Support Gaza, Lose Your Bank Account - HSBC's New Mantra?

Why is HSBC closing down the accounts of its Muslim clients in UK? Is it connected with where their sympathies lie on Gaza? On July 22, a few prominent organisations got letters saying that they have until September 22, after which they would not be permitted to bank with them because the services "now falls outside of our risk appetite".

They are solvent, and owe the bank nothing. So, what is it and why the pregnant-with-meaning "now"? According to the BBC report, the bank has said:

"Discrimination against customers on grounds of race or religion is immoral, unacceptable and illegal, and HSBC has comprehensive rules and policies in place to ensure race or religion are never factors in banking decisions."

They have an alibi in "poor money-laundering controls". This should be their lookout and not of those who have no such history.

The Finsbury Park Mosque's chairman Mohammed Kozbar said:

"The bank didn't even contact us beforehand. Didn't give us a chance even to address [their] concerns. For us it is astonishing - we are a charity operating in the UK, all our operations are here in the UK and we don't transfer any money out of the UK. All our operations are funded from funds within the UK."

HSBC is being irresponsible. It could not be because Abu Hamza, who was earlier in charge of the mosque, was convicted of terror offenses in the US. He was not with the mosque since 2005. Nobody is trying to hide anything. In fact, Mr. Kozbar said:

"The positive work we have done since taking over over from Abu Hamza to change the image of the mosque, there is nothing really that can explain [HSBC's decision]."

Ummah Welfare Trust has a more real Gaza connection. The letter from HSBC-UK said, "You will need to make alternative banking arrangements, as we are not prepared to open another account for you". The Trust has become defensive:

"We make sure we go out of the way to work with organisations that are non-partisan. What we do now is we do a check on Thomson Reuters and make sure that there is no link whatsoever with blacklisted organisations. We don't want to damage our relief efforts. We have tried our best to be non-partisan as much as possible."

A Trust has a right to choose its beneficiaries, and in Gaza they don't have to be balanced because Israel is getting enough from the West. Who is deciding on the blacklisted organisations that benefit, and what are the yardsticks to gauge that?

The Cordoba Foundation, a Muslim think tank acting as a link between Europe and the Middle East, and Anas al Tikriti who runs it, his wife, and two children have all separately received letters of closure without any reason at all. He said:

"It is unsettling. I am not used to being addressed in those terms. It's like I have done something wrong. The involvement of my family disturbs me. Why the entire family? I can only speculate - and I wish someone from the bank could explain [why the accounts were closed]. The organisations are mainly charities and the link is that many of them if not all of them are vocal on the issue of Palestine. It would be a great shame if that was true. As I'm left to speculate, that's the only reason I can come to."

HSBC-UK is doing something patently wrong, not only to its clients but also to itself. Had it provided a reason, however vague, it would still have some ethical leverage. If non-Muslim organisations have been told about closures, they would have had similar complaints. Where are they? Are they being circumspect, and if so why?

A sharp Op-Ed in Forbes blames it on "some discreet pressure from the American authorities (or the possibility of it in the future)". It also points out the hypocrisy:

"Whatever the youngest Mr Tikriti has been spending his pocket money on, it’s hard to believe that a small boy falls outside the “risk appetite” of Europe’s largest bank. And especially a bank that was, until recently, perfectly happy with the business of Mexican drug cartels, allowing them to launder their money through HSBC accounts in the Cayman Islands. Not only that, but the same US Senate committee that fined HSBC $1.9bn in 2012, also questioned the bank’s dodgy links with financial institutions in Saudi Arabia that, they believed, were responsible for funding terrorism."

Is the bank more concerned with its financial interests?

Nicholas Wilson, a HSBC whistleblower and UK-based financial activist, thinks so, and believes that is the reason for its pro-Israeli stance:

“HSBC has a bank in Tel Aviv and have held a licence there since 2001. They claim on their website to be the only foreign bank in Israel offering private banking. It could therefore be possible that they consider being seen to bank for pro-Palestinian organisations puts them in conflict with their ambitions in Israel."

What HSBC-UK is doing is passive-aggressive at different levels.

• By not giving a reason, it is being non-committal while at the same time expecting that the 'banned' clients come out with their own doubts. This will, the bank and its masters hope, expose them. Once their social and political affiliations are exposed, they can always use that to hit out at them. It won't be past them to suggest that money laundering is done through those tunnels of Hamas.

• The BBC report states:

The Charities Commission has confirmed that it is not investigating any of the organisations involved and says that if the charities don't have a relationship with a bank it could harm public trust in their work.

Targeting specific organisations will ensure a slow death of many of them, thereby pushing them out of the mainstream.

Bringing young family members into the picture is the absolute low in stereotyping. It can have a psychological impact, and these youngsters might be forced to either protest (and oh the West knows how they will protest) or retreat and stop being "partisan". It is another matter that in their school other kids can take sides.

It comes down to just one thing: You can only be on the side that is decided for you.

© Farzana Versey


Image: Finsbury Mosque, Reuters


Sunday ka Funda

“What do you think an artist is? ...he is a political being, constantly aware of the heart breaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image. Painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war.”

― Pablo Picasso

There is destruction everywhere. And I thought about Guernica. As those who visit here often know, I am opposed to posting violence porn, especially if the images have children. I explained my stance earlier.

Guernica is not just art; it is deliberate defacement. That becomes its message along with the motive and the inspiration. The realism lies in the unreal.

How would it be if that painting came alive not as faces behind the 'masks', but as masks? Here is one interpretation. In the robotic sinew one can feel the cracking of bones.


Sania Mirza and the Majoritarian Trap

What is worse than Sania Mirza being called Pakistan's daughter-in-law is the certificate of nationalism she has been getting from supposedly secular people. I am questioning their credentials simply because they are sticking their necks out for what appears to them as a 'legitimate' cause — a celebrity achiever.

If you watch TV discussions, then it will take you less than a few minutes to figure out the game-plan. The higher the decibel levels of those rooting for such causes, the more the reason to believe they are taking over the secular discourse from the minorities, even if it concerns the minorities. The "Sania is the pride of India" train of argument ends up sounding like the usual line of appeasement rather than a fact that it is.

It all began with Telangana BJP leader K Laxman questioning the TRS government's decision to appoint Sania as brand ambassador of the newly-formed state. As one report stated:

"Sania was born in Maharashtra and settled in Hyderabad only later and, hence, is a "non-local", he told reporters here and sought to dub her as "daughter-in-law" of Pakistan, pointing out that she was married to that country's cricketer Shoaib Malik."

There are two separate issues here, and from different sources it seems that the 'local' one was Laxman's target and she was used as a handy example to drub the 'nativity' clause. However, the politician decided that he could beat on her further as he found another reason — her marriage to a Pakistani.

The India of Outrage has gone ballistic over the latter. Being called a daughter-in-law of Pakistan is not an insult, unless you find it insulting or use it as a slur. [It would be surprising given that the same people talk about the countries as long-lost siblings.] When she got married, Pakistanis too said she was their daughter-in-law. This happens to be a technical detail.

Where did the question of not being Indian arise? It is easy for 'well-wishers' to choose their concerns to suit themselves rather than the person who is the object of it. It is puerile to ask whether anyone would have talked about her being the daughter-in-law of Australia or America had she been married to one, for no one would bother to sit in a TV studio and breathe hot air for an Indo-Australian alliance, unless of course there is nice conference invite awaiting them soon.

The Pakistan-India conflict is real and gives quite a few fake peaceniks an opportunity to use it to show off their secular stripes. At least a few of them are subtle bigots. Such bigotry manifests itself in 'innocent' little asides along the lines of, "think about how insensitive it is to hurt Sania, that too in the month of Ramzan", as a socialite columnist did on TV the other night. In one swoop Sania transformed it into a Muslim affair, and how majoritarian India must grant its minority their holiness. That was not the issue, but it has become one because they are connecting varied unconnected dots, including the Muslim force-fed while fasting.

Sania Mirza's vocal opportunistic supporters have managed to transform her into a Muslim who needs to be protected while she prays and fasts and conducts other religious business. They wouldn't be concerned about what she does on the tennis court.

A major reason this snowballed is her own public response. It is one thing to stand up and fight for oneself and quite another to become defensive and give others room to manoeuvre.

"I am an Indian, who will remain an Indian until the end of my life."

What was this a reply to? Being called "daughter-in-law of Pakistan" or a "non-local"? She provided a history of her ancestors and their role in Hyderabad. This was perhaps to clarify her origins. Why was stating that she would remain an Indian even necessary? She represents us on tennis tournaments, and is awarded and rewarded by India.

And now, she has been forced to go further, crying on camera:

"I don't know why I am picked on, I don't know why I have to justify that I am more patriotic, why I have to act like I have to slit my wrist to prove my patriotism."

The image is reminiscent of the pleading man during the Gujarat riots, and how public perception wants to see the minority. Getting defensive only gets frothing-mouth backers who do precisely what the BJP wants them to: certify her credentials.

Or you have the likes of BJP's Subramanian Swamy who wait for such opportunities:

"When people have divided loyalties, we cannot expect them to represent country or any other part of the country faithfully."

People are aware of the sickness of his mind, and his consistent droning of how Muslims are Indians only if they admit to Hindu ancestry. No one has taken him seriously.

However, for those who are talking about the matter getting politicised, let us not forget she is the brand ambassador of a state, which is a political appointment. It is a bit surprising that she stated:

"I strongly condemn any attempts by any person to brand me an outsider. Hurts me that so much time is being wasted on a petty issue of my being appointed as brand ambassador of Telangana."

Did she not say she was humbled by the honour? How does it become a petty issue?

Then there are those who want others to speak up for her. Do they have any doubts about her nationality? Why do we need anybody to ascertain it? This is not about the sport where peer reviews of performance might be helpful and are seen as healthy feedback. The subtext is that Sania's Indianness depends on how other Indians view her, especially her colleagues. How different is it from her opponents?

The debate's emphasis on her icon status and a pride of India reveals how much this is about achievement, and public visibility. Would those who are now rallying behind Sania Mirza ever speak up for the many unnamed Muslims who are questioned, berated, and even locked up because their community affiliations make them by default suspect?

© Farzana Versey


A Fasting Muslim and the Shiv Sena

Who would have imagined that the humble chapati would take centre stage in politics? It is on national television in the form of grainy images of a beefy-looking man forcing another man to eat it. They are no ordinary men. One is a Shiv Sena leader, the other is a fasting Muslim. Being Muslim is tough enough; a fasting Muslim seems to be even more of a dangling identity.

However, I'd like to ask whether it is only the Shiv Sena that is using/abusing or capitalising on this identity. To get to the story first:

A group of around 11 Shiv Sena MPs, apparently angry over not being served Maharashtrian food, allegedly forced a Muslim catering superviser who was fasting for Ramzan to eat a chapati at the new Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi last week. Within hours, IRCTC, the Indian Railways subsidiary that was catering for the Sadan, stopped all operations in protest, and complained in writing to the Maharashtra Resident Commissioner, saying the employee, Arshad Zubair S, had been “deeply pained and hurt… as religious sentiments are attached”.

Would this have become news had it not been a Muslim at the receiving end? Unlikely. And the tone would have been vastly different. What we see now is bluster from all sides, and Mr. Arshad who might have certainly felt violated in some way will have to go along with the "hurt sentiment" politics because he is only a pawn. In his complaint, he said:

“All the guests along with media reporters and staffs of Maharashtra Sadan got into kitchen where I was getting the orders prepared. They caught me and put the chapati into my mouth. I was wearing a formal uniform set as prescribed by IRCTC and everybody in the panel also knew my name as ‘Arshad’ as I was wearing the name tag. Even then they inserted chapati in my mouth which caused my fast to break on the eve of Ramzan. I was hurt with the thing they have done as religious sentiments are concerned.”

The hurt should be over such physical abuse, of forcing anybody to eat anything. The Shiv Sena is communal. It is obvious that those MPs deliberately made him eat, although they knew he was fasting. They had problems with other facilities like electricity, so would they give shocks to the person in charge? Why did the media keep quiet if they were present then? This is being projected as protest against catering vs. religion now.

The incident occurred a week before it was reported. Did it take the authorities seven days to figure out what happened and what hurt was involved? Worse, we are ignoring the issue of damaging of property, parochialism and arrogance of power that the episode is also about, even if there is no story in these.

The MPs were throwing dish covers and threatening the staff. What kind of behaviour is this? Why was there no police complaint immediately, which gave leeway to the officials to cling on to the moral dimension of a fasting man?

The MPs want a Maharashtrian caterer, citing other state bhavans as an example. Arvind Sawant said:

“The food at the Sadan is terrible...They even gave stale water. We wanted to sort these issues out amicably, and did not come with the intention of committing violence. But even on that day, the Resident Commissioner refused to meet us, and after a lot of delay, said that he had gone to receive the Chief Secretary at the airport. Is that not an insult? No tod phod happened at all, but we have been provoked in a sustained manner. Nobody was manhandled, but if you keep abusing, will someone not slap?"

I am quite flummoxed about "stale water". But it is important to note that while denying that any unruliness took place, he is justifying it. The mob wrote "Jai Maharashtra" on the walls of the Regional Commissioner's office besides the behaviour mentioned earlier.

The Shiv Sena often talks with its hands. However, this incident could also be about its political equation with the BJP for the coming assembly elections. Using one chapati, they have raised their 'concerns' before the ruling party:

• The North vs. Marathi maanus
• Violence as legitimate means
• Role of regionalism
• Muslims as religion flashers

All these happen to be the BJP's favourite subjects, too. Therefore, who will benefit the most from emphasising the religious aspect? Or, should we ask, who is bailing out whom?

© Farzana Versey


Are your jeans distressed by lions?

If you are the sort to shell out over a thousand dollars for a pair of jeans “designed by tigers”, then you have until July 21. Animal conservationists are marketing this bizarre idea to you. Even if you won’t buy the jeans you might feel like you are contributing to the welfare of the poor beasts.

Japanese brand Zoo Jeans includes wild beasts in their design process to create the perfect pair of ripped denim. In order to do this, sheets of material are added to old tires and giant rubber balls and tossed into the animals’ cages at Kamine Zoo in Hitachi, Japan. The lions and tigers then have the chance to chew, gnaw, and scrape at the fabric, taking “distressed denim” to the extreme.

Do they even realise how cruel this is? Lions and tigers are carnivores; they tear into pliable flesh. Bears are omnivores. Denim does not smell or feel like skin or plants, and rubber has a unique scent and feel. The animals probably assume they will be rewarded after they’ve got rid of the ‘excess baggage’.

The zoo and World Wildlife Fund are being horribly insensitive, and to think this is to benefit the animals. WWF and People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) rant about ill-treatment; they file complaints against cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies for using animals as guinea pigs. They have a point, but they aren’t doing any better.

These organisations have a history of regressive ads that put human models behind cages, chain them, or make them wear edible clothes. At the same time they use loaded, even sexual, imagery. With Zoo Jeans too, ripped by animals has a certain ring. It defeats the purpose. They end up perpetuating an idea they claim to oppose – that of the ‘wild beast’ as fantasy.

© Farzana Versey

Statues and Historical Trickery: Set in Stone

Published in CounterPunch

Memorials work well as masks. Britain has commissioned a statue of Mahatma Gandhi that will stand in Parliament Square in London to commemorate the centenary of his return to India from South Africa to fight for the freedom struggle. The British were the colonial power then. Is this about retribution and, if so, does it not amount to self-chastisement?

It seems more like political pragmatism conjoined with an assertion of its own past, for the chancellor George Osborne emphasised that “it's time for Gandhi to take his place in front of the mother of parliaments” while playing along with the new government: “New Indian prime minister Modi invoked his memory in his inaugural speech to parliament.”

The Sikh Federation of UK has opposed it, calling Gandhi “a blatant racist, a sexual weirdo or worse a child abuser and someone discriminating on the basis of the Hindu caste system, which is now outlawed in the UK”.

That such criticism comes from a minority Indian community tells us something about dislocated memories. Immigrants tends to revel in nostalgic gestures and even play along with the brown sahib Chutney Mary fantasy or the imported from home pop culture. To take a stand against a canonised figure is reflective of their own mainstreaming. By going against protocol and calling out negative aspects even though they were not directly affected by it, they are consolidating their role as a political voice beyond turban issues.

Instead of causing discomfort to the hosts, it will only add to the humanisation that keeps the foible factory well oiled. It works as assertion of power, too.

Political reclamation

Are these creations in stone set in stone? More than history, they are a validation of contemporary political expediency.

The Indian Finance Minister has allocated Rs. 2 billion for a statue of Sardar Patel, independent India’s first Home Minister and a prominent leader during the freedom movement. Public anger is over the disparity in setting aside half the amount for 29 other schemes, including a national war memorial.

The problem is deeper than expecting political correctness. Governments always invest in symbolism. The ruling BJP is ostensibly attempting to correct earlier oversight where Mahatma Gandhi and the Nehru-Gandhi family reigned over memorial space. But this is also vendetta, for while Patel was from the Indian National Congress and critiqued the extremist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, he was also perceived as divisive. The tribute’s emphasis on his unification of the country highlights the divisiveness of the Partition.

The ruling BJP has no history of ‘governance’ during the freedom struggle. A political party that suffers from amnesia about more recent events has decided to build the highest statue in the world; at 182 metres it will be twice the size of the Statue of Liberty.

Contemporary public space is tantalising and democratic. Anthony Weiner, the sexting mayor, got temporarily immortalised on The New Yorker cover with the head of the Empire State Building sticking out of his crotch as he snaps it. One might wonder whether the public monument or the public politician was the target.

Defacement of statues is a fairly common practice. When a rally to protest against the killings in Assam and of Rohingyas in Myanmar at Azad Maidan turned into rioting, two young men were captured hitting out at the memorial of fighters of the first struggle for independence. A desolate monument became a matter of national shame, and inevitably ended up as a question mark on patriotism of the community the two individuals represented.

The right to dissent, group apathy – both of the police and the protestors – were forgotten to resurrect the desecrated. The group burned vehicles too, but living objects are not invested with a future because they do not appear to have a past.

Over-writing history

Apart from the glossing over of facts, there is often an exertion on their behalf. The thought behind the stenciling of 9000 bodies on Normandy beach appears to be a fitting tribute to the nameless: “The idea is to create a visual representation of what is otherwise unimaginable – the thousands of human lives lost during the hours of the tide during the WWII Normandy landings on 6 June 1944. The silhouettes of those individuals will be drawn on the beach at the rate at which they fell only to be totally erased by the incoming tide as their own lives were.”

The realism in this case simply denudes the deaths of dignity. If at all there is any catharsis, then it is for the war veterans who come with stenciled memories. The tides point to evanescence not only of lives lost, but of remembrance as well. This is not the case with the Berlin Wall where graffiti and souvenirs of broken pieces symbolise the ossified together with the metamorphosis.

Chronicling of history is often voyeuristic as evident from the 9/11 Museum and Memorial at Hangar 17 at JFK International Airport. A report said: “But it’s the smallest artifacts that are most poignant, each one a reminder of a life cut short. Identity cards, mangled keys, a woman’s bloodstained shoes, a fire fighter's crushed helmet, an executive's singed credit card, wristwatches and mobile phones have been painstakingly logged by curators. The owners will never come to claim them.”

This is dehumanising. Credit cards, shoes, watches do not have a stamp of identity. Mangled vehicles are not specific to ownership. Museums of calamitous events too are a thought projectile of a certain period that serve as a reminder of bestiality rather than loss.

There are mass killings taking place in many parts of the world. There are never any curators for large-scale calamities and natural disasters. Buried beneath the debris are relics epitomised as unmarked graves. They are history in motion.

At the other end of the spectrum are industries that qualify as memorials to the changing times. The promise of fumes to keep home fires burning on cold floors is the politician’s gateway to delusionary development. In this scheme, progress is predatory.

Authenticity vs. imagination

Most icons are sculpted in a pose. However representative it may be of their personality, the freezing not only imprisons them but also becomes a caricature. In places like India, it transforms into slapstick when politicians get atop cranes to garland these statues. The pedestal is slippery irrespective of what the stone monuments symbolise.

They are immortalised in the stasis of a pointing figure, a walking stick, or a sword. Instead of being the sum of their parts, they become those parts. Maratha hero Shivaji would be nowhere without his horse.

Mythic figures are freer to explore and display with temerity. This does not go unnoticed, as it is quite common to see cigarette stubs in vaginal orifices of temple statues. In a surprising move, Silvio Berlusconi decided that Venus needed to get an arm and Mars had to get a penis fixed. The 175 AD statues were sought to be made ‘real’ completely erasing the erasure.

During Queen Victoria’s visits to the Victoria and Albert Museum, Michelangelo’s David was given a decorous fig leaf. Madame Tussaud’s often faces the demand for the removal of what some perceive as a controversial waxwork not because it is inaccurate, but probably because it is. On a visit a few years ago, I found the area where Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro stood rather empty at a crowded time. Even at the altar of kitsch they were peremptory. The dissonance lay in the eyes of the observers who wanted them displaced when they could be melted.

The engagement with mute symbols would suggest that statues are people in perpetual rigor mortis.


© Farzana Versey


Gaza: An unequal battle

Four boys went to the beach to play. Sons of a fisherman. Israeli aerial strikes killed them. One of the boys was wearing a jersey with German footballer Mesut Ozil’s name. The player has donated his earnings for Gaza. Also, this:

Ozil caused controversy after he declined to shake hands with a FIFA official because of his support for Israel.

There is no pussyfooting here, which is as it should be.

The Israeli army is smart, so can it not recognise who or what it is targeting? The New York Times photographer who was there had this to say:

"A small metal shack with no electricity or running water on a jetty in the blazing seaside sun does not seem like the kind of place frequented by Hamas militants, the Israel Defense Forces’ intended targets. Children, maybe four feet tall, dressed in summer clothes, running from an explosion, don’t fit the description of Hamas fighters, either."

I have deliberately chosen to quote from the NYT because it is big on pussyfooting, so this should make even more sense to those who want to see the genocide as a quid pro quo when it is an unequal battle. Two-thirds of the victims are women and children.

Another child asked preacher Dr. Mohammad al-Arefe:

"I am Mohammad from Gaza and I am 11 years old. I was hoping to ask you a question, Shaykh: does the dirt and rocks that enter my mouth as a result of the missiles break my fast?"

Meanwhile, some Israelis were posting ‘Bomb Shelter Selfies’.

Let the figures speak for themselves:


Is nationalism about not meeting Hafiz Saeed?

They are demanding his arrest and want his passport impounded. The very people who Ved Pratap Vaidik is accused of being close to or would be his natural allies are distancing themselves from him — the RSS, the BJP and the Shiv Sena.

When the noise dies down, perhaps we can try and examine the questions a meeting with a terrorist raises.

Vaidik is said to be a member of the Vivekananda International Foundation, which is affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which in turn always has a say in issues pertaining to the BJP and therefore in matters of the state.

Vaidik was in Pakistan and met the Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed, who is also named as the mastermind in the Mumbai attacks of 2008. The United States of America had declared a bounty of $10 million on him. He is among the most wanted men. India has been sending dossiers on the 26/11 attacks to Pakistan and Pakistan has been sending its own files.

Was Vaidik working for the Indian government or, as Rahul Gandhi said, "The question is whether the Indian embassy in Pakistan facilitated this event...whether they helped...in anyway."

The equally important question is: Why did the Pakistani establishment that is so guarded about Saeed's access to the Indian authorities permit such a meeting? Indo-Pak relations are so fragile and rife with suspicion that those traveling across borders are inevitably tracked.

Is the BJP, desperate to create a good impression without compromising on its public pugnacity, using Vaidik? The Congress Party's Shashi Tharoor wants to know, "Was he an envoy of the government? Was he doing some back channel diplomacy?"

The man himself says he is nobody's envoy, yet he told Saeed, "Modi should not be feared, he is a good man..." There were other peacenik gestures, peppered with his political philosophy: "I have met enemies of the country in the past...my experience says resolution of conflict is possible not through the gun but talks."

Would a journalist do this? The simple answer is, yes. If you get to meet a wanted man who is often quoted as a reason for the problems with detente — assuming that November 2008 is our cut-off date — then an interviewer might use a soft option to set the tone, to create the right atmosphere. It is surprising that senior media persons are talking about why he did not ask Saeed for his voice sample and details about his role in the attacks.

India has decided that, like Kashmir, it will make 26/11 into its victimhood USP and use the bluster to bolster aggressive patriotism. We seem to have forgotten about how many people have been killed in the country during riots.

All the terrorists on the ground that day were killed by the commandos, except Ajmal Kasab who remained in prison and was later executed. Pakistan did not claim his body. This is essential to understand the basis of India's demand for Saeed and Pakistan's reluctance to adhere to it. The idea of a mastermind is to stay away from the heat. How many generals are killed in wars? How many politicians accept their sins of omission, if not commission? Even Osama bin Laden was not directly responsible for any of the blasts. In fact, he was probably not an active participant in strategising. His role, as evident from the videos, was to keep the war alive against those he perceived as enemies.

Hafiz Saeed has a cloak of a pseudo social organisation and continues to make public appearances in Pakistan and, like some of our own stalwarts who do not actively belong to any political party, seems to have a say in the country's affairs. Yet, India has been demanding his voice sample, when his voice is available at the click of a button.

Vaidik has claimed he went as a journalist. Forget the denials; that would be part of the plan. He has made it into a casual impromptu assignment where a Pakistani counterpart asked if he'd like to meet Hafiz Saeed, and he agreed. Any journalist would. But given the cases against him, did Vaidik not pause to wonder about the implications? The Indian media has concentrated on the predictable nationalism line, which is completely off-track and disturbing. The job of a journalist is not to toe establishment thinking, but to probe for facts.

For a moment let us set aside the Vaidik drama and ponder over how the line of questioning could go against other investigative reporting. Should criminals not be interviewed? Have journalists who spoke with Dawood Ibrahim, another wanted man, been arrested or questioned? Journalists in war zones meet rebel leaders, they even disguise themselves to get a scoop. The western media has many stories filed where Osama and other members of Al Qaeda were interviewed. In India, there was the famous case of R.Gopal, editor of Nakeeran, and his exclusive access to sandalwood smuggler and dreaded dacoit Veerappan. For years, the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka governments could not locate him, but Gopal did through an emissary. He even tried to get the criminal to surrender and negotiate with the government.

Vaidik has been part of a Track II initiative, the Regional Peace Institute, that includes Congress leaders Salman Khursheed and Mani Shankar Aiyer, and former Pakistani Prime Minister Mehmood Kasuri.

If chest-thumping nationalism means seeing Pakistan as the opponent, then why do we indulge in diplomatic manoeuvres at all? The 'peace-keeping forces' return with nothing but tales of goodwill. Assuming Vaidik is indulging in such manipulated intercession, we learn that Saeed wants to visit Delhi and Mumbai, and are assured there would be no protests were Modi to visit Pakistan.

These bon mots might sound obsequious, but that is the takeaway from all diplomatic endeavours. What we now have are black and white arguments. Hafiz Saeed latched on to the controversy and tweeted, "Row in Indian parliament over a journalists meeting with us shows the extremism, narrow mindedness of their politicians. Utterly Shameful."

This is what misguided hype does. It boomerangs. Besides the queries regarding journalistic independence as well as the hypocritical stance of political parties, beating on 'envoys' who meet terrorists is like using a straw sword. Hating Hafiz is a non sequiter; he is probably Pakistan's human shield.

© Farzana Versey

Through Time and Distance: Nadine Gordimer

One cannot talk about Nadine Gordimer and omit to mention her role against apartheid. A glance at the obits paying to tribute to the South African Nobel laureate writer who died at 90 on Monday will reveal that political engagement was an intrinsic part of her writings, and certainly the perception of her as a writer.

In an interview that has been reproduced in The Telegraph, she is quoted:

“You accept or reject the influences around you, you are formed by your social enclosure and you are always growing. To be a writer is to enter into public life. I look upon our process as writers as discovery of life.”

A few years ago I had wondered whether writers need to get co-opted by ideologies. This applies to dissent as well.

Gordimer is known for her activist role. Some of her books had been banned during the time. She remains an outspoken critic of various leaders. I was, therefore, a bit distressed to hear her say, “Looking back, it would have been an insult if they hadn’t been banned. It was an honour.”

What was she trying to convey? That the protest would have been in vain had her works been accessible through legitimate channels in her country? Or was she aiming to reach only the outside world? Isn’t the role of the writer as activist to well and truly portray such angst and make it known to those who are suffering from it?

What about the millions who go through privations without either the benefit of a voice, literary or otherwise, and swallow the indignities heaped upon them? They are not banned or sent off – they become slaves of society and give writers and artistes the raw material required to portray the trauma.

This is not to suggest that writers are exploiters – although, in some ways it is true because all of us who choose the medium of expression are using people and places imbued with our understanding and biases. Can we make a blanket call for freedom of speech without fathoming its deeper undercurrents and repercussions?


T. S. Eliot dismissed the “mystical belief in herd-feeling” that he felt was apparent in extreme nationalism and communism, but he made a spirited defence of Christianity, when faith is also about a herd feeling. If he was truly a proponent of individualism why did he reject George Orwell’s 'Animal Farm', dismissing it with, “I take it to be generally Trotskyite. We have no conviction that this is the right point of view from which to criticize the political situation at the current time”?

This was during World War II, and silence would not have been an option for the sensitive thinker. Isn’t literature supposed to voice those very thoughts that rebel against prevalent beliefs? The Orwellian dystopia is even more apt today; he used his characters in a minimalist fashion to show us how debates can be dumbed down.


Nadine Gordimer, too, figured out that the ANC she supported was not the same in later years. Nothing is static. To quote her again:

"The creative act is not pure. History evidences it. Sociology extracts it. The writer loses Eden, writes to be read and comes to realize that he is answerable."

© Farzana Versey


Also: When Gordimer visited India


The headline is the title of one of her short stories.

Image: TIME


Football's Holy War?

I have not watched a single World Cup football match this year. Among the slew of trivia surrounding the players that often overtook the games, the best one has been left for the finale.

Will the Pope root for his home country Argentina and would this be in conflict with his predecessor, a German? After all the society type gossip about hairstyles, shoes, girlfriends, and lookalikes, and that goth moment of the Suarez Bite, the finals between the two countries have found a new niche.

Pope Francis has shown that he is quite worldly-wise and not confined to the Vatican. The media is discussing whether he will be pitted against Pope Benedict XVI who is living in retirement now. Both are said to be football fans. According to Christian Today:

Some are cheekily suggesting that it will be a testament to who is the greatest pray-er, and perhaps even who enjoys the highest favour with God.

Sports do have the same appeal, and demand obeisance, as religions. The sounds from the stadium have an effect similar to mass elation or grieving during defining holy festivals or moments. The players have a cult following, and their posture during a winning or losing strike is quite like one of prayer. In fact, it often is a prayer.

The website calls it "the holiest World Cup final yet". One assumes other World Cup finals had their holy moments, or perhaps all such games have divine provenance. Where did Diego Maradona's "hand of god" come from?

Now we have the more urgent: "The question is: who will pray the hardest?" One might have questioned the almost direct intrusion of religion in sport, but the pope vs. pope imagined skirmish sounds like harmless amusement. And it is unlikely that those rooting for either team will do so for their papal affiliations. It's not like we are talking about Mick Jagger!

© Farzana Versey


The image is obviously a meme.

Sunday ka Funda


You need imagination:

You should have the talent to multitask...and feel indispensable:

...and you should believe that things come round full circle:


Umbrellas under the sky

The umbrellas are out, and the city weather is such that they only serve as accoutrement. Mumbai rains are more about tarpaulin sheets as awnings; water collected in little pools is muddy, dirty. Yet, there is something uplifting about grey skies and a downpour. I know this is a luxury only those who have homes and windows can afford. I know that newspaper pictures showing slum kids enjoying the rains are really about the water they rarely get to see. I know.

Back in the days, it was the mother of one such kid who sheltered me from sudden showers. I was walking to school, and had conveniently ‘forgotten’ to carry an umbrella. While raincoats were bad enough, umbrellas too conveyed a need for playing safe that my new teenage mind was naturally not inclined to. I stood beneath a tree as the downpour continued. She worked as a sweeper at the school. Hesitant at first (we are a casteist society), she finally asked, “Aaogi (will you come)?” Of course! In the seven-minute walk, she took care to cover me even as her sari was getting drenched. I still remember her face.

A painting by Leonid Afremov

I like faces under umbrellas – they look vulnerable, especially if the brolly is a foldable one. These became fashionable accessories, the two-fold and later the three-fold. Unfurling they looked as though a camel was getting up. Occasionally, they caused embarrassment when they refused to open up or the button got stuck.

My uncle once gifted me a fuschia-coloured one. It was a regular ‘ladies umbrella’, and it always seemed as though one was blushing. The flush of youth, the carefree gait as though one owned the damp roads that reflected light.

A scene from 'Shri 420'

Romance and umbrellas have a history. Two people sharing an umbrella signals proximity, and also the whole drama of wetness, hair dripping, faces aglow, and the low hum. This scene from ‘Shri 420’ epitomises it. Raj Kapoor and Nargis singing, “Pyaar hua iqrar hua, pyaar se phir kyon darta hai dil…(There is love, and an admission of it, yet why is the heart so afraid of it)” Perhaps because like the showers, there is no “manzil” (destination)?

Chaplin used the umbrella for other reasons

The large black umbrella is ubiquitous in the streets. They may come in different varieties, but the sturdy one with the curved handle stands for the person who has nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It was there is R.K.Laxman’s cartoons of the common man. And it is there in Chaplin, the tramp, the guy who does not think about winning or losing, and bumbles his way through life that is often slippery. And slip he does, rain or no rain. It also acts as a crutch, something to hold on to when things go a little wrong or one’s own resolve is a bit shaky.

The black stands out against the mélange of colours, not only of other umbrellas but also of the shades that dot the Indian landscape, from paan spit to dead flowers, to neon clothes, to kitschy posters.

Umbrella tree - street art

This piece of street art is not Indian, but such a fine tribute to the umbrellas that have been a part of my monsoons. Some were lost or got stolen as they stood propped up outside stores or in buckets…and some just closed themselves on me.

© Farzana Versey


Rape, murder, and a demeaning verdict

What exactly are some Indian judges smoking? In a 141-page judgment that sentences a watchman to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a young lawyer residing in the building he guarded, the language used by the bench is disgusting.

I am against capital punishment, and while the parents of Pallavi Purkayastha naturally wanted the criminal Sajjad Pathan to suffer for the cruelty and their loss it is not a personal battle.

However, should the judge not display some amount of sensitivity? She was attacked 16 times, and the prosecution thought this was extreme cruelty. The judge Vrushali Joshi said:

"It caused her a painful death. This can be termed as cruelty, but not extreme cruelty."

I am aware that these terms are in the rule-book and a judgment cannot rely on emotions, but what are the yardsticks to gauge extreme cruelty?

There is more:

Refuting the prosecution's case that it was a pre-planned murder, the court said when Pathan first answered Pallavi's plea for help after the power went off, he took another watchman to the 16th floor where she lived but did not enter the flat. "At 1am again, when the victim called him, he went with Khalid (electrician) when he could go alone," the judge said. The court added that from the records it appeared that when he saw Pallavi in scanty clothes, "he was excited and it was the point when he thought of ravishing her".

What is this? Where are those who keep talking about 'victim shaming' when it involves celebrities? The judge is casting aspersions on a woman who is not even around to defend herself. I am surprised Sajjad was not let off, given the tone of the verdict. The implication here is that he was a good guy who was in fact not comfortable going to the apartment of a young woman. Why? She was a resident like any other. Worse, the judge says that it was her clothes that "excited" him and "he thought of ravishing her". Rape is ravishment?

It is back again to what women wear, how they live, and the effect it has on the hormonal male mind. That he gets a character certificate for until that moment when he could not control himself should tell us just the kind of society we live in. To take a broader view, an example of this comes from the statement of Pallavi's live-in partner Avik Sengupta (who died due to a brain ailment later). While recording his statement during the trial he had mentioned that she used to complain about Sajjad staring at her. His response was: "You are a pretty woman."

Back to the judgment, some of it is absolutely shocking:

The prosecution had claimed that the most aggravating circumstance against Pathan was that he had boasted about the crime and even laughed about it. But the court observed that he must have laughed as he was frightened after committing the crime and said that Pallavi being a strong girl had resisted him. "One cannot come to the conclusion that he must have enjoyed killing her," the judge said.

So the judge is psychoanalysing it as nervous laughter and covertly blaming the victim for being "a strong girl". The fact that she resisted till the very end — there were blood trails till her neighbour's flat indicating she was seeking help — draws attention to the rapist-murderer's intent and not become reason to highlight his laughing at her strength.

He is young and I agree with the tenure of the sentence. Life imprisonment should set him right. I do not agree with those who think the death sentence works as a lesson. If anything, the judgments should be worded with care and send out a signal to people. Women should be made to feel safe and empowered and men should be made to realise that they have no right to infringe on a woman's body or space irrespective of how she is dressed or how she chooses to live.

The person committing the crime is not the only criminal.

Another point:

Earlier reports that quoted Sajjad Pathan's security agency head as saying that he has brought shame to Kashmiris. Some newspapers played this up. How often do you hear about a whole region responsible for the acts of an individual? Immigrants have been blamed, but it does not become a cause for the state they come from to feel chastised. Sajjad Pathan could be from anywhere.

© Farzana Versey


RSS infiltrates the BJP

...and Girish Karnad plays footsie

They did not even pretend to be an open secret, except in times when it suited the agenda. The RSS is slowly worming its way into the ruling BJP government, which was probably the plan even before it went to the polls.

The latest report about senior Rashtriya Swayam Sevak's key sewak, and its media face, Ram Madhav officially joining the BJP and ready for a big role is not about an individual promotion. This is the RSS actively becoming part of the ruling elite.

“However, the party will decide on Madhav’s role in the political organisation,” both the BJP and RSS sources said. Madhav, a prominent face in TV news debates, has often been sent by the RSS to defend itself and to put forth the organisation’s point of view on national affairs from time to time.

This masked division is not fooling anybody. The fact that an organisation is on television or other public platforms to discuss national affairs is evidence that the RSS has always been an important player in matters to do with the BJP. It either speaks for the party or bails it out when it is accused of extremist policies.

Take any important issue that the BJP promotes and the RSS opinion has played an important role to formulate it or give its go-ahead, including the choice of Prime Minister. Has there been a single occasion when the RSS was not in the loop about what its protégé was doing? Would it dare?

The report further states:

Sources said Madhav, who was till now a member of its national executive, has been sent to the BJP along with a few other ‘pracharaks’, including Shiv Prakash, to take care of organisational work.

The BJP's manifesto did not say that it would outsource organisational work. Does a member of the RSS automatically become a BJP member? Is working for the organisation different from working for the government? If yes, then will Madhav be permitted to speak on behalf of the RSS, which is not the BJP, as an 'objective' observer?

There is no difference, but for the sake of probity and protocol these queries need to be clarified. The BJP sold itself on the basis of development, and not for encouraging nepotism. And letting pracharaks make a backdoor entry amounts to just that.

What next? Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Sri Ram Sene all sending their members to look after BJP's "organisational" work, and trying to influence policy even more blatantly?

Narendra Modi has kept a relatively low profile these weeks after being sworn in. Is the entry of the RSS a signal that instead of being the outside control room, it will now help from the inside to prop up the PM as the 'moderate' by taking the body blows for despotic decisions?

Recall Modi's refrain that people should not be scared, he is everybody's PM? He has just managed to keep the bogeyman ready in the closet while he woos us with his 'new' avatar.


When Girish Karnad, like a few other intellectuals, spoke out against the PM-designate at the time, some liberals got excited. Such banal utterances by celebrated seculars reflects just how dependent people are on selective coteries.

Last week, he did an about-turn:

"Narendra Modi is our Prime Minister, and we should accept it. I had expressed reservations about the post-Godhra carnage in Gujarat when Modi was chief minister. But after that, there have been no incidents to bring him a bad name. He has provided good governance."

All of us have 'accepted' him as the PM. It is a post; the BJP won by a huge mandate and he was their candidate. It would also be churlish to react when some people express their admiration for Modi after criticising him if they have reason to. However, one notices that in many cases it is sheer opportunism.

The grounds for Karnad's change of mind are illogical. He had accused the PM not in 2002, but recently. So, did it not register that there were no such cases after that in all these years? Is he trying to say that a CM should be treated differently from a PM for the same 'incident'? And what exactly does he mean by "bring a bad name" — were the riots all about slandering the CM? What about those who were killed, who lost their homes and livelihood?

It is also getting tiresome to read about "good governance" in such a short time. Why are people like Girish Karnad not asked to explain what they mean by it that they have been forced to alter their opinion is such a drastic manner? It would certainly enlighten those of us who are not blinded by a gilded throne.

© Farzana Versey


Rihanna in the red

They are angry because Rihanna has posed with her baby niece wearing nothing on top. The ire is along these lines: "Why is she topless?" "Why is she holding her niece without clothes?" "This is not even her baby?"

I've seen the picture, and it is aesthetic and not one bit sensational. There is not a peek at the front; you just see her sinewy back, her face in profile, and the baby. In fact, it is a warm maternal image. True, this is not her child. But in many societies women other than mothers nurse babies for various reasons. There is no hint of that here, yet this shouldn't be cause for condemnation.

If anything, I have problems with the media referring to the baby as topless. Many infants and tots crawl and loll about without any clothes. It is shameful to use such a word in this context. Besides, in some countries like Japan community baths are the norm, and families bathe together. There must be a cut-off age when grown-up children are weaned away from this ritual, though.

It is surprising how people become so moral when faced with straightforward nudity, but have no issues with titillation in form of dress, deportment, behaviour.


A month ago, Rihanna was accused of appearing in a suggestive perfume ad. There was a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which resulted in the posters being permitted only in restricted areas where children are unlikely to venture.

This is just so ludicrous when images such as these available at the click of a button. Besides, if the ad is sexually explicit, how would children get affected (assuming children does not mean those who have attained puberty)? Is it kids we are concerned about or is it adult guilt?

Then there was this piece that expressed joy over the restriction because "fewer young girls will come across this image of Rihanna’s unattainable body in all it's well-shot perfection". While there is the real possibility of psychological impact of body images, why are we not bothered about other factors of unattainability, like wealth, space walking, artistic abilities, scientific and other research? Why is the perfection of the body — in as much as it can have any universality — such a challenge and a threat?

Rihanna is selling a fragrance, so the body is a mere means (unlike her personal attention-getting quirks). The main selling point is her facial expression. There is no perfection in it. It means business. Does that bother us? Perhaps, it isn't nudity that is an issue, but what else comes with it that causes us to reduce it to the physical.

The insecurities are not about the perfection, but the inability to comprehend imperfections.

© Farzana Versey


NSA spied on BJP to spy on Congress?

What exactly does the NSA spying on the BJP amount to? Is the target the office of the political party, or its senior leaders, or media cells, or its workers on the ground? Or, was it using the enemy of the 'enemy'?

The latest disclosure by Edward Snowden has got the Indian government in a tizzy:

That the omnibus spying programme by the US National Security Agency enveloped 193 countries (including India) comes as no surprise, but what is striking is that the Obama administration in 2010 sought authorization from the shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to conduct surveillance on BJP among six political outfits worldwide. Others listed in Edward Snowden's disclosure of the NSA operation are Amal of Lebanon, an outfit with alleged links to Hezbollah; the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator of Venezuela, with purported links to FARC; Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; Egyptian National Salvation Front; and Pakistan People's Party.

The PPP and BJP seem like misfits in this group. The former, in fact, had a fairly charmed equation with the US authorities, and although Narendra Modi was denied a visa, there would be no reason for the Obama government to snoop on the party. Some have suggested that it was based on Rahul Gandhi’s 2009 conversation with the then US ambassador Timothy Roemer that Hindu terror was “the bigger threat (to India) may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community”. This is apparently in comparison with the LeT.

Why would the US toe his line? America has a lot to gain with its ‘war on terror’ that is exclusively jihad-driven because those regions ensure profiteering. Paranoia over Hindu terror would be a waste of time, for India does not offer any tangible benefits (the Americans have been busy patenting tulsi, and yoga and spiritualism are now a part of their culture).

The NSA acted in 2010. The BJP was not in power, nor was there a major riot immediately prior to it. Even if there was, it is not the business of any other country. If anything, the BJP could have been “of valid interest for US intelligence” to get information about the ruling Congress Party, the whispers, rumours, and details about scams that the government would probably want to hide, and the opposition parties keep notes of. As reported, the Congress had raised objections about the spying last year. This is not a matter of which party is targeted, but of the country. The BJP ought to have raised the issue then along with the Congress, just as the Congress should join forces now.

Surprisingly, the former foreign minister Salman Khurshid had taken a benign view:

“Some of the information they (the US) got out of their scrutiny, they were able to use it to prevent serious terrorist attacks in several countries.”

Did the US administration share such information with the Indian government? When has the US ever tried to prevent terrorist attacks anywhere? It only lands up later, adding to the mayhem.

The revelations state:

Only four countries were off-limits from the snooping: loyal allies Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

If terrorism is the main reason, then these countries are home to immigrants. Would the hosts not be at risk, if one goes by western stereotyping?

The US also got authorisation to spy on international non-government agencies – the United Nations, European Union, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank – that it anyway twists to suit its political agenda. With key tactical information, it can cause a good deal of covert harm.

The Indian response has been tepid. There is greater concern about how this will pan out, as Modi and Obama are to meet at the end of September. It sounds wicked to say so, but perhaps they would like to share notes. After all, the Indian PM is known to spy on his partymen, and Snoopgate did not appear out of thin air. And while this may sound like a conspiracy theory, the timing of the leak is just right. It will give them time to indulge in some real diplomacy after the earlier embargo on Modi. This is an unusual ice-breaker, but given that Angela Merkel could condone the spying Modi will just grin and bear it.

Meanwhile, the official channels are bureaucratic with their “summon a top diplomat” and the sophomoric “India also sought an assurance from the US that it will not happen again”.

There is a lot that happens that might not be in the realm of WikiLeaks knowledge, and it is unlikely to stop. The only way to get on top of this is to have our own intel agencies so smart that they can snoop on the snoopers.

© Farzana Versey


Rumours and Reality - Revisiting Sunanda Pushkar

While the death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of former Union minister Shashi Tharoor, appeared to leave several unanswered questions, I am not sure about the latest “twist”.

Dr. Sudhir Gupta, head of forensic sciences at AIIMS, has filed an affidavit in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming that he was 'pressured' by former Union minister and president of AIIMS, Ghulam Nabi Azad, to act in an 'unprofessional' manner to cover up the matter. 
"(The) applicant could not muster courage of openly placing the facts in black and white as the former president of AIIMS Ghulam Nabi Azad was an immensely powerful politician and the then health minister, and the husband of late Sunanda Pushkar was also a minister and a powerful politician," the affidavit stated.

Why was the job more important to the doctor than ethics? This query is valid now because there are charges of plagiarism and misconduct against him. Is he trying to cover his own tracks by alluding to a cover-up? What exactly does being pressured to act unprofessional really mean? This case was very public; the police were on the trail. Importantly, the forensic findings pointed out injuries, an overdose and drug poisoning. If there was pressure – and it not unlikely – nobody seemed to have keeled under it, at least as far as a medical report goes (although there were contradictory ones).

Before further investigations, the doctor should be interrogated not only about the nature of the pressure, but what he did not reveal in the report that he was forced to cover up. If it is different from what he gave the police, then he should be tried in court and his license taken away until he is cleared. It appears that he wants to be in the political good books and is more concerned about saving his own position.

Now that the case has resurfaced, there are a few points that need to be addressed.

The Congress made a huge mistake by fielding Shashi Tharoor, although he did win the Thiruvananthapuram seat. The point is about probity. He is not an accused, but the death of his wife under public and social media glare, where he himself was involved, sent out a message of arrogance and powerplay.

BJP members suggesting that there has been silence have got it all wrong. The media, in fact, went into overdrive then. The rumour mills were churning out conspiracies and propping up some of the players, however tangential their involvement with the personae. (My earlier post)

There were three main reasons they felt that Sunanda could have been murdered:

  1. She had said she would expose the IPL backroom deals.
  2. The ISI would want her out of the way because she suggested that Tharoor’s friend was a mole.
  3. The relationship between the couple.

Regarding IPL, she essentially indicated that she was made into the scapegoat. Either way, as it was sweat equity it would be difficult to pin down as financial skullduggery.

The ISI angle is ridiculous, and one of the reasons the case did not gather momentum. Tharoor is not a big-ticket minister, so sending a honey trap would not make any sense. Also, a gushing fan as honey trap would be counter-productive. The only notable point here is that the lady was planning to write a book on the Kerala elections. Seriously, there were attempts to get a publisher for a Pakistani to cover elections in an Indian state that has little emotional or real connect with the neighbouring country. The ISI can be accused of many things, but not stupidity.

The third reason is the personal equation between the minister and his wife. Sunanda was quite open about accusing him and just as suddenly expressing positive vibes. But to call him a murderer when they were both image-conscious people is a bit much. If things did go wrong, then they had other ways to resolve the issues. They had been through such phases in life separately before they got married to each other. Her father, brother and son all stood by Tharoor even in their moment of grief. Were they pressured too?

She was certainly in bad shape as her online activity reveals. But she was an independently wealthy woman and not dependent on her husband. She was also a glamorous person with a public profile that did bring its share of snarky comments. She had survived them.

In January, she became a corpse in a five-star hotel room. With injuries. They have not been explained. No amount of poisoning can cause these. Tharoor has said he wants the cops to probe. He should pursue the case, not to absolve himself but because like others he too must be concerned about it.

Until then, the rumours will over-ride justice.

© Farzana Versey


Storm after the silence: Now it's Tapas Pal

Think about it. Why was the Tapas Pal clip not aired earlier, or why did it not go 'viral' on June 14 when he made the rape remarks? Is there a PR lobby that ensures some people stay in the news, or their leader gets an opportunity to be "shocked", an emotion recollected in tranquility?

That comment should have died and been buried. Exhuming it serves no purpose other than to confirm what we already know. This business of shaming those who have proven they are shameless simply gets them mileage.

Tapas Pal is a Bengali actor from the 80s. He is also a Trinamool Congress Party leader. A week ago he had said:

"Ekta jodi kono birodhi aajke Trinamuler kono meye, kono baap, kono bachchar gaye haat dey, tader gushti ke ami jaa taa kore chole jabo. Amaar chheleder dhukiye debo rapekore chole jabe, rape kore chole jabe…(If anyone from the Opposition dares touch a daughter of Trinamul, a father from Trinamul, a child from Trinamul, I will do whatever I can to their entire clan. I will set my boys on them, they will rape them, they will rape them.)"

This particular statement is more political than gender-related, although some reports have mentioned that the target would be women cadre of the opposition. The TMC and Communists are old rivals, and both have a history of violence. Some have explained it as a response to some CPI (M) workers getting violent. It is no justification.

This does not need any analysis. He himself said so:

"I am a ruffian and have committed many such acts. Let anybody dare stop me," Pal had said, much to the applause of his supporters.

The worrying aspect is that his supporters applauded him. His statement has to be seen in the context of how the public responds too.

Demanding his arrest is becoming a showpiece for his party leader Mamata Bannerjee to express shock, quite forgetting her own attitude when she had accused a rape victim of faking it. A spokesperson told the media:

"The chief minister is shattered by the comments. The party has already cautioned him on Monday and demanded a written explanation from him in 48 hours."

This is beyond ridiculous. What is there to explain, and why would it take 48 hours for what is on record? He has already denied it, saying that he used the word "raid" and not rape. Irrespective of it, there is threat of violence. His wife has apologised on his behalf. He should be isolated, instead of getting an opportunity to speak.

Before anointing our commentators for their concern, let us ask where was the media when the statement was made? Are there reports or opinion pieces on this soon after the incident?

That this clip has become a talking point now also reveals the total disconnect between national and regional news. Unless, it creates a buzz, the big news channels won't pick it up. When they do, it is to sensationalise it, run a kangaroo court, and hammer at it till 'justice' is done.

What has happened to such remarks earlier? They took up primetime space, brought in a few new faces, and objectified rape again in the studios. Till the next celebrity case took over.

All those who think they are sensitising the public, I am afraid nothing of the sort is happening. If that were important, then those listening to Tapas Pal's speech would not be egging him on. These are ordinary people who adhere to a similar pugnacious attitude to claim space. Women have traditionally been considered territory. Is there any newspaper or TV channel ready to run a campaign against this topic, which is not controversial but can have a long-lasting impact?

That's when we can talk about concern. Now it is just another gravy cart. Or, a storm after the silence.

© Farzana Versey