A Fasting Muslim and the Shiv Sena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Farzana Versey

Singapore Sting

Remember the time every Indian politician promised that India would be like Singapore? Remember how its former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was idolised for the very things that Indians cannot do – be disciplined? Remember the shoppers glowingly talk about walking down Orchard Street, which had a better ring to it than London’s Oxford Street, teeming with its migrants?

Migrants. Yes. There is not much noise about the report that Indians are finding it increasingly difficult to rent houses in that country.

If you are an Indian in Singapore and looking for a house on rent, it is highly likely that you won't get one. Most Singaporean landlords don't rent their house to Indians and people from mainland China. According to local media reports, many landlords are open about it. The moment they realize that the tenant is an Indian, they say sorry and slam the door. According to a report by the BBC, a quick glance at online rental listings shows many that include the words 'no Indians, no PRCs (People's Republic of China)', sometimes followed by the word "sorry".

Such discrimination is not legally permissible. As this report says, Singapore is only about migrants. So, choosing to segregate one or two groups is racist in the extreme and shows how certain nationalities are seen as better or superior.

Among the reasons cited are smelly curries and lack of hygiene. Were one to accept these as flaws if viewed from another cultural perspective, then all ethnic groups can have similar problems. Besides, these are properties to be rented, not shared. The landlord can always add a clause that after the lease period the property should be returned in the condition it was rented out in.


I have visited several parts of Singapore and there are different smells and sights, some of which I found revolting. The residents might feel the same. ‘Little India’ is not a ghetto, but a hub of activity. And there is a growing clientele for smelly curries. I did not see much hygiene in other areas, too.

Except for the main boulevards, and their antiseptic streets and obedient flowerbeds, there are patches of a grim controlled environment, with drab beige buildings where the majority of the middle-class lives. The markets are piled with natural cures in the form of walking and flying little creatures. At dinner one night at the famed Harbour Front, a congregation of restaurants from different regions, all I recall was a woman throwing up, her indulgence a murky pool on the pavement.

I know this has nothing to do with segregation; I just wanted to recount what memories can do. Should I judge a person’s nationality by a natural occurrence such as vomiting?

As almost everyone is a migrant there is no pressure to be nationalistic in the narrow sense. I read that Indians are identified as a race, too. The product of cultural synergy would be properly referred to with a hybrid term, e.g. the child of an Indian and a Chinese would be a Chindian.

Does this complicate issues for renting out houses? Would a Chindian be turned away twice, because of the Indian and the Chinese connection, both ‘not allowed’? And would a Eurasian be more acceptable, because the ‘euro’ factor would take away the curry smell?

There are indeed some Indians who have done well for themselves, and many are second and third generation. Their legacy includes contributing to the country. But, then, can any society survive without its labour and its white collar workers? They may not live in homes where the spluttering seeds in oil reach out, but each day they keep the wheels lubricated for things to function. Denying them space merely for their origin does not reveal a modern attitude that Singapore prides itself in.

This is a silent sort of discrimination, its impact no less damning than the violent ones in other countries.

© 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

Team Aamir and Arnab

Now that the medics will be free, they should rush to some television channels. First stop is emergency treatment for Times Now's Valmiki. Arnab Goswami is celebrating Diwali - there is so much patakha coming out of his mouth - for the return of Lord Anna from his banwas. Fact is, he was not in exile.

The real agni pariksha (test by fire) does not count. Breaking news is screaming out about "Complete victory". He challenged the viewers: "Is this a victory for Anna or for the billion Indian people?"

Please correct me: is a session in Parliament that has tacitly agreed to the main points a complete victory? Rest assured that Team TOI has ensured that the ads will keep coming. For, the anchor at one point referred with some gumption to "what we call the common man". He was also handing out certificates applauding ministers for conducting the Parliament session so well. "It is creditable..." he intoned.

He refused to entertain "cynicism", although arrogance is his birthright. After Medha Patkar had her say, which was pro-Anna, he used her to fortify his sponsored point. To the extent that he even said, "She does not belong to the constitutional club and may not even be allowed inside the India International Centre." Media people are on quota lists for everything, including membership of IIC, and whatever her stand on this subject it was a cheap shot to earn common man mileage points.

The real cherry was when he was contradicted on his euphoria. He snorted and said, "If one does not understand history in the making, then I would not be true to journalism"!

- - -

My Hindutva party acquaintance has other problems.

The Note:

"I am watching the 7pm news on Times Now. Aamir Khan is sitting next to Anna Hazare. And he is wearing a skull cap, which clearly identifies him as a Muslim.

However Team Anna had consistently opposed any show of Hindu symbolism on the stage.

Strange definition of secularism.

Incidentally, I think one rarely sees Aamir Khan in a skull cap in other surroundings. One has to wonder why he felt it necessary to make his Muslim identity so stand out. Did he take part as a Muslim or as an Indian?"

My take:

This whole tamasha has been about symbolism. Aamir Khan has often used public fora to market his films and himself.

Did anyone object when Swami Ramdev openly propagated a 'Hindu' style of protest? Is everyone wearing a Gandhi topi Gandhian?

Indeed, Aamir does not wear the skullcap, so he perhaps did it to further the cause after the Shahi Imam's objection. And to send out the message that elitist Muslims are with Anna.

Even if he made his Muslim identity stand out, I find it strange that this is seen as antithetical to being Indian.

What about the dhotis and chotis, the sadhus and bhajans? Shall we ask every woman to discard her bindi and the men to put away rudraksha beads so we can be completely secular?

Everyone has used the Ramlila Ground to bribe their way into different groups for their versions of "complete victory".

Fifty-fifty and Half-Indians

Rahul, Katrina: the hybrids

He is half-Italian. Why did she have to apologise to Rahul Gandhi?

Actress Katrina Kaif made a harmless comment, primarily because her own origins are questioned:

"Am I supposed to be ashamed that I am half Asian, half European? I mean, no! Rahul Gandhi is half-Indian, half-Italian. So? I am very proud of what I am and I just don’t understand the confusion - as if I’m trying to hide the fact that my mother’s British. Why would I? "

Indians are obsessed with the gori/gora, but when it comes to certain visible professions there is a call for the pure ‘nationality’. We will have pizza with pudina (mint) chutney, but our powerful people must not be hybrids.

Ironically, the person defending Rahul’s purity is dismissive about the real Indian. Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said:

"Katrina Kaif kaun hai, main nahi janta. Kal ko aap Johnny Lever ke bayan par pratikriya mangege. Raajniti ko kitna neeche lekar jayenge (I don't know who Katrina Kaif is. Tomorrow, you will ask our reactions on Johnny Lever. To what levels will you bring politics down?)"

He should apologise to Johny Lever. He at least makes us laugh, despite his sometimes over-the-top humour, and does so in his capacity as a comedian in films. Not like the jokers in politics who do not intend to make us laugh but are tragically funny.

I do not understand why anyone had to get a response at all on Katrina’s comment. And Mr. Manish Tiwari (who you?), politics is down already and politicians need film stars to go out and campaign for them. It is lame that you do not know who Katrina Kaif is. Chances are that you would like to. That aside, if having to comment on Johny Lever amounts to bringing down politics, then you are wrong. It really elevates it, for no people’s movement can achieve what a stand-up act can do to expose you straw warriors. Mr. Lever has struggled hard and one knows that he comes from a rather impoverished background. It is creditable that he is where he is today and it is also a fact that he encourages new comedians.

Think a hundred times before you open your mouth about an Indian citizen only to curry favour with your boss, assuming he likes curries.

The Buffett-Gates lot lecture Indian industrialists on philanthropy and it is fine; NRIs who do well overseas are glorified. Foreign labels are coveted. What brand is Manish Tiwari’s watch, his shades, his shoes, his fragrance? So, does he smell half Armani-half Indian sweat? Indian time-Swiss watch; Indian eyes/feet covered with Italian eye/footwear?

Given the manner in which we are obsequious to the foreign aspect, why has Katrina's statement been perceived as almost an insult to Rahul's Indianness? His father was half-Kashmiri, half-Parsi, and since Parsis are originally from Iran it would make him part Iranian. Omar Abdullah is half-Indian, half-British. And are Manmohan Singh and L.K.Advani not full Pakistani?

I wish we were an India where people did not have to hide their identities. Had there been no political opposition to Sonia Gandhi’s origins, although she has survived marvellously well, would her son proudly declare he is half-Italian? It is unfortunate that she took Indian citizenship rather late. But what about the rich Indians who conceive babies in India or wherever and then go overseas to deliver so that the child gets citizenship of that country? Sonia’s nationality now is Indian. Rahul is an Indian, but due to the nonsensical touchiness over this ‘controversy’, he should publicly declare that, yes, his mother is Italian by birth. Such openness is not a mere reaction to some puerile issue; it is about facing facts that we Indians are so adept at skirting.

We want to be like Shanghai and Singapore, so maybe some young Indian leader should find a partner from one of these places. Perhaps, the offspring will have the right genes and we will get to be like the desired city or nation that we so shamelessly flaunt as a national ambition. Then, we may have to say that we are half-India, not just half-Indians.

Side note:

Does anyone like the slightly sweet, slightly salty biscuit Fifty-fifty? Does anyone remember the ad that said, “It’s a toffee, no it’s coffee,” with a mouthful and the tagline: “Melody khao, khud jaan jao” for the coffee-flavoured toffee? Just thought about it because I have these half and half type snacks and sweets. And sometimes I have half a mind…to hit someone.

- - -
Image: NDTV

Accentuated

Awwrrright, lemme roll mah ‘rrrrrs’ and see if I can do the yankee drawl. Not so tough. Better than getting the brain damaged. Which is possibly what happened to Karen Butler. One minute the Oregonian was in the dentist’s chair for routine surgery and soon enough she was speaking with an Irish accent. Apparently, during the period of sedation she developed the Foreign Accent Syndrome. It is rare and the “change of accent can be triggered by minor strokes, brain damage or even severe migraines”.

The ailment part of it does not sound good, but accents are a peep into so many worlds, and not just geographical. From Peter Sellers mimicking the typical Indian one – although there is nothing like a typical Indian accent; there is only a typical Indian head-bobbing – to the heavy guttural enunciation of Arnold Schwarzenegger, it can be used to analyse behaviour.

Why would an American get an Irish accent and not a Welsh one or from any other part of the US, a country where syllables dance in more varied ways than the stratified red and blue states? Was there some past connection? Was she drinking Guinness before? Did she have an argument about Gerry Adams or had she been reading James Joyce?

The classic battle, of course, is between American and the British English. Indians seem to prefer the American accent. It is easier to chase a word that runs over another than to figure out a starched consonant. I know of someone who studied at Oxford and returned with an American accent! Another thing that beats me is how expats manage to acquire foreign accents so quickly whereas those who come from overseas and live in India do not. I have friends who enjoy our food, our clothes, but they do not have the slightest trace of any Indian accent. Take the example of Sonia Gandhi. Even her Hindi sounds like pasta.

Those of us who are still in Anglo-Saxon mode cannot dream of going to the lav-a-tory, although the Brits ought to be happy that their political party is such an intrinsic part of the American ablutions. I will also not go according to sked-ule; I’d much rather ‘shed’ the mule to get to the schedule.

But these are nits. The Italian, the French, the Spanish have distinct ways of speaking English that make for rather charming pauses in conversation. And I love to recollect a conversation with an Egyptian who I had urged to talk.

“Ookay, thawk.”

“No, you.”

“Woth thu thawk? Yor olwiss farthing and farthing.”

It was time to indeed start farthing…fighting…if only I could stop lifing…laughing.

What is Zubin Mehta's peeve?

Zubin Mehta is Bach-ing up the wrong tree. I know a section of Indians go all gooey about “aapro Zubin”, a phrase that beats my ear-drums into wanting to produce the most déclassé dhin-chak sounds that would make our classical aficionados squirm.

Now, Zubin Mehta has done the country proud. He has performed with the very best at the prime venues. There is no disputing that. However, is the music he wields the baton for for general consumption? He has two performances coming up in Mumbai and has effectively issued an ultimatum:

“I don’t know if I’ll be back again. The government makes it so difficult to put on a concert with its tax demands. If we give in to all the demands, we’ll not make any money to give to charity.”

The charity he supports helps the study of western classical music. Those who are exposed to it are most certainly capable of paying fees for it or even training abroad. The government taxation policy is rather steep for all entertainment activities as well as other sectors. But, Mr. Mehta’s attitude is limited to his own world:

“Taxes for popular rock ‘n’ roll concerts in stadiums makes more sense because they make a clear profit. But we have just 1,200 people in the audience and sponsors who all ask for free tickets—there’s no logic. It’s very frustrating.”

The fact is that he has sponsors. The 1200 people is a limited number and he should be wondering why that is so in a cosmopolitan city. What he calls rock ’n roll concerts are probably music shows by pop artistes. They do make a profit but they too have to fork out taxes.

Worse, movie tickets, even the escapist fare that was a staple of the lower middle class and the poor, are now so heavily taxed that most of the audience has dwindled. There is no concept of silver jubilees anymore. Even a 100-day run is rare, if at all. The cinema halls have been forced to keep a heavy mark-up on snacks. It is unfair but how else do they maintain the hall and the sound system?

It is interesting that the stars of the classical world who do not even live in India want the best facilities. Earlier, Pandit Ravi Shankar got some land. His excuse was that he was taking Indian music to the West and making us feel proud as some goras started fiddling with the strings sitting on the floor wearing kurtas and looking like god’s own children. Have the older doyennes of Indian classical music or dance been treated on par? Remember Ustad Bismillah Khan’s plight? Remember how Sitara Devi had to decline a Padma Shri when she deserved much more years ago?

Zubin Mehta just might make some headway if he taps the right sources, and it won’t be difficult for him. Meanwhile, some business house can easily help his charity by putting aside a corpus so that those who are really keen can learn about Mozart. But will they stay here or will they get wings and fly the coop to return as prodigals?