturally inappropriate gesture I’ve seen in Puskar either. The locals are not asking foreigners to behave differently than they do. They’re asking them to behave LIKE they do. You’re after the “Men should never touch women” line – I can guarantee you if the woman had luggage or kids and was helped, no one would notice, even though it would be against guidelines. You can argue about it all you want, the guidelines won’t be invoked unless cultural impropriety is observed.

Note I’m not suggesting its wrong to help a woman as you please. Only that’s not what the locals do, and they don’t appreciate you doing it in their territory, so don’t do it there.

Men should never touch women in public, even to help a woman out of a car, unless the lady is very elderly or infirm

Why not simply remind people that there are laws on the books that forbit kissing in temples — why say “even to help a woman out of a car” unless you want to impose the same sort of rules that would prohibit me from hugging my mom or my sister in public?

I can’t imagine you don’t understand how the guidelines are intended. I’d be the first to agree that the language is ‘latth-maar’, but at the same time I’m all for crappy language without nuances in comparison to a firang couple breaking out into a kiss during a Hindu wedding ceremony, like the one reported. I’m pretty sure the priests would be just as perturbed if that was done by a desi couple. Likewise, call them my cultural conservatism, but I am sort of disgusted and annoyed to see scantily clad foreigners trying to sun-bathe themselves amongst a beach full of fully-clad families in India. And CERTAINLY it wouldn’t be bad to ban pretty much all those who come to the kumb-melas to oogle at the humanity. Either you participate with your heart or you get out of there. The same goes for touring non-metros.

The whole point is – if you’re gonna visit someplace, FIGURE IT OUT!!! For that kissing couple, they needed to have seen a couple of weddings before hand. I mean, I don’t cook with my jacket anywhere near the tadka, since I know my non-desi co-workers don’t appreciate pungent spicy aromas emnating from it at work. Tourists in India haven’t been Fa-hein and Hun Tsang for a long time and cultural information is widely available.

Also, Pushkar, where the incident occurred which brought about the ‘controversial’ text, is a holy city to the Hindus. I rather strongly that people behave, than to make it off-limits to non-believers as in Mecca. I mean c’mon, is it so alarming to ask for some decency, Indian small-town style?

I don’t see any talibanization over there. All I see is some inept writing and some roughshod implementation.

And Chetan, very well written! I do disagree on the reasons you write of why Indians behave on foreign soil. Its not at all to do with finding “innate superiority” as you say. I believe its to do with the stock Indians put into social compliance. That’s how the system works in India – you’re taught (largely) to conform to your social environment. Hence when Indians come abroad they’re acutely aware of the differences in cultural norms (that would be true of any visitor anywhere) and they automatically try to fit into them (that obviously is not so universal). The other end of the spectrum surely belongs to the stereotype of the “Ugly American”. This stereotype is nothing if not about the almost-natural disregard of local social norms.

(I think I got a bit too excited. Time to move on to the next topic)

“In Indian culture… men socialise with men, and women with women Â…” – in other cultures, such couples are frowned upon and have to constantly keep fighting for their rights as minority groups but this whole code is too funny! wonder how one innocently smokes or drinks alcohol!

I thought I would spread the word around

So it’s phrased a little crudely and seems a bit prudish to our tastes, whatever. Don’t go there then.