The discovery of Nehru

On Nehru's birth anniversary, the idea is not to take away from the majesty of the individual, but to bring into focus the dilemmas that human beings who are forced to be what they are not face.

As he could not give them the loin cloth ethnicity that would give them something to talk about, I suspect Nehru used the buzzword 'industrialisation' to make the British feel that they had done a good job of tutoring the natives. He had no agenda for industrialisation (except socialism!) and he was mighty afraid of the spectre he had created and also envious of those who could do so. Therefore, while Gandhi, who had no interest in the subject, happily partook of the hospitality of the Birlas, Nehru the angel of industrialisation stayed away.

It couldn't have been probity. It was contempt for the Marwari community that had the money and the business acumen to take India towards the unholy grail.

It may be difficult to digest the image of Nehru as a communalist, but in a larger sense he was. In that he was aware of where he came from and from where others did. The doyen of the Parsi community, J R D Tata, had an uneasy relationship with him. If Nehru knew his Mozart, had been to Cambridge and used his silverware with a flourish, so did most Parsis. They built an empire, believed in philanthropy and did not think it necessary to hide their westernised thinking. Nehru did not like that.

The final blow came when Firoze Gandhi, no mean parliamentarian himself, swept his daughter off her feet. The father never forgave that. Had he not strictly forbidden Indira during her childhood from reading fairytales?

With Muslims, there was talk of his 'Islamic flavour' and political amity, but when it came to brasstacks, things were different. In 1937, he rejected Jinnah's proposal for a Congress-Muslim League coalition saying that there were only two parties in India - the Congress and the
British. Many believe this was when Pakistan was born.

Another example of his parochialism is evident in his sending his widowed sister Vijayalakshmi's suitor, Syed Hussein, off on an ambassadorial assignment, thus putting an end to the romance. But on the poor man's death Nehru, the public romantic, did not forget to build a mausoleum in his memory. To be fair, he did look after Sheikh Abdullah's family when the latter was in prison, which made the Sheikh weep uncontrollably on the platform where the dead Nehru lay.

Millions may have followed his funeral procession and his popularity in life may been unprecedented, but it is also true that security guards hid behind the bushes of his house and the kitchens of his prospective hosts were examined before he could taste a morsel. His populism put him at risk.

Later in life, he was besotted with "the old Hindu idea that there is a divine essence in the world". His Will stated that his ashes be strewn over the Ganges. It may not have been a religious gesture, but two days before his death he had written about the "concept of dharma".

History judges people in many ways. One is to judge them by their last words. In which case Nehru saw to it that if the divine essence went out of the grasp of his family, divine wrath would turn upon the country. The architect laid the foundation in the form of a magic carpet. He could pull the rug from under our feet anytime he wished.

Did Nehru, then, also believe in voodoo tricks?

---

[This was published in Mid-day, November 13, 1996]

---

Also: Nehru, Ambedkar and a cartoon

Another August 15

"To all Indians celebrating our Independence Day, greetings from the Pradhan Sewak. I stand before you not as Pradhan Mantri (Prime Minister) but Pradhan Sevak (prime servant)."

— Narendra Modi

Today's Independence Day speech by the Prime Minister was all about playing to the gallery. It was like an election rally. From the word go he was marketing himself — whether it was to talk about how a poor man had made it to the Red Fort (quite fittingly a Mughal monument that makes his supporters froth at the mouth at other times), or how an outsider made it to Delhi, in a way negating the idea of a cohesive India especially when there is increasing resentment against immigrants from other villages, towns and cities.

Even the quote above is wrong on so many counts. The whole concept of a sevak is feudalistic, and to be a prime servant does not upset the status quo but works as a taunt to its own to suggest he is not one among them too.

"We have seen instances of communal violence for too long. Till when will this go on? Be it caste or communal violence, they stall the growth of the nation."

He went to the extent of calling for a ten-year moratorium on violence. And what exactly does he mean by "we have seen"? Is everything to be brushed under the carpet? The growth of the nation also means inclusiveness of all communities and castes, and ensuring that political lightweights do not incite them or, worse, ignite the situation by lighting the matchstick. The state and the police have a huge role.

It is convenient when you are the 'supreme leader' to want peace, but do little to check those who whip up such frenzy, including right inside Parliament.

"We have to stress on cleanliness, sanitation. By 2019 we must ensure a Swacch Bharat...Dignity of women is our responsibility. We have to ensure that we provide toilets for all."

He recalled Mahatma Gandhi for this. At that time, toilets also had to do with caste, as they continue to do now. Why did he not talk about how that should stop? What we are likely to have is the urban elite 'doing' cleanliness with much fanfare. Interestingly, there were pictures of ragpickers cleaning up after the speech. This is the real issue, of the poor will have to continue to clean up the mess the not-poor make.

Tying up the "dignity of women" with lack of toilets (after the case of the rape and public hanging of the teenage girls in Kanpur) is a sop. We need toilets, but rape happens even where there a toilets. It happens inside toilets. This will only make society complacent.

Besides, by saying that people might wonder how a PM is discussing such things on an occasion like this he conveyed that he was doing a favour.

I'll leave it at that and quote his own words after last year's August 15 speech by Dr. Manmohan Singh:

"Media channels said this is PM Manmohan Singh's last speech from Red Fort but he said he has miles to go, which rocket will he take?"

Somehow, I am thinking..."mujhe khauf aatish-e-gul se hai ke kaheen chaman ko jalaa na de..."

For now, some pictures:

Painting on the Freedom Struggle by V.N.O"key

The first August 15

Precarious windows

Despite it all

--

This I wrote last year

Why display Tipu's Sword?

Should culture be a denial of history? And what history ought to be remembered?

When Karnataka decided to celebrate Tipu Sultan in their Republic Day tableau, the opposition did not really think about this. For them it was ‘murderer of Hindus, temple destroyer”, and the Congress government was chided for fake secularism. Some even called Tipu, “the Tiger of Mysore”, a Mughal king. This is par for the course for the Hindutva agenda. To be noted is that we never seem to have an issue with the British. Has there been any move to demolish the Gateway of India?

Having said this, the opponents of the opponents are using Tipu’s bravery against the Raj colonial rule, and his death in battle as an example. All very well, but the Indian National Congress cannot take credit for that.

I do indeed have an issue with Tipu Sultan in the January 26 float for the simple reason that India was already an independent nation when it chose to become a republic. We do not need to commemorate kings. And what is this obsession with his sword? Can we forget that it was brought back to India by business tycoon Vijay Mallya in 2003 by paying from his "personal funds" of Rs. 1.5 crore? (The second sword was auctioned in London in 2013.)

At the time it was seen as a political move, and like many political moves it was explained as "rightful legacy" by "a proud Kannadiga". If anything, this is parochialism. Which is also what the tableaux are about.

For us culture seems to be a mish-mash of song and dance from various regions. This is static. It does not convey the growth of a nation. It is as much of an anomaly as display of weapons. Who are these shown off to? What does it convey? That we are prepared to deal with any enemy attack.

It is not too different from Tipu's sword that Karnataka owes to a corporate house, which represents in some ways how we view the enemy of dislocated people today. What about other enemies within? Is it not the duty of the Republic to address these issues?

And if we want an exhibition of culture, then this is one area where we could do with fusion. Why not bring two or three regions to create something together?

History is killed by crude and ostentatious statues of dead heroes used opportunistically. Tipu Sultan is now included in the pantheon. There will be dissonant voices. Why play into them? Why not celebrate what can be instead of what was?

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: India Today

Sunday ka Funda

She said she does not know about Devika Rani. Fair enough. Mallika Sherawat was corrected that she is not the first actress to kiss on screen. Devika Rani did it way back in the 30s.

The beauty of cinema is, of course, about much more than that. Some of us who manage to dig end up with gems, for that is what the purpose is. Movies have always been about escape, a little exaggeration and such immense beauty.

I am reminded of that line from 'Sunset Boulevard':

"I am big! It's the pictures that got small."

This scene from 'Karma' (1933, starring Devika Rani and Himanshu Rai; all 'dialogues' were in English) is just delightful at so many levels. Particularly how the woman is completely unselfconscious, vivacious. The device of using a 'squirrel'...can't get friskier than that!

Bodh Gaya attacks and political 'terrorism'

The Dalai Lama laughed a short laugh. Then, he said such small small things happen...few individuals are involved.

He was asked to respond to the bomb blasts in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. On Sunday evening I tuned in to Headlines Today. It had been over 12 hours since the attack in the early hours. The reporters had reached there. The verdict, however, was out way before that. We'll get there.

First, let me tell you about this amazing reportage. A Nepali woman and a Bhutanese man were being interviewed, and the questions contained the answer. Essentially, that this was bound to happen, there was not enough security. There was such a barrage of implication in the queries, with the emphasis on "the seat of Buddhism...of peace and tolerance", that the woman was forced to say, "What harm has the Buddha done?"

And later it was the Dalai Lama who laughed. He is the head of the Buddhist community the world over. But, apparently, our news anchors and TV reporters are the holinesses.

Politicians are playing politics, resulting in terror tourism, and we are not talking about the recce by the culprits. Most senior leaders have visited or are planning a visit, mainly to score points.

In his enthusiasm to not jump the gun over the Indian Mujahideen, one of the main suspect organisations, the Congress Party's Digvijaya Singh got tangled in a web:

"Amit Shah (BJP general secretary) promises a grand temple at Ayodhya. Modi addresses Bihar BJP workers and asks them to teach Nitish (Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar) a lesson. Next day bomb blasts at Mahabodhi Temple at Bodhgaya. Is there a connect? I don't know."

If he does not know, then he ought to keep quiet. Instead, he gave a lecture to the opposition:

"BJP also gave statements linking the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar to this incident. They are clearly targeting Muslims and I want to say to all that for god's sake, let the NIA complete the investigation."

He was repeating what has been implied and stated by the usual suspects. Even if the Myanmar angle turns out to be true, on what basis should this permit "targeting Muslims"?

There is absolutely no reason and basis for any such acts to be committed anywhere in the world. Terrorists, of extremist organisations as well as establishment machinery, have no business to target innocent people. However, 'civil society' has taken on the mantle of mimicking the attitude it abhors by using language as a tool. The hate speech and insinuations, quoting from ancient religious texts, seems to have become a lucrative pastime. Therefore, it is not surprising that the verdict was pronounced.

It gets more people to salivate than discussing the security lapses. If agencies send warnings, why are necessary precautions not taken? Are most such warnings red herrings or the result of paranoia?

To specifically talk about the Maha Bodhi temple, the statue of Buddha was not damaged. The terrorists used low intensity bombs during a time when few people would be there. Two monks were unfortunately injured, one seriously.

What message were the terrorists trying to convey, given that they are usually clear about their intent?

Sushma Swaraj said, "India is the land of the Buddha. We will not allow a Bamiyan here."

It is a good sentiment. One hopes that at least in contemporary times Buddhists, and not only Tibetans, are in safe hands. It wasn't so in the past, the same past that the Hindutva parties love. This quote might put things in perspective:

“According to the historian S. R. Goyal, the decline of Buddhism in India is the result of the hostility of the Hindu priestly caste of Brahmins. The Hindu Saivite ruler Shashanka of Gauda (590–626) destroyed the Buddhist images and Bo Tree, under which Siddhartha Gautama is said to have achieved enlightenment. Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BC) was hostile to Buddhism, he burned Sūtras, Buddhists shrines and massacred monks. With the surge of Hindu philosophers like Adi Shankara, along with Madhvacharya and Ramanuja, three leaders in the revival of Hindu philosophy, Buddhism started to fade out rapidly from the landscape of India."

And it isn't all quite a nice scene that it is made out to be. This is beyond politics and recent. Buddhist monks have been demanding control over the Bodh Gaya shrine against the Hindu majority in the managing committee as per the Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949. They had to take the matter up with the Supreme Court.

More from this report:

"The Gaya district magistrate is the ex officio chairman of the panel while other members are nominated. What has been deemed ultra vires of the Constitution by many legal experts is a provision that empowers the state government to nominate a Hindu as the chairman of the committee if the DM of Gaya is not a Hindu."

There is a Shiva temple within the precinct, which seemed to give it some legitimacy. How it got there is a different matter.

The report further states:

"Buddhist monks have gone on indefinite hunger strikes demanding that the community be handed over control of the shrine. NCM had passed a unanimous resolution in 2005 that the Act needs to be amended. However the demand for full control has never cut much ice."

So much for concern for Buddhists. Meanwhile, the latest news is that no one has been arrested. Indeed, this ought to be news too. In October, Delhi Police had handed over information. On July 3, a DIG reviewed security with local administration. It is impossible for any security to be foolproof, but if 10 of 13 bombs go off within a small radius, should not the government be more transparent?

Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde said:

"Arresting anyone in a hurry is not right. Investigations should go into detail and catch hold of the real culprits...There are so many complex problems. Infiltration from other countries is there, Naxalites are there, local communal disturbances are there. We have to see all angles."

He was asked about the Naxal angle. The infiltration problem is a concern always. As regards communal disturbances, I hope he and everyone realises there are more than two communities in India.

And in what has become a mandatory requirement, Muslim organisations in Mumbai have condemned the blasts. I dislike this defensiveness. One day, though, peace-loving Buddhists too will speak out against the killing of Muslims in Myanmar. They constitute five per cent of the population.

Until then, politicians can continue to run our lives and protect places of worship. They are the new gods feeding hate.

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." (The Buddha)

© Farzana Versey

---

An earlier post on the stony reaction to a Buddhist nun's rape

Tooth vs. Dentures: The Modi Bite

How do you deal with the hype? The answer is simple: You don't. It is already reaching saturation point. Having 7,200 "e-soldiers" is a sign of desperation. The Gujarat chief minister is looking for someone to head the minority cell, "but the BJP is finding it difficult to find a recognizable face to head its minority front in Gujarat". His soldiers who think the 2002 riots are old and it is time to 'move on' will never have the courage to come forth with a plea that Muslims need not vote for the party. If they did, then one might give them some credit for at least lack of hypocrisy regarding their persistent whining against vote bank politics.

I am often surprised at the naïveté of those who believe that the cyber world can win elections. This report in The Times of India gives us a few details about how it works:

"Try criticizing Gujarat CM Narendra Modi on social media and you will be ambushed by a cyber army. Praise him, and there will be hundreds joining the chorus...The sharp quips against Modi-baiters on the net are the coordinated effort of these youth, who use specialized software to add friends and ‘Likes’ to Modi pages on Facebook and Twitter and also send mass messages."

Getting urban youth is not difficult. Modi should give credit for this to Anna Hazare. His crusade brought out the Nike generation to embrace the Gandhi topi in the day and drown their new-found angst later in the usual haunts. Nothing has changed, except a new-found purpose that I have already talked about in the I Mislead India post.

So, he had a ready 'army', and it was not difficult to brainwash them into believing that all would be right and what was wrong was not the fault of Modi, but of those who were out to demonise him. The youth who were shouting for justice against rapists and scamsters have been silenced into believing in legalistic justice where foot soldiers take the blame and you need 'concrete evidence' to pin down leaders The dissent that they proudly claimed has been bought with a fake ideology. The recent history they are asked to forget is dragging them to the ancient past of Mughal conquerors. Irony cringes.

The group is incestuous and sharp, though. They will target novices with no known baggage. Try a red herring (RH) with them. They will not bite. The fear factor they use against others is really their own fear of any strong opinion. Watch them on TV shows and the moment they face an argument, the response is, "Look at you, you are getting nervous", even as they muffle their own nervous laughter. They cannot handle anyone who has a contrary viewpoint.

I have not come across a single person who is a Modi or a BJP person being critical of the way of functioning (no, L.K.Advani does not count!). If they cannot question anything, then how will they critique others? How different is it from the dynasty they abhor? It was this Narendra Modi Army that took out a morcha to Mr. Advani's house after he spoke out. Forget cohesiveness, it reveals bad taste and insecurity.

The electronic media has given way too much attention to these "Internet warriors". The unfortunate negative fallout is a response by the Congress camp of mimicking it. It ought not to be difficult. Prop up one individual, discuss achievements, rubbish the opposition. However, they have not been as successful. If the relatively secular forces (not just the Congress) have any sense they'd see that as a compliment,

They have a wider variety of supporters, not all creditable, but yet. They are not in denial mode about any of the riots during Congress rule. They are not in a desperate hurry to accept the words of disgruntled NDA allies, even if some politicians do. A Digvijaya Singh, a Sanjay Jha, an Abhishek Singhvi are often pulled up by their own even as they remain anti-BJP. One does not ever hear about any Modi bhakt criticising their spokespersons for speaking out of turn and, by Jove, they do.

In the superficial oneupmanship, where it is clear that the Modi army outnumbers, it is the loss of sensible debate.

Contrary to what the social media believes about the social media clout of the man, a war cannot be fought with invisible weapons and hydra- headed monsters with multiple accounts. This is an insult to the vast population of India. And it ought to be a lesson for every political party.

Ruling a country is not a hashtag you can latch on to. You can fool a few lakh followers — many talking to themselves — but not the millions.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also read: Advani and Modi:No Exit

Image source not available

Tea with the Nazi

He still sells. Anger sells. It has buyers. However, are they "Nazi lovers"? A bit simplistic.

You must have already read about the JC Penney tea kettle that looks like Hitler and the reactions to it. They were forced to remove a billboard, but the damage, or publicity, had been done.

Those who probably did not need a kettle right then rushed to purchase it. Some are selling the $40 steel piece online for four to six times the price. It has become an investment.

The description of the kettle is that one can see the “handles as Hitler’s hair parting, with the lid being his moustache and the spout a Nazi salute".

Is this only about imagination or was it deliberately designed as such? A report quoted JC Penney from its Facebook page, “You won’t be able to stop yourself from whistling at us when you see this billboard off the 405 Freeway in LA!!! If you find it safely shoot us a pic if you can.”

Why would anyone want to whistle at a kettle? It seems obvious they knew what they had — whether by design or by chance. If it was the latter, then clearly it was a whoa moment and the kettle went right up there to claim its Calvin Klein moment.

It was a stripping of both sensitivity and political correctness. I wish they had gone along, for it would reveal facets of how we as a society treat history in a contemporaneous setting. Unfortunately, the page was removed and the Penny people said, “If we had designed it to look like something, we would have gone with a snowman or something fun.”

Given the sales and the bidding, it seems this is people's idea of fun. I do not agree it is about love for the Nazi leader or the Nazi credo, though. There are many souvenirs available. And the ideology, for whatever it was worth, is not quite dead if we extend it to the 'superiority of the race' theory. In almost every part of the world, there are groups that believe they are superior or better than others. These might span from religion to socio-economic policies, trend-setters, divas, the rich and in some ways the poor, who by virtue of their disenfranchisement are beyond the system.

Californians are known to be quite liberal, so it was surprising that the kettle billboard was forced down by its residents. Is anti-Nazism a way to assert liberalism? Isn't such a badge of 'we are more liberal than the rest' itself an assertion of superiority?

Let's talk about fun, then. It is possible that the buyers merely like something that has curiosity value. Some might enjoy 'Hitler' boiling, which says a lot about Nazism as a psychological phenomenon that has nothing to do with a specific ideology.

We aim darts. There is road rage. We need magnets and stress balls to keep ourselves in check. We use voodoo dolls and burn posters and images of hate figures.

Is this peaceful? It reveals our hate. Quite naturally, there is the value dimension of what is generally considered good and evil. However, the fact that good has traditionally been known to triumph over evil means that it went into battle. It gave a good fight and had its hands bloodied.

When we use figures like Hitler and Gandhi as opposites, we forget the nuances of how non-violence too chooses the self-destruction of a people. The leaders in both instances are safe. Incidentally, images of Gandhi too have got into trouble, because people don't like their heroes tarnished, when there is a whole industry that fools people by selling themselves as Gandhians.

Were JC Penney to use a look-alike of, say, Martin Luther King there would be opposition. Yet, people will use fridge magnets and other knick-knacks with his image. The same goes for pop celebrities. But, there is less of a reaction to a Marlilyn Monroe being used to sell products, and this also should bother us. Why do some people become public property and, only due to their profession, their memories can be treated with scant respect?

And, no, I don't see Hitler in that kettle. It looks like Chaplin to me.

© Farzana Versey

The Times...it isn't a-changin'...

Like most things in life, The Times of India has been a habit. It is easy to break, but I never felt the need to give it the 'kick'. There was a time, not too long ago, when it made one sound above it all to state that you read the paper because of R.K. Laxman's cartoons. It was a bit like some insisting they read Playboy for the articles.

TOI has completed 175 years. It talks about being young at heart. It has provided me enough boo-boos to pick on; it has educated me about society divas I did not know existed; it has reduced the sanctity of the masthead and of its front page by selling it to advertisers. The only thing that can be said is that it is upfront about it.

Going through today's edition from the archives I found some gems I'd like to share with some observations:

 

This was the front page on what was undoubtedly the most significant event after Partition. TOI even then loved showing off about being on top of the heap - just above the masthead. However, instead of its now cautious "allegedly", it mentioned in clear words that the assassin was a Maratha from Poona. It also gave Jinnah's words importance. But I doubt if it would really bother today if Czechoslovakia (new name notwithstanding) expressed regret.

I know there are many naysayers, but had India and Pakistan not continued to be so obsessed with each other as problems, outside forces would have just had to lay off. I find Jinnah's statement pragmatic.

The Emergency has only been spoken of as "the dark chapter" in India's history, mainly because of its clampdown on newspapers. If we think about it without 'freedom of speech' in mind, then just how many literate Indians were there that constituted the reading public affected by it? And Indira Gandhi was right in at least one fact - that India is one of the most relaxed in terms of freedom of expression. Of course, I do not condone the Emergency, but from this quote we can see that 'objectivity' is still not evident in the newspapers and now the electronic media. Reportage continues to tilt and have agendas.

TOI has started one more of its weird 'innovative' ways to separate news from opinion. All op-ed pieces have started to use the first person in small letters. It is not 'I', but 'i'.

i'm not not sure whether it is to convey that the writing is more important than the writer. That won't happen. The mugshot, the byline and bottomline (where you find new professions and of course "bestselling authors") remove all doubt that self-effacement is not in sight. 

Yet, as i said, the TOI tries to amuse whenever it can. Aren't we amused?

Lahore's Shahid Bhagat Singh

What do names of places mean? Is it an honour? Is it a sop? Why has Pakistan woken up to name a square in Lahore after Shahid Bhagat Singh? This has nothing to do with India. There was no Pakistan then. Bhagat Singh is, therefore, as much Pakistani as Indian.

Pakistani rights groups and members of civil society have demanded that the place in Lahore where freedom fighter Bhagat Singh was hanged should be named after him to commemorate his role in the movement for the independence of the subcontinent. Speakers at the rally described Singh as one of the pioneers of the struggle for an independent subcontinent.

So, what has this got to do with the present? The activists held a candle-light vigil (yes, one more) to get this done. These people are promoting themselves as anti-establishment, which is a bit strange. The freedom struggle had different dimensions. If they want to remember the place where he was hanged, then try and recall where so many public murders take place in Pakistan today for upholding values. He was hanged in 1931 along with Rajguru and Sukhdev, the latter two seen as satellites in both countries.

One cannot give it a nationalistic or even a religious or regional bias, for Bhagat Singh was quite publicly an atheist. This might seem unusual in Islamic Pakistan, but they have honoured a courtesan (real or imagined, no one knows) Anarkali with a tomb and also Malik Ayaz the slave-lover of Mahmud of Ghazni in bustling Lahore. As I have seen both, it gives an interesting insight into how history can lie in a corner without disturbing new conservative ideas.

The place most prominently in the news last year was Abottabbad, named after Major James Abbott who founded it. Kim’s Gun is, of course, named after the character from Rudyard Kipling’s novel.

I had a rather emotional moment when I visited the mausoleum of Allama Iqbal. We still sing “Saare Jahaan Se Achcha” written by him for ‘Hindostan’, but he is theirs. It is just so difficult to explain these apparently minor aspects that have made a home in our hearts.

It is true that as societies change, they want to sometimes wipe out the past. But we still remember places by their old names. I get particularly irritated when people say, “Oh, it will always be Bombay for us” about the city being renamed Mumbai. These same people refer to Beijing (originally Peking), Myanmar (Burma), but have problems adapting to our own cultural name changes – Chennai (Madras), Kochi (Cochin), Bengalaru (Bangalore), Odisha (Orissa). Many of these were in fact merely mispronounced by the British, so why do we get attached to bad inflections?

In cases where people have contributed to society, I do understand the need for commemorating. We have far too many Gandhi chowks, roads, memorials and those named after the Nehru family. That is the reason I was a bit jubilant when Mayawati performed her megalomaniac act. But are there no other ways to honour people?

Will Pakistanis discover the virtues of Shahid Bhagat Singh only because there is a chowk named after him? People don’t discover the past by walking down streets. The young depend on books, and those should give a true picture. And adults carry baggages that have to be lightened. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Manufacturing the Greatest Indian

Do we know about who is the greatest Indian before Mahatma Gandhi?

It does not matter. We live in iconic times with iconic figure who did iconic things and deserve iconic status through iconic surveys. So, the question for a survey (TGI) “Based on an internationally acclaimed format by BBC held in 22 countries” is “Who is the greatest Indian after Mahatma Gandhi?” It is no surprise that it is a media-propped poll and “the initiative is to select that one great Indian after Mahatma Gandhi who is the most influential, iconic & inspirational and has impacted your life”.

There could be quite a few or perhaps none of the fifty names mentioned. But why is Gandhiji the cut-off date? I can understand the use of a term like “post-Independence”. If he is the benchmark, then what are the variables by which we are to judge industrialists, sportspersons, actors, scientists, musicians, activists or even politicians? Do they have to be ‘Gandhian’? If not, then does it not nullify the yardstick of the chosen iconoclasm?

Besides, how do we define an Indian as great? Due to their origin or their contribution to what is the ‘essential’ India, and that may be far removed from those featured here?

Indira Gandhi

It is ironical that Indira Gandhi, who had declared Emergency, shares the space with Jayprakash Narayan, who bitterly opposed it and suffered for it? The acquisitive business people stand along with the ones who gave it all up.

Vinoba Bhave

How do we judge? Will the general pool reflect how people feel, and I am not taking into account those that cannot vote by giving a missed call.

The media partners will have a good time. They will be in charge of the decision-making process. Primetime and newsprint will bring you the ‘news’, and then there will be analyses. As for the token of the title, there will be comparisons and whoever makes it will in some way be given a Gandhian rubdown.

The India that existed and flourished in the past does not exist. The India where discoveries were made, art and literature flourished, and political strategy was as crucial as swordsmanship, that India does not exist in the finger-wagging and tapping world. How can they say your vote counts, when they have already decided on the broad spectrum of who matters?

The luminaries are pretty much great in their fields, but what was relevant in say the 50s does not apply to those who came in later. Is there no difference between scoring a hundred tons and working among lepers? Is there no qualitative difference between a Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and a Kanshi Ram? How does Atal Bihari Vajyapee feature for being loved by both admirers and opponents, when that is how politics works?

Achievements are now propped up by commercial interests as they were probably ideologically exaggerated in the old days. Today’s greatness rests on success; yesterday’s on making inroads.

Is Mahatma Gandhi in any way a unifying force? The symbolism of the name is, of course, canny marketing. But it leaves one wondering as to whether the greatest Indian – whoever she or he may be – will also be one who has been truly great for India. If so, then what aspect of India? Ask no questions. A pedestal awaits. Your vote will give you a chance to be part of the icon factory.

(c) Farzana Versey

Nehru, Ambedkar and a Cartoon

Cartoon controversies have a way of becoming jokes themselves. The latest is in a textbook by the NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training). The government is trapped. Here is why.

As you can see, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar is sitting on a snail. Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister then, is standing with a whip. Apparently, there is accompanying text in the book that blames Ambedkar for the slow pace of the Constitution that he formulated.

There has been the usual house adjourning, shouting, resignations, apologies. Do we need a committee inquiring into this, or do we need a full-fledged ministry?

There are people who think we lack a sense of humour. I think we lack a sense of proportion. I do not like this cartoon.

NDTV reports:

Sketched by renowned cartoonist Shankar in the 1960s, the cartoon has been part of the NCERT book since 2006. Today, MPs waved copies of the cartoon in Parliament and said it insulted both leaders.

Did Shankar sketch this in the 60s? If so, the Constitution was well in place before that. (It transpires that it appeared in his weekly in 1949, which seems more appropriate.) The problem is not with the Constitution, but the execution of what it lays down. Therefore, this is an insult of the Constitution. It is rather amusing to see a crowd of ordinary folks smiling broadly at this display of Nehruvian aggression. The cartoon insults them, too, for it assumes that they the lowly who will get their rights only when things are whipped into shape. There is no concern for dignity of the human being.

Does it insult both leaders? I’d say it backfires on Nehru. He looks more like a horse attendant, than a trainer. Besides, standing behind with a whip, there appears to be an element of Brutus back-stabbing. Ambedkar remains a jockey steadfastly steering.

I’d definitely see it as misconstruing history, although young people these days have access to other avenues of information and such cartoons and derogatory references do not tarnish the work done by people like Ambedkar. Note: I use the term work and not image.

The politicisation has predictably taken on a high caste vs. Dalits hue. It will fall flat. Mayawati has just been exposed for her indulgences, spending Rs 86 crore on renovating her house. Despite rising to power, and I do commend her for managing it against odds irrespective of her personal whims, she has shown scant regard for the Constitution. She has misused Ambedkar’s name for personal glory and treated his persona as her personal fiefdom.

Our political leaders should have found other ways to deal with it. But, no. This is the age of shoo-shaa as we say. Waving copies of it only drew attention to something that most of us would not have noticed. Now, sides will be taken. As I said, the controversies become the jokes.

Gaga's Gays and Spidey's Black

I never did think about Spiderman’s colour, except for his blue and red costume. So, what does a new half-black replacement mean? Is he termed the “Ultimate” only because he is a hybrid? Miles Morales sounds like one more of those gestures.

Axel Alonso, Marvel Editor in Chief, said:

“When the opportunity arose to create a new Spider-Man, we knew it had to be a character that represents the diversity—in background and experience—of the twenty-first century. Miles is a character who not only follows in the tradition of relatable characters like Peter Parker, but also shows why he’s a new, unique kind of Spider-Man—and worthy of that name.”

Spiderman is supposed to crawl up walls, save people, and lead a double existence. His bane and boon. With the racial angle, he will be politicised. White people, as much as blacks or any other races, can have diverse backgrounds within their fold. Besides, experiences are pretty much unique to individuals. It has been a decade since the 21st century kicked in, so why the sudden need to diversify?

His “half-black, half-Hispanic” origins come across as tokenism. It is true that no business enterprise would risk something only to offer sops, but there is a huge market of African Americans and the others, primarily immigrants, who would be interested for reasons other than mere uniqueness. It could be political correctness, or curiosity, or to see the ‘difference’.

Spiderman is an entrenched hero. They are not following the trend; they have moved Miles into a new category. He will wear the mask, but pajamas. The true test here is not scaling walls, but who he will save and what his heroism will come to denote. I am afraid the possibility of him catering to a niche market is stronger than any universal appeal. Not because he is black, but because he has been planned as that. Truly strong characters evolve. Miles Morales has already been trapped.

- - -

I love Lady Gaga for pushing the envelope and parodying pop culture, but her recent comment is worse than tokenism. She was releasing her line of baby wear and said she’d like to have kids.

"Some day, a long way from now. But I wouldn't love them unless they were gay.”

What is she trying to prove? That she supports alternative sexuality? That she does and has expressed it publicly. With this statement, she has confirmed that love is conditional and she will probably inject some hormones that will ensure the children turn out the way she wants.

A gay infant will not show signs of sexual orientation, nor will s/he when they grow up to be toddlers. Perhaps not until their teens, maybe even later. What will she do until then? Hold back her love? If they turn out to be heterosexual, will she turn them away or inculcate gay values and gay behaviour – if there are any such standard forms – to ensure that they are influenced enough? Or maybe they will just go along to be what mommy wants them to be?

I doubt if the gay community would concur with her views. She makes it seem like they need ‘special’ care.

Indira Gandhi Booked

The history of the Congress party being written by a group of people from within the fold is like the skin covering the flesh. But, as expected it has got politicians to react.

This is supposed to be some sort of commemorative effort because of the completion of the party’s 125 years.

The Congress’s history, written by a group of experts, has blamed Indira Gandhi’s policies for the party’s collapse in the Hindi heartland, including its stronghold of Uttar Pradesh, triggering surprise among leaders about the growing tolerance in the party over an alternate viewpoint.

Rubbish. This is not an alternative viewpoint but passing the buck. It is edited by Pranab Mukherjee, who is an acolyte of Manmohan Singh, who in turn is an obedient student of Sonia Gandhi, who in turn has to think of Rahul Gandhi, who in turn has failed to do much in UP, which in turn is the big trophy for any political party and had the whole thali of vote banks – Muslim, Brahmin, Dalit, farmer, zamindar, gun culture, culture and some of the most power-hungry people ever in this country sitting in positions of office.

I doubt if all those who are barfing now have read the book. The Congress probably leaked out the juicy bits about the Emergency, which no one can do anything about instead of more current and relevant issues. Of course, it is history and history will mention such events. I would like to read about the anti-Sikh riots and see whether they have shown up those characters who continued to hold office until recently. I want to know if Rajiv Gandhi’s comment after his mother’s assassination is mentioned. I want to know if Rajiv-Longowal pact is mentioned. I want to know if the role of India with regard to the LTTE is mentioned.

The Congress does not even know who the writer is. At least that is what cross-over politician V.C.Shukla said.

“There are only views and thoughts of some leaders in the book. Actually, Indiraji had done a good job in her tenure.”

Great. Indira Gandhi gets a certificate from the man who was a Sanjay Gandhi loyalist, then stayed on to get the goodies, left a while ago to join the BJP and is now back in the Congress.

The BJP has its own take on the book:

“The party is personality dominated and there are differences on every issue. Whether it is the Maoist issue or other ones, the party lacks unanimity on issues.”

Yes. Now tell us why did Sushma Swaraj and Nitin Gadkari squabble yesterday? What were the dynamics in the relationship between L.K.Advani and A.B.Vajpayee? Why does the BJP play one game and let the RSS act as its boss?

This is just a book. If only all political parties would reveal what is between the lines of their own chapters and verses.

Ayodhya door ast

L.K. Advani is by far the shrewdest politician India has produced since Mahatma Gandhi. When he talks about pseudo-secularism he should be looking at the mirror for no one is as pseudo about it as he, his seal of secularism to Jinnah being precious irony. He has pretty much created the worst possible post-Partition partition in India. And all he had to do was "dream", his word, about a temple in India...

Pushing the idea of Papa Babar, Advani completely destabilised the middle-class...These people have puja rooms in a little corner of their homes, visit the local temple, go on pilgrimages, but never did they hallucinate about such a fractured fantasy. Now, having an opinion on the Ayodhya issue has become a psychological need.

Full column at Express Tribune:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/52475/ayodhya-door-ast/

How Jaswant Singh is using Jinnah as a genie

This is fun. Jaswant Singh has come out of the closet to tell us that Jinnah is great. No problem. When L.K.Advani did it, they said he was quoting from some speech and that is all. Jaswant Singh, good Rajput that he is, will surely bring out a sword to defend his honour. He will talk like those maharajahs of old who served in Mughal armies and project himself as a balanced person who can see an honourable enemy. This is one more marketing gimmick. We assume that Pakistan needs a certificate from us.

What did he really say that is so significant? And why is it important to emphasise that it is divergent from the Sangh Parivar view? Because, it needs to be marketed that way. Forget historians, even some sharp hacks have written that Jinnah was not the architect of Partition alone; it was the megalomania of all the so-called freedom fighters.

As always, the Congress only thinks it is about their hero, Nehru. And even worse is to bring the Gujarat carnage and the Muslims into this. Their party spokesperson, Abhishek Singhvi, said:

“The BJP and Jaswant Singh can condone the Gujarat carnage and give homilies as Muslims being treated as ‘aliens’ in the same breath.”

How dare they do it. Jaswant Singh has written about Jinnah; Jinnah was a Pakistani, a nationality he chose. Indian Muslims have chosen an Indian nationality. Just don’t confuse the issues. We will handle the BJP and RSS on our terms and not based on what Jinnah did.

If Bal Thackeray says he admires Hitler, does anyone believe that the Sainiks should be judged by German standards?

I would, however, like to know what exactly Jaswant Singh means when he says:

“I think we have misunderstood him because we needed to create a demon... we needed a demon because in the 20th century, the most telling event in the subcontinent was the partition of the country.”

Glad that he has woken up to give us this path-breaking news. Is he implying that by demonising him we have demonised a whole country that he created? Is he then saying that any acts that have occurred on the part of Pakistan are therefore a result of this demonisation? For, whether we like it or not, the residue of the Partition remains with us.

I know we will be told to read the book to know what exactly he means. As I said, this isn’t about Jinnah. This is about selling Jinnah.

- - -

As I mentioned, you don’t need to be a historian; you can just be someone like me. I wrote this on August 25, 1997, and this is merely a peek into a larger piece done a couple of years before that.

The other side of Jinnah

by Farzana Versey
Rediff

The life of the man largely held responsible for the partition of the country has a touch of tragedy to it.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah almost appears like a naive knight in shining armor, blinded by the glitter of his position, rather than a visionary convinced of the soundness of his stand. His major flaw lay in the fact that he was the brash other voice while everyone else was the chorus.

It would be easy to say he was making political capital of the situation by using the minority issue as a shoulder from which to fire the gun, but that would an appalling generalisation.

Like many people in power who portray themselves as saviours, Jinnah was a pawn in the hands of those he promised to free from the majority clutches.The distribution of leaflets bearing pictures of a sword-bearing, sherwani-clad Jinnah was clearly the handwork of a marketing genius. Jinnah, in a spirit of parody, played along, probably for a good laugh and certainly for a pat on the back.

It would, therefore, be unfair to hold him solely responsible for 600,000 deaths and the uprooting of 14 million people.

Even without referring to his taste in Scotch and sausages, one has to admit he was not Islamist. The concept of jihad was totally alien to him and, as Sardar Patel said, he was not a votary of mass movements. H M Seervai, in his book on the Partition, has raised in important issue: "It is a little unfortunate that those who assail Jinnah for destroying the unity of India do not ask how it was that a man who wanted a nationalist solution till as late as 1938, when he was 61 years of age, suddenly become a 'communalist'."

Why were over a hundred million Muslims willing to eat out of his palm? Because Jinnah reflected their fears, even as he spoke of intermarriage to promote communal harmony. Jinnah learned, as does every other politician, that human beings are easily excitable because they are inherently prejudiced.

Jinnah has been accused of being a megalomaniac, but so were most of the leaders of the time. They could not forget they were participants in an epoch-making event.

If he could maintain grace under pressure, at the height of the battle, he would have dealt with many other issues in a similar fashion. If fact, in 1946 he talked of having a metaphorical pistol in a world full of AK-47s and nuclear arsenal. The statement may have seemed terribly outdated and stupid, but it gave a glimpse into an essentially principled man. That we may not agree with his principles is another matter.

Thanks, Justice Liberhan, but no thanks

I understand these things take time. That is not my grouse against the M. S. Liberhan Report into the 1992-93 riots following the demolition of the Babri Masjid that has finally been handed over to the Prime Minister. I dislike the attitude of secrecy. Some of us had already questioned the lies of these leaders as recently as two months ago. (Those who are waiting for the report to be made public, please do take a look at the link.)

The report is not public and there are only titbits being shared with the people – people who are still waiting for justice for what happened 17 years ago, people who lost homes, families, dignity. People who became ‘others’. If it is being kept under wraps, then how are newspapers mentioning who has been indicted and for what? Here is the rogue’s gallery:

• L K Advani: For the rath yatra he took out to mobilise support to build a Ram temple where the masjid stood, and, on the fateful day, for failing to control the crowds he had helped mobilise
• Murli Manohar Joshi: Was present on the platform near Babri with Advani
• Uma Bharti: At the site, had reportedly expressed joy when the mosque was pulled down
• Sadhvi Rithambara: Allegedly incited mob
• Ashok Singhal: Was present, allegedly incited the frenzied mob
• Kalyan Singh: Was CM of UP, failed to control BJP’s kar sevaks
• Faizabad district officials: Severely indicted for their role during the demolition.
• P V Narasimha Rao: The PM of the Congress government at the Centre who allegedly failed to act in time and prevent demolition

It took 17 years, 399 sittings, 100 witnesses, 48 extensions and Rs 9 crore, most of this money was spent on staff salaries.

I am also angry that newspapers are making it into a Muslim issue. It is a Muslim issue in as much as the community was targeted during the riots, but the onus of justice is on the government, the judiciary, and the country. Indians, every Indian, must be involved in the process.

There were several people affected and many activists who worked to get justice. Now one of the reports in the TOI has a headline that has the gall to state: “Delay robs Liberhan report of fizz”. This is not some cola we are talking about. Did they talk about losing the fizz when the saffron fellows went hammering at the mosque? Did they mention that raking up an old Mughal era ‘wrong’ took away the fizz? No. In those days TOI had stopped covering the Srikrishna Committee hearings. This is a matter of national interest and national justice. You want your Response Department to get cola ads, try some other trick.

The judge says he is now free.

No, he is not. He has a responsibility since he has mentioned that the report got delayed due to the non-cooperation of some people. He will have to see it through. That is what the judiciary is about. It is not there to warm some benches in court. Should the government fail to act or act selectively, then he must be in the forefront to question it. This is not some private gupshup session where you can allege things but not give a damn about making those alleged culpable.

Has anyone noticed how the Times of India that flashes “Let truth prevail” on its masthead has started writing alleged in every report?

Worse, the 'alleged' is in italics. Is a newspaper not supposed to have the courage when it reports something? Does it only want to save itself from legal action should the situation arise? It alleges even for civic cases. I wonder how the reporters feel about their hard work and investigative skills going to waste. This is doubting your own women and men doing the legwork and making you the big newspaper you claim you are.

I have also seen columns with this execrable word. Don’t the columnists have any convictions? Aren’t their opinions important enough to them? Of course, there are some lightweights who become turncoats all too easily, but even so after all claims to be frank and fearless I cannot understand why they don’t protest.

A Times of India gem from the main front page report: “Incidentally, half of India’s T-20 squad was in primary school when Justice Liberhan was tasked with the probe.” What has it got to do with the Commission? Was any member of their families affected or part of the brigade that engineered the riots? There were several young people in this country who were children then, most have never been to primary school.

Another TOI nugget: Its Times Global page has a little homily over it: ‘Love all nations alike’! I think Karan Johar is their subconscious guest editor…

Observatory

I just thought we had had enough of these political flirtations and here comes Manmohan Singh giving love bytes to George Bush.

“So, Mr President, this may be my last visit to you during your presidency, and let me say that thank you very much. The people of India deeply love you.”

I honestly do not understand how these politicians decide for the whole country.

“Mr President, I know how busy you are with problems relating to the management of the financial crisis. That despite all the enormous pressures on your time you have found it possible to receive me is something I deeply appreciate, deeply value.”

As though he does not eat and drink and walk his dog because of the financial crisis. This is just so Indian...hum naacheez ke liye waqt nikaala and blah.

“In the last four-and-a-half years that I have been prime minister, I have been the recipient of your generosity, your affection, your friendship. It means a lot to me and to the people of India. And when the history is written, I think it will be recorded that President George W Bush played a historic role in bringing our two democracies closer to each other.”

When did all this happen? Does getting the nuclear deal going bring democracies closer? When Bush’s history is written India will get a small mention. And if our PM has been the recipient of all this affection and friendship then he should stop there. No need to bring the people of India in.

Having said that and replayed the quotes for you, it is time to analyse this picture. The signals could well be different.

Analyse this:

Bush seems overwhelmed, he is facing down and from the way his shoulders and arm are positioned he is clearly taking this seriously, almost desperately.

Now Manmohan Singh is a different player. He has a smile on his face, but observe his hands. Neither is completely touching Bush; one is bent towards his back – a reluctant gesture with the watch clearly visible. Which means the loyalty is timed.

The other hand appears to be extended elsewhere. It could mean Singh is ready for the next person in line.

Of course, you will say that a photograph is clicked in a split-second and this could have been taken just before Singh had wrapped his arms around Bush. But that would apply to Bush as well.

And a lot happens in split seconds. A lot.

Height of audacity:

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi wants those who ‘spread lies’ about the people behind the train carnage to apologise to the people of his state.

It’s a cakewalk for the criminal

Maverick: It’s a cakewalk for the criminal
By Farzana Versey
Covert, August 1-15

Charles Sobhraj’s new girlfriend gets interviewed on TV. The media tells us about what T-shirt another criminal wears when he goes for court hearings. The diet and exercise routine constitute prime space. And, yes, the patois of the underworld makes front page news. Even kids in a general knowledge game show talk in the bhai lingo. All this is cool. Your dinner companion is often a murderer, a rapist or a scamster.

Crime is so happening.

Historically, cinema was on the ball internationally – in the Germany of the 20s during the Weimar Republic, the early 30s America where people were seeking order after the Depression, France in the 50s due to colonial unrest. With the advent of the Mafia in Italy and its percolation into most of Europe and the United States, the movies began to follow crime reports. That is the reason that films in this genre avoided a moral position and preferred to convey just a hint of retribution. The blacks and whites gave way to a uniform grey.

The psychopathic villain has arrived to be joined soon by the psychopathic hero, wrote Phillip French in Violence in Cinema. It has happened in our backyard with a slight spin. The bad guy is also a hero, perhaps not in the classical mould, because he sets his own standards of behaviour. Even if the idiosyncrasies include merely getting two people to kill each other, today’s films and the media at large are doing it with finesse because today’s criminal does the same. His spit is his polish.

And to think there used to be endless debates about how Bollywood glorified the criminal. The debates stopped ever since crime began to be realistically portrayed; instead of Ajit and his Mona darling, we got Bhiku Mhatre and his matronly wife.

In a sardonic twist Phoolan Devi, who had killed 22 people and had 55 registered criminal cases against her, transformed after surrender, parliament and, most importantly, Bandit Queen, the movie. She was completely appropriated by men, usurped by their fantasies and power lust – whether it was as consort to Vikram Mallah who taught her to “laugh, swear and speak her mind without inhibitions”, or as the simpering wife to the opportunist Umed Singh, or the pawn for the leaders of the backward class segments. These politicians, incidentally, have no sympathy for the rape or travails of village women who in the year 2008 are still won in a game of dice.

The danger in authenticity is that it takes itself too seriously. If there is anyone who makes crime and the characters that people it appear like heroes and idols it is realistic cinema and news channels. It may seem strange, but devoid of the standardised glamour they become something easy enough to aspire to. There is no hoodlum with one patch on the eye. You have got someone who you cannot differentiate from the man in the street. While it is legitimate for the former to be based on the latter, it becomes a tragedy when the roles get reversed. For example, Phoolan’s attempts to emulate Shekhar Kapur’s caricature version of herself in real life made her almost schizophrenic. One moment she would be the canny businesswoman demanding and getting 40,000 pound sterling to stand by a portrayal she had been assiduously denying, and the next minute she would become a bored housewife who found amusement by watching her life unfold before her own eyes.

To call ours an age of cynicism would be giving ideological obfuscation legitimacy. Both crime and its portrayal, through the false movement of the unreal, actually get us in touch with only our basic instincts while giving us the impression that we have our feet on the ground

Vikram Mallah was quoted as saying in the Bandit Queen, “Aadmi ko marne ke liye bohut riyaaz karna padta hai”.

Even death is not spontaneous in this world. It is an exaggerated version of an unreal reality. Today’s criminal can live in a chawl, wear a Gandhi topi and be addressed as daddy.

Why open Antony & Cleopatra’s tomb?

Rome:Archaeologists are set to test the theory about whether or not Cleopatra and her lover Mark Antony are buried together by opening their 2,000-year-old tomb later this year. The remains of Cleopatra and Antony are said to be inside a temple called Tabusiris Magna, which lies 30km from the port city of Alexandria in northern Egypt.

- - -

I would prefer they did not conduct any such tests. I like my fiction. I like the story of power, of love, of destruction, of defeat, of deceit…and then a greater love…

Cleopatra: If it be love indeed, tell me how much.

Mark Antony: There's beggary in the love that can be reckon'd.

Cleopatra: I'll set a bourn how far to be beloved.

Mark Antony: Then must thou needs find out new heaven, new earth.

- - -

Quotes: From Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra.

Image: From the film Cleopatra starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and Rex Harrison as Julius Caesar.

The condom and the lady president

Right. So before Crezendo, the condom, could reach its climax and play its role of providing “ultimate pleasure” the Madhya Pradesh government has decided that Indians can only use the rubber for family planning and not for pleasure. And has ordered an investigation! Wonder who will be on the investigating team and how they will judge....

The product has got a vibrating ring and therefore qualifies as a sex toy which is supposedly banned in India. I say supposedly because everything is available.

Isn’t a condom a personal choice? Why should the government care whether a baby is not conceived by means of a staid simple sheath or one that vibrates? Who is the government to interfere in the business of what two adults choose to do with parts of their bodies and their desires?

If this is what they call wrong, then ban cellphones that have the vibrating mode function…they can provide pleasure. Ban those little massagers that send a shiver down your spine.

This is so silly. They ban a product by an Indian company whereas such imported stuff can be easily bought. Instead of encouraging local initiative they want to just force their version of morality. I suppose they can then blame the foreign hand for those shaky moments when couples are just protecting themselves, not just to prevent babies from being born but as a safety measure against diseases.

Immature little people.

- - -

Pratibha Patil has gone and messed up her chances. At a meeting in Rajasthan she said the purdah was used to protect women from the Mughals during the era when they ruled. Of course she is wrong to say it, not because of what is getting everyone hot and bothered: Oh, how can you say this, the veil existed way before during the Mauryan period, yadda, yadda…

I’d say she is wrong because what were all those hot-blooded Rajputs doing if they could not protect their women from lascivious Mughals? And what about those brave Rajput women?

Come on, Pratibha tai…don’t let me down. I almost broke the TV screen when the editor-anchor of this news channel said something about you catering to the lowest common denominator. Boo! I shouted. I still think you should be there and I don’t care if Sonia Gandhi held you by the hand. If you will allow me, I too shall hold you hand.

Just don’t start those veil thingies. I don’t care, but people will use it – the mullahs, the politicians, the liberals.