Muzzling India’s Daughters

Soon after December 16, 2012, India became international news for a rape. Intellectuals and the political class had at the time lapped up the attention, to the extent of participating in the globalisation of Delhi as the rape capital. The shame they felt came with the caveat of their moral superiority.

Today, when it comes back full circle to mock them they stand more exposed than what they are exposing. They had called her India’s daughter, and now they object to the title of a documentary using it. India has banned the film. Scheduled for International Women’s Day, BBC4 decided to forward its telecast. The channel’s editor Cassian Harrison said, “From our perspective, given the strong public interest we feel it’s important it gets out.” The motive is not altruistic, for four days would not have dimmed public interest, which is often whetted to serve commercial demands. How does a rape fit into celebration of women anyway?

There has been much debate, and the triggering on both sides is based on kneejerk reaction and some half-baked ideals.

Leslie Udwin could make a documentary on Delhi’s gangrape victim because Indians had built a monument to pose against. Following calls for a ban, she said,  “I went out there not to point a finger at India - the opposite, to put it on a pedestal, to say not in my life have I seen another country go out with that fortitude and courage the way the Indian nation did.”

Pedestalising is always problematic. Protestors do not constitute a nation, but such groups often take on the mantle of conscience keepers. There have been a slew of comments telling us why the documentary should be seen to open our eyes. It makes me wonder about how removed a section of people are from reality when they believe that one has got to watch a tourist version of awareness to understand what makes men rape. If one relies on this, then it would seem only the poor commit such acts to teach the women who are out late, unescorted. The supporters of such freedom of expression would not have promoted it were the rapist from the same class as them or the victim a poor unlettered woman.

Should the film be criticised as white privilege or a colonial mindset? Ms. Udwin is mirroring what our middle class and intellectuals had laid out by making the rape India's showpiece for everything, from sexual crime to stalking to misogyny. They ensured that it was seen as exceptional, which is not unlike the exoticising they accuse the filmmaker of. What can be more exotic than consecrating the victim with a special name nirbhaya, the fearless one, portraying her as a larger-than-life fighter (thereby denigrating victims who have no such public myth), and their own fight as one for martyrdom by police teargas shells?

When Ms. Udwin says, "Unfortunately what this ill-advised decision to ban the film is now going to do is have the whole world point fingers at India", she sounds like the Indian government that too believes it creates a wrong impression about the country. Evidently, false equivalences seem chillingly true.

***

The rapists have appealed against their death sentence. Legally, the ban can be justified for interfering with the case, but morally there is no foot to stand on. ‘India’s Daughter’ comes across as far less exploitative than the many Op-eds and personal accounts of dealing with being violated that made their way into the same foreign media that many are now slamming.

One of the convicts, Mukesh Singh, has been interviewed at length. Staring straight into the camera he relives moments from that night: “When being raped, she shouldn’t fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they’d have dropped her off after ‘doing her’, and only hit the boy.”

There has been an outcry against his lack of remorse. Are we looking to barter for outrage where the criminal weeps and relieves us of this marketed burden? Perhaps our feudalistic attitude, our own privilege, seeks supplication to judge.

The Supreme Court verdict had stated that “the rarest-of-rare test largely depends on the perception of society as to if it approves the awarding of the death sentence for certain types of crimes. The court has to look into factors like society's abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of cases, like the case in hand – of gang rape with brutal murder of a helpless girl by six men”.

The court ought to realise that all cases deserve apathy; all those who are violated are victims and not just “certain cases”. After the Delhi gangrape, it has become mandatory to calculate the extent of damage. This is a dangerous trend, for it devalues other kinds of sexual attack by known persons who may employ tact to get their way. Inmates of remand homes and prisons who are sexually abused, villagers in remote corners, and victims of the armed forces and the police may not even be in a position to put up a fight.

Four months after this case, a four-year-old was raped and dumped in Seoni district, Madhya Pradesh; she was airlifted to Nagpur. The report said: “Her grandmother fervently asks God to grant her just one wish – ‘send down a helicopter to fly the child off to Dilli’. She paints a vivid picture of ‘the biggest city in the world which has a magic hospital where they put together and cure sexually brutalized little girls’. The girl, the old woman is sure ‘would certainly live to be 90 if only she could somehow reach that hospital’.”

Disturbingly a grandmother in MP, misled by media images of chasing ambulances and doctors giving updates on a patient's health, with ministers discussing it, and candle-light vigils, placards, began to believe that this is what hope looks like.

A five year old was kidnapped, raped, and locked up for three days in Delhi. When she was found, she had obviously gone without food and was in deep pain. Pieces of candle and a 200 ml hair oil bottle that was forced into her had to be surgically removed. The marks of brutality scarred her in several places, some that would even after reconstructive surgery leave her with permanent incontinence.

The media that is now questioning a documentary by a foreigner had insensitively referred to it as “Nirbhaya again” and “Delhi Shame 2”, as though rape is a serialised soap opera. Senior media person Pritish Nandy had tweeted then, “It all begins with molestation. Tackle molestation, you will beat rape. We accept it as normal. That’s where the real problem lies.”

No woman treats molestation as normal. The Ramboesque tone of “beat rape” by dealing with molestation implies that women would know what is to follow. It is as bad as the moral police suggesting that women ask for it when they are dressed in a certain way or seen in certain places. The five-year-old was kidnapped. The four-year-old was lured with chocolate. This is not molestation. Dalit women, those in slums, in offices, returning late from work, are taken unawares and raped; they are not molested as a warning.

***

"A girl is just like a flower…” says the defence lawyer for the rapists in the film. “On the other hand a man is just like a thorn. Strong, tough enough. That flower always needs protection. If you put that flower in a gutter it is spoilt. If you put it in the temple, it is worshipped.”

We have found a voodoo doll we can stick pins into. There is nervous laughter over his broken English, some anger. This is the male mindset, is the chorus. Yet, every other day Indian women are being sold apps that should protect them. An industry has come up that in a convoluted way is making women dependent on commerce as patriarchy. From a revolver for women – “an ideal to fit a purse or a small hand bag” – to sprays the braveheart pedestal comes with built-in spooks.

Such fear psychosis puts the onus of the fight on women, suggesting in a way that ‘she brings it upon herself’, and if she ventures into certain places she could be raped. The emphasis is on danger rather than creating a secure environment. Bollywood divas advertise for these products, and acquire a halo of sensitivity and public spiritedness just as Hollywood celebrities are endorsing ‘India’s Daughter’. Putting a few cases in the media glare diverts attention, forces politicians to visit hospitals and homes of the victims, and promise sops. A documentary can therefore be accused only of building on the myth Indians have written.

Those upset with the final shot showing a burning pyre would do well to remember that protestors had taken out the victim’s mock funeral to make a political point even as she lay dying in a hospital bed. Her dignity was sacrificed at the altar of their liberal autocracy.

The moot point is not whether the film ought to have been shown or even made. This case itself should not have been turned into a shrine that other rapes would need to live up to for the crime to be addressed and the cries of the victims heard.

---

Published in CounterPunch and Countercurrents

Opinion Polls, NOTA and Intellectual Waste

The word 'ban' is so potent that even those who do not know what is going on suddenly become agitated. Needless to say, these are what we charmingly refer to as the cream of society. This is not elite in the posh sense. You will find crumpled kurtas, jholawaalas, bidi-smokers, Old Monk drinkers in this crowd. Should you dare to even want a discussion, you will be deemed a conservative.

Now, here comes the rub. The rightwing political groups are part of the move against the ban on opinion polls.

Reportage and commentary have stuck to two neat divides of to ban and not to ban.

It is the AICC that has asked the Election Commission for "restriction on their [poll findings] publication and dissemination during elections". Congress party general secretary Digvijay Singh said:

“...These have become a farce. They should be banned altogether. The kind of complaints, information that I have got show that anybody can pay and get a survey as desired...In a country of 1.2 billion people, how can a few thousand people predict the trend. It has become a racket. So many groups have sprung up.”

One may have issues with the man, and also accept the possibility that the party is responding in such a manner because some trends are going against them. However, it is typically churlish to suggest that it is due to fear of Modi, especially as in the past the BJP too had problems with such polls.

Not so now. Narendra Modi is agitated by this undemocratic behaviour:

"Those who have followed Indian politics and the workings of the Congress party after Independence would agree that the stand of the Congress Party does not come as a surprise. The biggest casualty of the Congress Party’s arrogance while in power and its tendency to trample over Institutions has been our Fundamental Right to Free Speech."

How much of freedom of speech and expression could he possibly believe in when his government has banned the screening of films and art galleries have been destroyed in his state? Perhaps he should have asked for opinion polls to find put the public reaction. He has issues with the occasion when there was a clampdown on the social media. It is only natural for him to have expressed "solidarity" because most of the accounts were part of the disruption process. These same accounts are out to discredit anyone who exposes their government and ministers.

It does not in any manner imply that other political parties are not prone to such muzzling, but do we really consider such chaos as democratic?

To digress: The Congress came up with the ridiculous suggestion that the marshes in Madhya Pradesh should be covered because the lotuses in them would be publicity for the BJP election symbol and against the campaign rules. This is asinine, and the party was called out on it.

Modi further writes:

"My concern is not limited to this proposal to ban opinion polls. Tomorrow, the Congress may seek a ban on articles, editorials and blogs during election time on the very same grounds. If they lose an election they may then seek a ban on the Election Commission and if the Courts do not support them then they may say why not ban the courts! After all this a Party that resorted to imposing the Emergency in response to an inconvenient Court Verdict."

A politician will target only his immediate opponents, notwithstanding the fact that he will camouflage it as a principled stand.

There is a rather misguided perception that this amounts to banning opinion. It does not. Polls are based only on random selection. Everybody knows that, like rigging at booths, these too can be manufactured, especially since today the process has gained a certain sex appeal where titillation works. So, you have trends that do not commit and talk about a wave and sway. This is really devious, for they are wiling to to play into selective hands until they can retain the primetime slot. There is nothing to lose for the sponsors, because the end result can be attributed to several aspects, including low voter turnout due to everything from climatic to anti-climactic factors.

If they are so useless, then why want to do away with them at all? My reasoning is that it once again props up a limited number of people as the constituency and the deciding factors. The impact works as auto-suggestion, and we have the great Indian middle-class with its online shopping and yuppie dreams believing in any spectacle.

It is particularly important this time — whether during the upcoming Assembly polls or the general elections next year — for it has become a circus where the competition is between acrobats and clowns. Arvind Kejriwal has used his now-patented idea of having transparency. How can there be transparency in opinion polls? They are safe, for they do not stick their necks out.

To the hyperventilating suggestion that this could be a prelude to banning of other forms of expression, it has been done before and not because of opinion polls. (Not too long ago, a spoof site on Modi was blocked.) The media is often restricted due to commercial considerations that want to cozy up to certain political groups. This is an ongoing bias. However, a reading of any analysis is most certainly less random and quite clearly an opinion. The right to reject that viewpoint is embedded in it.

One cannot say the same about opinion polls where amidst charts and chants you are being bulldozed into believing something that may not even be an outright lie, forget the truth.

Rather interestingly, the Election Commission has confirmed the new symbol for the 'None of the Above' option, where voters reject all the candidates.

Is NOTA an opinion? It sounds good on paper. But it won't have an impact.

The EC has already clarified that the candidate securing the highest number of votes would be declared elected even if the number of electors going for the NOTA option surpassed the votes polled by the electoral contestants.

There goes the non vote. NOTA is a wasted opinion, and chances are that those who have made this choice would publicly claim otherwise, if the party that comes to power looks cosmetically good. Will those who opted for NOTA come out and claim to be votaries of it?

In some ways, the rejection of all candidates is a rejection of the electoral process. If no one is good enough, then just boycott. 'None of the above' reeks of self-righteousness, rather than an opinion.

© Farzana Versey

Land and religion: Bangladesh's fight

What started as protest against the grabbing of ten acres of land has become a sinister plot that includes accusations of blasphemy. I got to know writer-activist Salam Azad about six years ago (a reference to it is here). Today, his life is in danger as fundamentalist forces issue death threats. His crime? He wants the property of the Hindus returned to them.

“People of the locality started a movement to recover the land back and build a hospital and girls school in the Hindu owned vested land. Very few people are concerned about the plight of the Hindus. Slowly and naturally the people of locality placed me in the leadership of the movement. I told the local people, at first, we save the three Hindu temples and then recover the land they agreed with me. The movement still continues. This effort to save the Hindu Minority interest is not of interest to the average, aloof middle-class and fundamentalists. Meanwhile Mr Nuh-ul Alam Lenin, is former pro-Moscow communist and presently Publicity Secretary of Bangladesh Awami Legue Lenin, supposed to be a moderate, is hand in glove with Fundamentalists. On 22nd of June 2012 in Sreenagar stadium, about 50,000 fundamentalists gathered demanding vociferously to hang me. Some even went to my village home (village Damla, Police Station: Sreenagar, District: Munshigonj) and attacked my paternal home. It is very painful and horrific for me and my family.”

What is surprising is that in March 2010 he was shortlisted to be Dhaka’s deputy high commissioner in Kolkata. But Muslim leaders in West Bengal wrote to Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia not to send him because of his controversial writings, indirectly alluding to Taslima Nasreen. So, clearly he was not considered unwanted by the political elite and was not averse to a political role.


His book of fiction, Bhanga Math (Broken Temple), was banned by the Bangladesh Government on July18, 2004. However, as he states, “There was no other charge, like Blasphemy against me.”

Now, the ghost of this banned book is revisiting him. Two cases were filed in June, including an arrest warrant issued based on his “slanderous” references in 2004. No mention was made at the time. For commercial gain some vile forces are using religion. Land grab is riding on charges of Blasphemy. His situation reveals how monetary gain surpasses everything else.

“The citizens in a Secular Democracy do not have the faint idea how dangerous it is to live in a fundamentalist place with the charge of Blasphemy, hanging over the neck. The Government also tries not to displease the radical elements, unless that is absolutely necessary for their own interest.”

The death threats continue. The police have the numbers of the culprits, but have done nothing, provided him with no security till date. “I am in a dangerous situation and need protection.”

He has not sought attention for his banned book or his contribution to the minorities. He was accustomed to opposition, but after living a few years in exile he returned home. A home that apparently cannot shelter him.


Another encounter

“Where are our guns?” asked the 20-something. I don’t meet Bangladeshis too often, but whenever I have there has never been such a vociferous reaction. His father worked in the corporate sector, but scepticism about the lifestyle and youthful rebellion made him run away from home. He writes occasionally for the Bangla papers.

Although I have earlier written about India’s stand on Bangladesh (The Bangladesh India Forgot), the man born much after the 1971 War has inherited anger that we refuse to believe. I tried playing devil’s advocate: “But did not India help the Mukti Bahini?”

“We are thankful for the help. But when Indians say that Pakistanis ran away, then who took away our guns, our gold? We were left with nothing…”

“Are you saying India looted Bangladesh?”

“It is still looting. Bangladesh has rich natural resources. Burma and India have easy access, and India knows what is where.”

“And no one can control it?”

“We have fighting inside. I am concerned about our wealth. So many families lost their means of livelihood. I ask the elders and they are silent. How can guns disappear? Where are the records?”

“Aren’t you more concerned about the way things are now?”

“It is because of what has happened. Now extremists are taking over or people are looting us, destroying our land.”

He hates the Saudis and he hates Indians. He feels nothing for Pakistan. He is not a Muslim.

The conversation left me with mixed feelings – a minority in a land that needed a language, but who thought that both RabindranathTagore and Kazi Nazrul Islam, contemporaries and poets that bound India and Bangladesh, were a waste of time and taught nothing about “how to live”. He did not speak about being a Hindu. He spoke as a Bangladeshi who will one day return home. A home without gold and lost guns.

(c) Farzana Versey

There's a Mughal in your drink

How many of you give your children the health drink Complan? If you are Hindu then you are an insult to your religion. You are glorifying Mughals. The ad for the product is under fire by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) for this depiction:

In a class-room, a (Hindu) teacher asks a boy the name of father of King Jehangir. The student shows as if he is unable to recollect the name and the teacher asks the same question to another student when he answers the question immediately telling the name of Jehangir’s father. The credit of the boy answering the question correctly is given to ‘Complan’.

The organisation wants the company to withdraw the ad and all TV channels to stop airing it. I was surprised by the Hindutva droppings in my inbox were so darned serious. I took a look at the whole letter. Here's one bit:

“Why do you remember only the history of Mughals who oppressed Indians? We are living in Bharat; therefore, we should teach glorifying history of Indians. Teach children history of great kings like Vikramaditya, Harshavardhan, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj etc. else an agitation would be staged in protest. Devout Hindus and Indians will boycott your products. Advertisements of companies like Cadbury and Amul which made mockery of history have been earlier stopped.”

I think all Hindu actors and models should be boycotted too if they wear clothes that are remotely reminiscent of the Mughal era. Why was the film Jodha Akbar not banned? What about Hritik Roshan and Aishwariya Rai? Designers creating Anarkali kurtas and angarkhas should be punished. No cuisine that has any connection with the Mughals should be cooked; those restaurants should be shut down.

Come to think of it, shut down all of Delhi; it has too many monuments. Rashtrapati Bhavan has the Mughal Gardens. The President of India should vacate that little house and apologise to Hindus for walking on those lawns and smelling the outsized flowers.

That leaves the Taj Mahal. All Hindu lovers posing before the monument on that ubiquitous bench are insulting their faith. I think Arnold Schwarzenegger who could not take a look inside since he visited on a Friday should be allowed to take over. He’ll manage it as well as he managed his housekeeper. Given that Complan is manufactured by a multinational it is only fitting that we hand over all things that remind us of the Mughals to the west. I really look forward to a ranch in Humayun’s tomb and Taco Bell at the Taj.

We are living in an age of the ridiculous. Someone really believes that because ‘Complan’ denotes brainpower in the ad and a Mughal king was mentioned, it would immediately suggest that only such knowledge is considered important. There is an ad for Taj Mahal tea where just a sip of it makes the Eiffel Tower disappear, such is the impact. Why not withdraw that as well? Or the soap ad where the mother teaches her child during a bath with a song that goes, “Babar ka beta Humayun, Humayun ka Akbar”?

I know she could have said, “Shahaji Rao ka beta Shivaji, aur Shivaji ka Sambhaji”? Look at it this way. The Mughals were obsessed with the good life – baths, scents, food, milk. The Hindu kings were spartan in their habits, and this is the message of what is unstated. The Mughals were good only for soap suds.

Anyhow, there are many ayurvedic products with rishi-munis telling us what to do with different parts of the body, and Baba Ramdev makes up for it by huffing and puffing. Our children are quite safe. Unless, of course, there comes an ad for male deodorant that would talk about the “Aurangzeb effect” or a hair salon that calls itself Babar’s Barber.

Modi reads from The Satanic Verses

...and the Anna-fication of a literature festival

Narendra Modi realised that all his efforts for the Sadbhavna mission fast were not going as great as expected. He had planned it meticulously, but he chose the wrong venue. Godhra. Wrong timing: a month before 10th anniversary of the train burning. No mention of the riots. He wants Muslims to forget that. He wants to mend fences. Nice guy.

This was about peace and harmony. 1600 cops and 5 specially-trained Chetak commandos and unarmed jawans guarding the place. Peace? Peace is based on trust, and he says that there have been no riots. So, what is he afraid of? I get it. He is afraid of Salman Rushdie. What if that bloke who is not permitted to visit the Jaipur Literature Festival decides to land in Gujarat? After all, Narendra bhai has been promoting it as the wonderful Disneyland where you may scream in terror as long as you can afford the rides. Modi likes Rushdie. He does not know why, but maybe it’s the old if A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Yet, for all his liking, he did not want to spoil the Jumma party. He waited and waited for some real Muslims to pay their respects. Finally, he just gave up. Peace can go take a long walk. He asked his men to get a copy of The Satanic Verses. He was going to protest against these Muslims. Those Deoband guys who did not treat his progressive Gujarati fellow nicely when he was made Vice Chancellor and that SIMI is really awful going after poor Salman. No one cares for freedom of expression.

“But, saab,” said his favourite police officer who was transferred for giving signals for an encounter killing, but had now undergone cosmetic surgery and was back at duty, “We took down posters, we threw out artists…”

“Bhai, jo, that is different. We are the establishment. Establishment has right to protect minorities.”

“Er…we are the majority.”

“That’s okay. I am not counting. We must feel like the minority.”

“So, what to do now, sir?”

“Bring me that book. I have many copies in that underground place where I keep all those files about 2002.”

“The book is banned in India.”

“We are not India. I mean, Gujarat has 5 crore people, so we are India within India.”

“This could cause communal enmity, saab.”

Modi guffaws. “This is the land of communal enmity. If you add tadka to cooking oil it will splutter but you get good food. Go, get me a copy. Cover it with green cloth.”

The man leaves hurriedly. A few mullahs come and shake hands with Modi. He says, “You are late.”

“We went to buy you a special edition of the Quran to promote this wonderful multicultural system you started.”

“Time is over for peace.”

“You are insulting Islam by not accepting a copy. Last time you did not accept skull cap.”

“You people’s sentiments get hurt all the time. But you cannot reach on time. I had arranged for your bath here.”

“Kya?”

“For your namaaz, I made arrangements for you.”

“Wazoo…it is called wazoo.”

“Don’t try and convert me.”

“We are only informing you.”

“Why you did not inform me about Godhra train?”

There is silence.

“Okay,” Modi continued. “If you want harmony, go and sit quietly.”

His officer brings him a copy of the Rushdie book.

The mullahs smile when they see the green cover. “Subhan Allah! You are our supreme leader. We knew you had a surprise for us. We will pass a fatwa against anyone who does not vote for you.”

Modi whispers in his officer’s ear, “How did they know I am trying to conduct a counter election campaign to get some mileage because everyone is talking about UP?”

“The Deoband must have informed them.”

“This is same group that does not want Rushdie, na? Now see how papers will be full of Gujarat.”

He opens the book and starts reading. The group says, “Wah, wah” in unison.

Modi is confused. “You know what I am reading?”

“Ji haan. You have a sense of humour. You are reading Gulliver’s Travels.”

“What is that?”

“In the madrassa some boys have copies, they told us about how he lands in place where tiny people are and they tie him up.”

“So, why are you smiling? Now where is your Islam? It does not get insulted if book is covered in green?”

“The grass is also green and we walk on it, Khomeini saab.”

“I am not Khomeini,” Modi says disgustedly.

“Uff, mistake. Please continue reading, we are your prajaa, the little people.”

The CM shifts uncomfortably. The thought that he would be tied up by these little people worries him.

“How did these illiterates start reading books?” he asks his assistant.

“Because of Rushdie.”

“Does it mean if I read this book, I will become Muslim?”

“Saab, anything is possible. But don’t say this loudly. They will call it Islamophobia.”

“Take this away.” He returns the copy of The Satanic Verses. “Bring me some other book. These Muslims like stories. Even for peace mission, they want stories. It is always about god.”

The officer gets an idea. “I will get The God of Small Things.”

Modi shakes his head. “What things? These minorities will start thinking their god is the best again.”

“This is not about god.” The officer mentions the writer’s name.

“Arre, the same one who went jogging with comrades in Cuba?”

“Not jogging, only walking. Not Cuba, in India with Maoists.”

“Then send copy to Chidambaram.”

“What do get for you now?”

“Aladdin and the Magic Lamp. Muslims like fairytales. They think by rubbing a lamp, a genie will appear. They forget this is idol worship.”

“I cannot get it, sir.”

“Why? Is it banned?”

“No, your copy has disappeared.”

“How?”

“Sanjiv Bhat took it as evidence that you were plotting against minorities.”

“What happens to my freedom of expression?” This time he asks aloud.

The audience looks wide-eyed.

“Say something.”

“We thought you are reading from the book.”

“No. I want to know. Why can I not express myself however I want?”

The crowd starts to leave. He calls out to them.

A small voice says, “How can ashes answer what freedom the fire must have?”

- - -

Reports say that today, the opening day of the Jaipur Literature Festival, some writers read out excerpts from The Satanic Verses, since Salman Rushdie is not allowed. This personality cult is seen as protest.

Was Rushdie going to read out from the book? A bunch of huddled up elites in their cocoon thinks this is freedom of expression. Would they have permitted Modi to read, had he written a book? Who are they catering to? A small group, and that includes the media, that knows precious little about such expression, that muzzles dissenting voices, that sells its space without ethics for ad revenue, that pushes political agendas, that also pushes religious ideas; this applies to publications in regional languages as well. It is, however, the English-language media that plays god. We have discussed this already in Salman's Atheist Shrine.

These interests sponsor the JLF and grabbing eyeballs is part of the strategy of making it commercially viable. If they have some enthusiastic pseudo martyrs, they will benefit. Incidentally, Taslima Nasreen and Arundhati Roy, both ‘victims’, have not been vocal about this. Taslima had a fight with Rushdie about Twitter followers and his misogyny. Roy has got to guard her Muslim constituency. Everyone is on their own trip.

This reminds me of Team Anna and the singing-dancing brigade exercising their freedom. Rushdie had attended the previous festivals, so cut it out. If it is so important, then I would like to know why the writers have not sent a petition to the government asking it in clear terms to arrest those who issued threats. Do that. Exercise your freedom, instead of sticking out your tongue.

The festival is already overcrowded. If this were a movie, it would have been all about buttered popcorn.

(c) Farzana Versey
- - -

Similar posts:

Why Modi refused spandex tights

Modi’s fast ‘unto’ death: Gujarat’s shame

Booze and dare? Imran, take a chill PIL..

Here, genie in the bottle?

Imran Khan, the young actor, has decided to “take on” the Maharashtra government. Why? Because he does not agree with the state raising the drinking age to 25:

“I am really disturbed by the state’s perception that the youth of today are a bunch of idiots. I am working with my legal team and plan to draft a petition. When one gets the right to vote at 18 and elect a government and even marry and have children at the age 21, to ban drinking for people below the age of 25 is ridiculous.”

It is and I don’t have a moral issue with people drinking but once again the elite are taking over. It reveals just the sort of people who lead closed lives and romanticise alcohol. As for idiocy, what has that got to do with whether you can swig a cocktail or not?

His knowledge is limited to a certain category of people:

“The issue is a raging debate on all social networking sites and most of the youth feel that it is unfair. It’s completely unfair to expect that one has to wait till one is 25 to exercise the freedom of choice regarding one’s lifestyle.”

I should assume he knows that ‘lifestyle’ is not restricted to what you imbibe. People are not born with visions of booze and they do not wait to grow up for that. If we take the argument even further then there are child labour laws that affect youngsters and they do not even elect the government, so should they talk about freedom of choice?

This is not on Imran’s radar. In fact, the quiet guy has come out with what will be perceived as a strong statement that may well catapult him to youth icon status because he has one of those ‘bold’ films coming up. I can see maamu jaan Aamir Khan’s strategy here. This is classic marketing AK style. So, why has the senior not raised a voice? Simple. He is now the face of many public service government campaigns so he cannot spoil his image.

Besides, this is about youth, the film is about youth. I wonder why Imran has not sneaked in the bit about how the youth can go down during sex, for that is one of the USPs of the film, or at least what the fed ‘scoops’ tell you . If he is so concerned about “right to choose” and how such laws should not be “imposed upon the youth”, will he also raise his voice about crimes committed against the youth? Paedophilia? Incest? Drug couriers? Imprisoned suspects?

There is no plausible reason for the Maharashtra government’s move, but this statement by Imran is shocking:

“This kind of regulation is bound to turn the youth into outlaws.”

What the hell does he mean? Are young people who drink law-abiding citizens with no criminal record? Has he not read about cases of drunken driving and people getting killed in the streets? If people do not get their favourite tipple, they will turn into outlaws? If the pub refuses to serve them, will they start smashing the bar?

Many do – when they are drunk. In the debate, no one seems to take into account the poor who become victims of spurious liquor even when it is freely available simply because they do not have a choice.

Has the government given this a thought? It would seem that this youth business that has gained momentum is essentially about a creamy layer. The charmed circle of Mumbai. Even the authorities will not enter many of these lounge bars to check on age, least of all the pub owners.

If you want to take on the government, then first go to some small town and find out about the ‘choices’ the youth there have in any matter.

Whose burden is the burqa?

Those who object to the “moving prison” say nothing about men displaying the physical assets of trophy wives in a consumerist paradise.

If anyone is benefiting from the Islamist idea, specifically the veil, then it is the western elite or the westernised liberals among Muslims. I might have been a part of the latter given my mode of dress, speech and general deportment. I choose, instead, to play devil’s advocate. The reason is that the debate over whether a woman has the right to cover her face and body has become a western discourse. Its validity is reduced partly due to its being co-opted by an alien yardstick and partly because, ironically, it uses the religious paradigm to justify the ban on the veil.

The Quran does not prescribe it, the Prophet did not enjoin it and so on go the arguments. That is not the point anymore, and incidentally men too follow certain dress codes. It is beyond religion and one must understand that the Muslim world, and even the Arab world, is not of one kind. Therefore, discussing anything in such uniform terms reveals paucity of insight. I’d like one single commentator to discuss this issue without bringing in Islam and then let us watch the fun.

Contemporary society has many areas of darkness and every religion is rediscovering its roots. The rediscovery probably has nothing to do with the essence of the faith. The Pat Robertsons often go well with TV dinners for those rushed for time and prayer. Patriarchal paranoia too would be justified if it also took into account how non-Muslim societies choose to treat their women where they are subtly left out of mainstream political and social opinions. Why is the West obsessed only with Islam?

This is an extension of the old xenophobia. Some are upfront and brand others as terrorists or suspects; the others go the other way and play patronising angels who understand the ‘pain’ of the Muslim woman. In France, where the veil was banned on April 11, a very small percentage of its Muslim population wears the veil. Why is the rest of the female population not considered in the arguments put forth? Does the fact that some women defied the ban not reveal that they cannot be herded into an ignorant, backward stereotype?

When the Bill was first being considered Andre Gerin, a Communist Party legislator, had said, “Today, we are confronted by certain Muslim women wearing the burqa, which covers and fully envelops the body and the head like a moving prison”. His 57 colleagues had signed a document that stated it amounted “to a breach of individual freedoms on our national territory”.

Whose individual freedom is it? I may personally not wear the veil but I do not think any woman doing so is infringing on my freedom. If the religion of France is secularism, then it does not as a matter of course mean that no religious choices can be made. Secularism is not atheism. If the issue is regarding security risks, then the government must make it clear that certain checks will be mandatory, but to sneak in ethical arguments is vile.

It is also extremely offensive to question veiled women who believe they feel empowered. Like grand vigilantes, the anti-veil group thinks it is important to probe the basis of such a choice. As a stand-alone poser it is legitimate, but then how many women have access to equal opportunities in the workplace or rights even at home? Those who object to the “moving prison” and contend that male insecurity puts a wife or sister behind the burqa say nothing about men who feel secure having trophy wives and displaying them for their physical assets in a consumerist paradise.

There is a belief that the veil defines a woman completely. It does not, just as a skirt or a lipstick does not. Whether they choose to wear loose ‘tents’ or scarves with tight clothes is only one of the choices they make in life, as much as others do things to please their partners, peer groups or societal trends. The people who can ensure that no one is forced to wear what she does not want to are those who understand the construct and not imposers who come with their own moral values garbed as liberalism. A true liberal is not offended by others and most certainly not afraid that she cannot bond with a face behind a niqab. With botox and cosmetics, not to speak of public facades, what about the masks we wear?

(c) Farzana Versey


The images are posited to emphasise the exaggerated positions and draw home the point that there are several layers between the two aspects.

Published in Countercurrents, April 25, 2011

New meeows - 18

Smoke

I am all for banning of smoking in public places, but this logic beats me:

The Health ministry is ready to allow the depiction of iconic characters like Churchill and Sherlock Holmes with their favourite poison sticks because, “People know about them and their on-screen smoking won’t influence the audience behaviour much,” a senior Health ministry official said.

People know about Dawood Ibrahim and Pappu Yadav; they too are icons for many, especially of a certain class. The whole lingo of the filmi tapori is based on them. The government has just declared that being gay is a crime, but many icons are gay. Why can ordinary people not do things that icons can?

And how ridiculous it is to believe that only because people know about them their on-screen behaviour won’t influence the audience. Quite the contrary. These government officials live on some weird island. Don’t they know about the power of cinema and how memorable the characters become?

An educated professional I met told me the other day when I mentioned Ustad Zakir Hussein, “Oh, that fellow in the ‘Wah! Taj’ ad?!” Yup. This is also a reality.

Fire

I was within kissing (okay flying kissing distance) of Raj Thackeray when he was sent to two-week judicial custody by a court in Bandra in Mumbai this afternoon. Two truckloads of Rapid Action Force personnel were stationed outside the court for security. His 2000 supporters were shouting slogans. The stone-throwing had started in the morning.

Cops were stationed at regular intervals. No traffic. Shops that had not downed shutters kept them half-open. At one store, I heard a most interesting conversation between two sales girls.

“Yeh sab pathhar baazi ho rahi hai, ab kaam ke baad ghar kaise jaayenge? (With all this stone-throwing how will we reach home after work)?”

Said the other, “Agar koi badee hastee ko arrest karenge tau aisa hona hi tha. (If you arrest some prominent figure this is bound to happen)”

Phew, Raju ban gaya gentleman? The MNS leader is now a big hastee? See, this is how public imagination is set afire. These girls were not Maharashtrian.

The other consequence is fear. Most people would rather lose business than have their shops damaged. This will unfortunately be construed as support for Raj.

Why is the state government not asking him to shut up? Because the NCP’s alliance with the central government is shaky. Because Bal Thackeray is opposing his nephew, so the state can use Raj stealthily as a replacement for the Shiv Sena. And in Maharashtra the SS can manage the biggest rallies. And politics is about how big you appear to be.

Raj’s people may talk about the arrest as vengeance, but he is not going to be in custody for long. Remember the tamasha when Balasaheb was arrested some years ago for a few hours?

And for all this idiocy, I could not get my KFC greasy snack.

Heat

Arundhati Roy has demanded a judicial inquiry into the Jamia Nagar shootout; she was not buying the police theory on the incident. She also accused the middle class of shunning its liberal values in not questioning the police, which was making the situation "very dangerous". "I am just one of the thousands of people who are asking some very serious questions from the police... thousands of people are saying a lot of things.”

As one of the thousands who said something when it happened (this post says it), I wonder why Roy has now woken up.

Why is she blaming the middle class? How many rich blokes have come and asked questions? How many poor?

Why is she sounding like a gossip monger... “people are saying a lot of things”? Should she not elaborate and nail someone down? Why this ghus-phus about “not buying police theory” and then playing safe by saying about the killings that she "was not calling it fake" but wanted an inquiry? This sounds so bureaucratic. The whole world wants enquiries into everything.

Steam

India and Pakistan will open a historic trade link across divided Kashmir for the first time in six decades on Tuesday, a step aimed at reducing tensions between the two countries.

So today some apples and things were packed and sent across, as in this picture. Great. No tensions anymore? Apples or oranges?