News meeows

Blasphemy, Bohras, Anti-Sikh riots, Euthanasia 

Killing a minority voice in Pakistan

The killing of Shahbaz Bhatti, the minority affairs minister in the Pakistan People’s Party should alert the government beyond making mourning sounds and attempting cosmetic changes or creating a martyr ethos.

Bhatti was a Christian and he obviously opposed the Blasphemy law. The blanket term “Islamic extremists” is not enough to save Pakistan, for Pakistan is an Islamic nation. Why can it not have a minister for minority affairs from the majority community? Everybody knows these are sop portfolios reserved to further put sections of people in ghettos. Bhatti was the only Christian minister and treated differently by his own party, so let us not get into those who killed him:

Although Islamabad police chief Wajid Durrani said Bhatti was provided a security detail in view of the threats to his life,at the time of the attack,he was not accompanied by any bodyguard. Unlike most ministers who enjoy privileges such as bulletproof vehicles and high-walled houses in Islamabad’s Ministers Enclave, Bhatti was deprived of these facilities.

I think a Muslim minister will be forced to attend to the grievances as a responsible citizen and face the music when needed. And it does not have to be a prominent person. Often the problem lies in this public display and heroism.

Are Dawoodi Bohras being tagged?

Ejamaat is an internet database where every Bohra must enter his or her personal and professional details. It’s an electronic encapsulation of this information—a sort of identity card. Both the database and the cards are controlled by the dawat, a centralised clergy based in Mumbai. The use of powerful technology has sent ripples of anxiety in the community.

This means that every person belonging to the community will be open to scrutiny regarding their prayer habits, their attendance and religious and social functions and other related matters. The community already has a reformist segment which does not strictly adhere to everything that the Syedna deems right, even though they are believers.

At one level the ejaamat is a technological breakthrough, but what a person quoted in a report says is rather worrying:

“By monitoring even more strictly whether we pay our religious taxes, visit the mosque, pray and fast, the card will help us become better Muslims.”

Better than who or what? While diligent devotees have always followed diktats, there are others who prefer to make the choice regarding such norms. Where does it say in the Quran that you must pay religious taxes?

What happens to those who do not gain points for toeing the line? Will this work as a credit card that you can get reward points for and how do you redeem them? And if you renege on ‘payment’, as in doing any of the things ordained, will there be a penalty?

Apparently, the community spokesperson thinks this is a good way by which to show their gratitude to the Sydena who celebrates his 100th birthday on the 25th of this month. It is unlikely that he will be keeping tabs; it will be the second and third rung clerics who will do so and consolidate their position.

1984 Sikh riots trials in the America?

A federal district court in New York issued summons to the ruling party in a class action lawsuit filed by Sikh organization Sikhs for Justice, which has offices in New York and India. The Sikh group has charged the Congress with “conspiring, aiding, abetting and carrying out organized attacks on Sikh population of India in November 1984”.

Can a court in another country try a political party in India? This is a private organisation, so what is its locus standi? Who is funding it and does it have foreign patrons?

I have repeatedly said that the 1984 anti-Sikh riots must get priority and we have the names of the Congress leaders who incited or watched the violence quietly. But this is an issue about India that has to be sorted out in India. We cannot outsource justice anywhere.

It is time for the Congress to wake up and get its act together or else we will have outside interference. It is bad enough that our expats are quietly helping out many rightwing parties of every stripe. Oh, well, some leftwing ones too.

Aruna Shanbaug cannot die…yet

Since 1973 after being raped she has been lying in a hospital bed in a vegetative state.

Opposing a euthanasia plea filed on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state at KEM Hospital for 37 years, Vahanvati said western parameters seldom applied to Indian conditions and culture. “We do not lead our terminally ill parents or kids to death. Who decides if one should live or die? Who knows, tomorrow there might be a cure to a medical state perceived as incurable today. And won’t leading the terminally ill impede pro-life medical research?” argued the attorney general.

There are indeed several aspects to this case, but I would really like to know why no one is interested in bringing her tormentor to book when they know where he is.

I have already had my say in the article Whose Euthanasia Is It, Anyway?

Suicide Pact

A news story that really starts two years ago has been lauded because of the philanthropy of the subjects. Dr Rajasekar Sham donated half of his assets to the University of Madras where he studied radiology before moving to the US. That is the obvious part.


The story that interested me is that two years ago he and his wife, Lucila, made a suicide pact. As the report says:

“The couple cancelled their phone, stopped their social security benefits and prepaid the year’s income taxes.” And, of course, the Will.

They had been married for 40 years and when Lucila was diagnosed with cancer and had very little time to live, they decided on this since they had no dependents. She did not have the strength to end her life, so she asked him to kill her. He stabbed her and then himself. She died; he did not. He was found guilty of manslaughter but later managed to kill himself.


Is this about love? About loneliness? About selfishness? About fear? About hopelessness?


Why did they choose stabbing for what was a joint decision based on love? It seems gruesome. Was Lucila being selfish or was Dr Sham afraid of living without her? Surely for a professional of some standing – the donated money speaks of a fairly good lifestyle – he would have had friends, colleagues and his work or related interests that might have kept him occupied?


They were obviously both in their senses when they took this step and planned it all so carefully. What if Lucilla had not died but was deeply wounded? What if she, in that state, wanted to live until her illness ate into her? Would she look at him with anger, of why he did not convince her otherwise? Would she introspect about the possibility that he might not have killed himself later?


She trusted him, but did she trust him enough to believe that had he continued to live he would not forget her and not move on? Was it her fear at play as well?


Did Dr Sham have second thoughts and therefore did not succeed fully? Did he later kill himself out of fear of the law or due to his earlier commitment?

We recall how writer Arthur Koestler made a pact to die with his wife Cynthia; she suffered from no illness. Initially he planned to die by himself since he was suffering, but in his final suicide note he mentioned that his wife could not live without him. Cynthia’s note stated:

“I fear both death and the act of dying that lies ahead of us. I should have liked to finish my account of working for Arthur – a story which began when our paths happened to cross in 1949. However, I cannot live without Arthur, despite certain inner resources. Double suicide has never appealed to me, but now Arthur's incurable diseases have reached a stage where there is nothing else to do.”

Nothing else to do? Is a person something one does, an occupation? Do we become hopeless in the face of such loss or is it the ultimate tribute?

Whose Euthanasia Is It, Anyway?

Dead Right

Whose Euthanasia Is It, Anyway?
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, December 21 2009

She held my hand in a firm grip the night before she died. The room where she lay in coma was airy and it was home. The doctors had given up on my maternal grandmother, but we had not. I would sit by her bedside and talk to her or just read; I was told that voices registered. She probably knew when her time was up when she gripped my arm. Early next morning I started my monologue again, touching her wrinkled skin and looking into her beautiful grey uncomprehending eyes. In the need to convey my warmth I did not realise that her body was cold. She was dead. Was it selfish love that would not let her go? She went anyway.

The reason for this personal anecdote is the Indian Supreme Court admitting an appeal to end the life of a woman lying in a lobotomised state for 36 years. There are medical, emotional and ethical issues here.

Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse at the KEM Hospital in Mumbai. On November 27, 1973, when she went to the basement after her shift, she was sexually assaulted by the sweeper Sohanlal Bartha Walmiki. He used a dog chain to strangle her, leading to loss of blood supply and oxygen to the brain. It debilitated her in so horrific a manner that she was rendered paralysed, blind and has been comatose for over three decades.

The plea to the court has asked it to direct the hospital to stop force-feeding her. A question arises out of this simple demand: Is she eating enough at all that the forced feeding would put an end to her life? She is subsisting on mashed food and chokes on liquids. Her body is skeletal, but she breathes. Perhaps it isn’t food alone that is keeping her alive. Why is there no clarity about how she should be relieved of her painful existence?

The lawyer asks, “Is not keeping the woman in this persistent vegetative state by force feeding violative of her right to live with dignity as guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution? She is beyond cure. Let the court inquire about what medical science has in store for her. It appears that there has been utter indifference of medical world towards her.”

* * *
The right to live with dignity is not merely a medical subject. The courts would have to look into other aspects of the idea of dignity. Since Aruna is not in a position to know whether her state lacks dignity, it would therefore follow that those responsible for her care ought to be granting her that dignity.

Years ago a doctor had spoken up for death by choice and said, “How many of us realise the meaning of euthanasia? It means a good death. We talk of ethics when we prolong a useless life, so where do ethics go when we carry out abortions? Even the foetus have life and we kill them happily just because it suits our convenience. Do we then pause to think that the foetus may have had a mind to live on, may have had a brain which was that of a genius? There may be thousands of Arunas in India and we keep them alive no matter what and incur massive expenses to keep a useless life ticking.”

After the reappearance of the case, there have been other points of view. Dr. Ravi Bapat, who was supposedly among the first of the team that responded to Aruna on the morning she was discovered lying under the stairway, is against the SC petition. “It is idiosyncrasy, no living cell ever wants to die…Aruna is like a mentally challenged person now. Would any parent of a mentally ill child move the court in a similar manner? It is sickening how every five years someone raises Aruna’s case just for publicity.”

Ironically, the only two parties who have not gained mileage out of this are her callous family, that did not have the means or the patience to see her alive as the symbol she was to become, and her doctor fiancé who after three years of caring for her realised that her case was closed and went on with his life.

That is what life is about – to make choices. There is no love that keeps her alive. Her family gave up on her; the rapist is free, and the hospital has kept her room locked for fear he may return. Is she in a position to give evidence?
It is crucial to point out that there is virtually no comment about the rapist. Reports mention that after his seven-year jail term he is working as a ward boy in a Delhi hospital. How do they know? Is someone in touch with him and for what reason? If he is using his real name, then were his new employers aware of his crime? He was sentenced for attempted murder and robbery – he made away with Aruna’s earrings. Why was no rape case pursued? Because he had sodomised her. It is rather strange that in a country where the law against homosexuality is only now being given a fresh look, this was not deemed as rape. Besides, sodomy is illegal in India. How did he get away with it?

* * *

In all these years whenever the ‘story’ was covered in the media, the emphasis was on Aruna and for the most part her fight in a locked hospital room, hunger, pain, soiled clothes, stiff immobile hands and legs, the voice beastly, the brain half dead. Today at 61, the routine continues. She whines, is still afraid of male voices; we get these same dispatches in graphic detail. Aruna’s helplessness is made to appear heroic.

This is not about a lone woman’s fight nor a miracle, for it neither uplifts the spirit nor her body. She does not even recognise that she has survived.

This is not the tale of a support system. The crime was committed by a hospital staffer in the hospital premises and the authorities have a reputation to uphold. There should instead be an urgent need to look into the conditions of public hospitals and also the general wards of some private hospitals. They are in a pathetic condition. With Aruna’s case, there ought to have been a greater need to examine the level of security. By cocooning her in a room, the authorities have got away without being answerable for such a lapse. They could have fought the case against the rapist who was their employee; they could have issued notices against him being employed anywhere else.

What use is a lifeless person when the perpetrator of the offence is free? Does it drive home a point at all, least of all about the goriness of such a gruesome act? Aruna is not seen as a rape victim but a caged human kept alive.

This is not a tale of sisterhood. The nurses have rallied around for professional reasons – it could have happened to any of them. Their compassion is based on a ‘special bond’, we are told. How is it possible? Most would be a new batch, younger women for whom she is merely a publicised character.

This is not at all a story about a spectacular beginning, a meaningful middle and a fitting denouement with a moral thrown in somewhere.

And that is alarming. No ethical questions about the crime and the system are asked. Once the courts grant her the right to die there will be demands to legalise suicide by those who feel their life is not dignified enough. There will be related issues where you may not ban books that tell you the easy ways in which to meet your end. You may not prevent a discussion by the Hemlock Society. And you may not raise eyebrows over the concept of assisted death.

In societies where penury itself is a sin and avarice a virtue, the prospect of such methods being legally manipulated by poverty-stricken families and greedy relatives is frightening.

Aruna Shanbaug needs a peaceful departure and it should have been done long ago, quietly and with dignity, and not until the story was sapped off its juice. She has suffered enough – first in the basement, then in bed and then relentlessly under the media glare. She may not be aware of the latter two, which makes it worse.

What right are we then talking about when she does not even have the consciousness to know how her life is being used?