Tag: Curiosity

This is not a letter about tea, but it IS!

It is a letter about what happens when basic human decency collides with fragile authority. It is about how kindness becomes threatening when it is extended across class, caste, religion, and power without permission.

It is about how a Cooperative Body, meant to function on principles of equality and service, begins to decay when those entrusted with responsibility start policing dignity instead of protecting it.

• At its core, this is about human rights.
• About whether dignity is inherent or conditional.
• About whether authority exists to serve, or to dominate.

Let this be stated clearly and without apology.

• I am an independent individual.
• I possess my own conscience, agency, and moral compass.
• I do not require authorisation from any office bearer, committee, contractor, or intermediary to act with kindness, to express gratitude, or to live by principles of equality and humanity. I have every right to be kind.
• I have every right to express gratitude. I have every right to recognise the humanity of those who protect our homes.

These rights do not originate from this Cooperative, are not suspended by office, and are not conditional on caste, class, religion, education, wealth, or proximity to power.

What follows is not a misunderstanding. It is a pattern –  of abuse, toxic masculinity, regressive and oppressive patriarchal mindset

Why Does Equality, When Practiced Openly and Without Permission, Invite Hostility and Retaliation?

For decades, entirely by my own will and at my own expense, I have been preparing and personally delivering tea and water to the security guards who protect our society.

• I do this 3-5 times a day.
• These are not symbolic gestures.
• They are practical acts carried out during the coldest, loneliest, and most physically demanding hours of winter.
• The guards remain alert so that residents can sleep safely.
• They stand outdoors while others remain sheltered indoors.
• They absorb cold, heat, fatigue, and vulnerability so that others may live with comfort and security.

Offering hot tea in those hours is not charity.

• It is not indulgence.
• It is not favour.
• It is recognition of labour, gratitude for protection, and an affirmation of shared humanity.

During extreme summers, I similarly offer ice two to three times a day so guards can keep their drinking water cool while standing under punishing heat. These acts are voluntary, non-commercial, and free of leverage or transaction.

They are simply human.

• And yet, they provoked hostility.
• Not because harm was caused.
• Not because rules were broken.

But because equality was enacted openly, by a woman, toward working-class men, without seeking some sort of ‘undeclared’ required permission from men who believe women must not be visible.

It is possible they are used to treating women that way in their own lives, and they have come to believe that they can mistreat every woman the same way and no one will bat an eye. Um, NOPE!

How Did a Cooperative Meant to Serve Come to Obstruct Acts of Gratitude?

What followed was not concern for safety, neutrality, or procedure. It was discomfort with guards receiving dignity without permission.

• Discomfort with a woman refusing to internalise the idea that respect must flow only upward.
• Discomfort with kindness that refused to recognise social rank.

Guards were reprimanded and shouted at for accepting tea or water. Pressure was exerted on the security contractor to ensure guards were told such gestures were “not allowed.”

These interactions did not communicate order. They communicated hierarchy.

• The message was unmistakable: gratitude disrupts control.
• Kindness erodes dominance.
• Dignity, when extended across class lines, must be corrected.

This is not a difference of opinion. It is an ethical inversion, where decency is recast as defiance and humanity is treated as insubordination.

Who Decides When Humanity Requires Permission?

No cooperative office bearer is elected or appointed to regulate conscience. No mandate grants the power to decide that empathy must be suppressed, that gratitude must be rationed, or that dignity must be earned through obedience.

Authority in a Cooperative Body is delegated, not inherent. It exists to administer shared resources, not to discipline humanity; to protect rights, not to police compassion. But toxic masculinity fails to grasp that as it struggles with the very notion that women and men can be equal, and all humans have the right to equality. The very idea of equality makes them shudder. 

• When guards are reprimanded for accepting tea or water and residents are discouraged from offering it, what is being punished is not disorder. It is human connection that refuses to respect social hierarchy. This positions office bearers as arbiters of acceptable humanity and converts administrative roles into moral tribunals.
• No democratic structure survives when empathy is treated as defiance. No ethical governance exists when humanity requires permission.

Under Which Law Is Degrading and Inhumane Treatment Justified as Governance Rather Than Abuse?

This question matters because what followed did not stop at words.

• Threats were issued that heaters would be taken away if guards accepted tea or water.
• Comfort was framed as something they must not “get used to.” Warmth was treated not as protection, but as leverage.

Governance is defined by proportionality, purpose, and restraint. Abuse of power is defined by the deliberate use of vulnerability to compel obedience. When degrading and inhumane treatment is defended as governance, legitimacy collapses entirely.

• No ethical authority teaches discipline through exposure.
• No legitimate leadership enforces order by withdrawing basic protection.
• Where governance ends and abuse begins is not a matter of opinion.

It is a moral boundary that has already been crossed.

What Does Preventing Acts of Kindness Say About Moral and Professional Capacity?

Language exposes belief. If [REDACTED – OFFICE BEARER A] thinks and believes that providing chilled water in summer, hot tea, or government-mandated heaters in winter could have an adverse effect on guards, how should one understand such a view and the perspective it appears to reflect? How should one further understand this view in light of publicly stated government policy aimed at treating security guards with dignity and reducing pollution?

If a statement such as “you are not here to chill out, do not get too comfortable” were made in a context involving the removal of heaters intended for guards, how should one understand the intent and implications of such language within a framework of ethical governance?

• This is not management.
• It is moral degradation.
• It is discrimination.
• It is dehumanization.
• It is unethical, immoral and without a doubt a criminal act by choice

When Women abandon humanity and collude with discriminatory conduct?

This question goes to the heart of ethical collapse.

When women in positions of authority participate in enforcing deprivation against working-class people, they are not neutral administrators.

They are making a choice.

A choice to align with power rather than principle.

A choice to reproduce injustice rather than interrupt it.

• This is not empowerment. It is complicity.
• It is the decision to legitimize cruelty by calling it responsibility.
• To normalize discrimination by presenting it as discipline.
• To abandon solidarity in exchange for proximity to power.

The harm here is not only material. It is symbolic. When women who understand marginalisation enforce discrimination, they fracture the moral promise of representation. They teach that power matters more than ethics, and control matters more than care.

When Did Threats, Obscene Abuse, and Religious Mockery Become Acceptable Substitutes for Dialogue?

The collapse of ethics is complete when intimidation replaces conversation.

If abusive and threatening language by [REDACTED – INDIVIDUAL B], documented in multiple police complaints, was directed toward a resident and her family, and if [REDACTED – OFFICE BEARER C] appeared to endorse, laugh at, and reinforce such language while the victim family disengaged and walked away quietly for their own safety without acknowledging or responding to the conduct, how should one understand the ethical and governance implications of such behaviour?

The hostility was not directed at wrongdoing.

• It was directed at acts of gratitude and service, rooted in ethical and religious belief.
• This hostility was accompanied by mocking remarks about religious identity as Sehajdhari Sikhs.
• Ridiculing faith while attacking compassion reveals discrimination layered across belief, class, and power.
• When dissent is met with abuse rather than dialogue, governance collapses into coercion.

Who Decided That a Temporary Role of Service Confers Social, Moral, and Disciplinary Superiority?

• Office bearers are entrusted with responsibility.
• They are not elevated above the society they serve.
• Their role is procedural, limited, and contingent on ethical conduct.

Yet what has been repeatedly displayed is entitlement: entitlement to command, to discipline, and to decide whose comfort is acceptable.

If [REDACTED – OFFICE BEARER D] were seen communicating with the security contractor in a raised and confrontational manner, and if such communication included yelling and statements that appeared to threaten guards with termination and removal of heaters should they accept acts of kindness from residents, how should one understand such conduct in the context of authority, responsibility, and humane treatment?

• A cooperative does not confer moral superiority.
• An office does not grant the right to discipline humanity.
• When service mutates into superiority, authority becomes abuse.

Why Is an Ethical Standard Imposed on Others but Never Applied to Those in Power?

This is not rhetorical. It is the clearest ethical test available.

Would those enforcing deprivation stand outdoors through freezing nights without heaters? Would they accept being told that warmth makes them undisciplined? Would they tolerate being shouted at for accepting a cup of tea or water?

The answer is self-evident. Any authority that imposes conditions it would never accept for itself is not acting from principle. It is acting from power.

Leadership in a cooperative is a duty of service, not a license to command. Authority exists to safeguard rights, not to intimidate those who exercise them. Ethics are not discretionary, because they are what separate governance from coercion.

These principles are not abstract to me. I do not choose my battles based on comfort, privilege, or proximity to power. I will stand for the rights, safety, and dignity of every human being, including those who have tried to harm my own.

• Justice that excludes the poor is not justice.
• Equality that depends on status is not equality.
• Humanity that stops at power is not humanity.

To those who confuse position with superiority and believe themselves shielded from consequence:

• I will continue to act with kindness.
• I will continue to express gratitude.
• I will continue to exercise my rights.
• And I will continue to speak.
• And I will hold you accountable at every step of the way.
• I take your threats to rape us, dismember our bodies (duly on record), seriously.
• I take my duty to stand against violence, abuse and injustice even more seriously.

Because silence is how discrimination survives while pretending to be order.
Accountability does not weaken institutions. It reveals whether they deserve trust. And humanity, once exercised openly and without apology, does not retreat.