Playboy and the Muslim Vote

Recently, there were reports of former cricketer Mohammed Azharuddin being used by the Congress to garner Muslim votes. An email asked: “I wonder how the secularists will react if a political party follows an aggressive strategy to get Hindu votes.”

I have a counter-question: How will the Hindutvawadis react if a Hindu girl posed in the nude for Playboy? They have often created a ruckus about Valentine’s Day or certain clothing. My question is based on the news item about a Turkish Muslim girl posing in the buff for German Playboy. Her parents are angry. Many parents would be. She says she wanted to be free. I wonder from what. She is an actress, and does not live in a strict environment. Yet, this is being seen as a protest against stringent Muslim laws.

So, I’d like to know how many good Hindu girls won’t face similar flak.

As regards the secularist question and Hindu votes, what was the whole Ram Janmabhoomi movement about? Can there be anything more aggressive than this? Are there no caste faction political considerations? Even the secular political parties employ such methods. The “Muslim vote bank” has just become a convenient ploy to hide the other ploys. Muslims are not in a majority, so there will be many more Hindu voters anyway.

And Hindutva groups do try and portray their Muslim agenda, including Narendra Modi. They keep their token Mussalman members and they too attempt the Muslim at Ganesh puja and Hindu at Iftaar stunts.

If there is a real problem with secularism, then will these people have the courage to ask Muslims not to vote for them? Just as you don't have to look at Playboy.


  1. 1. FV you are deliberately confusing the issue and bringing in Modi for no reason other than unjustified blind fury.
    2. Hindu girls have posed in the buff before. They did not say it was a protest against Hindu culture, neither was it taken as such.
    3. However, a Muslim girl doing such a thing will always be looked upon as an unislamic act, regardless of what she calls it. Some bearded (or shaven) fanatic will always be ready to slit her throat for it.
    4. There will be NO repeat NO voices from Muslim community which will support her freedom of choice. Everybody there is just too scared. Refer to the fanatic mentioned above!
    5. More importantly, the sole aim of Muslim society is to erect and strengthen a permanent wall between Muslims and non-Muslims. There is a quranic sanction for this. So there will never be a shortage of people (men!) ready to scream "unislamic" at something or the other.

  2. F&F:

    1. No fury, blind or otherwise. Both are about exposure and my counter-query is about putting the other side too on the mat. The Hindutva-Modi reference was specifically about pandering that secularists are accused of, erring on one side.

    2. This Muslim girl is playing the stereotype. Even Mallika Sherawat used to say she was protesting against stifling rules. Obviously it is against culture. Or do only Muslims do the culture thingy?

    3. This girl's parents, specifically her non-bearded mother, is upset. They happen to be Muslim. And please, I have already given examples of how certain Hindutva groups act as moral police.

    4. How many Hindu groups came out to support Poonam Pandey's freedom of choice? Why should anyone voice support just like that? She did what she wanted to and that's where it ends. Naked bodies don't have a religion though you can worship them.

    5. There are Muslim societies that might create walls. But why do Hindus go to Saudi Arabia to work? And Hndu society is not uniform. Some don't have walls, but that does not stop them from building fences.

    Anyhow, if one Turkish Muslim woman has made some Hindu men happy then I should imagine that this is the new secular. Ergo, my "confusing" the issue was justified.

    The Turkish towel was not meant to be a wet blanket, anyway.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.