The hands that raise a thousand eyebrows: One of the most common edicts passed by upholders of our cultural inheritance (read Shiv Sena and Co.), is a ban, 'informal' as it may be, on holding hands. I really don't understand why. I think that hand-holding is probably the minimal, non-invasive (culturally), action that a couple can engage in, which may nonetheless be (and I hear 'reports' that it is) quite affectionate. A ban on holding hands is a blow to the expression of a minimum, but quite effective, form of human affection. Such a ban should be severely deplored.
Also, I have thought of a clever substitute to holding hands for protesting against the bigotry- 'holding feet', since it can be done below eye-level. This habit, if sustained, may also have a happy evolutionary consequence- the development of toes that are as dextrous as fingers, leading to an invitation to a renewed arboreal way of life: a welcome escape from the concrete jungles. On a more prosaic note, it also may lead to shoe manufacturers having to radically modify their designs.
P.S: Post made upon popular demand from a few hand-holding couples who I know. They have now been encouraged to wiggle and exercise their toes as practice for holding feet.