RIP ISIS – Rot In Purgatory

We seem to have become numb to the dehumanising methods of the ISIS. The response to the Jordanian pilot burned to death has been that is the worst. Is their cruelty to be judged on the basis on degree?

The fake Caliphate is well-organised and the killings are their calling card; they have nothing else to show by way of commitment. When we start comparing the different methods they adopt, it ends up as a stimulus for them to provide more and varied instances of what they can do.

They are adopting the modus of the Middle Ages simply because they claim to want to turn back the clock. Each time they are shown their regressive face, it is a victory for them. Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh was taken hostage while on a US-led coalition mission against the ISIS in Syria. They demanded the release of Sajida al-Rishawi, an Iraqi suicide bomber now facing trial in Jordan. There are political analysts who believe that if Jordan sends her to the gallows it would amount to revenge, which isn’t any good. She has been on death row for a while for the attacks that killed 60 people in Amman in 2005. So their logic makes little sense.

The matter of concern here is that she was not a bargaining point at all. Kasasbeh was killed a month ago; it is only the video that has surfaced now. The ISIS is therefore not only brutal, but also vicious. They do not stand for anything, other than a temporary belief in their infallibility.

The response to their actions is often disturbing. Invariably, the victim’s moral prism is exhibited, when that is never a point of dispute. However, it does convey all sorts of messages. How does it matter that he was a devout Muslim? Does it mean that one who is not devout, or not a Muslim, does have some kind of naturally probable victim license in our neatly-arranged conscience? We may RIP the victims, but it should really be RIP ISIS. They need to rot in purgatory. 

I have read comments about how burning is anti-Islamic. Those who argue that ISIS is not Islamic lose a lot of ground with such careless statement that indirectly suggest that perhaps beheading is halal. There are also some comments about how burning alive is prevalent in India for honour killing and dowry. Why do we remember it only now? All crimes committed by terrorists exist in society, so trying to find an opportune equivalence is not only naive but designed to show selective liberalism. 

Burning at the stake was a practice prevalent in France in the 14^th century, primarily for heresy/blasphemy. The ISIS has no locus standi to even judge, but even if they were Kasasbeh cannot be accused of it. It is the arrogance of the ISIS and its belief in its own godliness that needs to be weeded out. Meanwhile Barack Obama has got an opportunity to state: 

"I think it will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure they are degraded and ultimately defeated.”

Degraded it a typically moral term. It is this that leads the Japanese to refer to the hostages from their country as “another 9/11”.  Has not Japan been through horrific terror in its history? Why does all contemporary terrorism need to be legitimised by the United States of America?

After the beheading of Kenji Goto, an old tweet of his from 2010 went viral:

 “Closing my eyes and holding still. It’s the end if I get mad or scream. It’s close to a prayer. Hate is not for humans. Judgment lies with God. That’s what I learned from my Arabic brothers and sisters.”

The ISIS is not choosing victims who need to be taught a lesson, so emphasising their humaneness is a non-sequiter.  And how does one know about the humaneness of the hostages who do not have much of a visible presence, like say Haruna Yukawa the other Japanese who was beheaded before Kenji?

The public space will once again thrown up a few fake moderate Muslims battling biting cold in fireplace rooms who will post #notinmyname tweets to fight the imminent threat ISIS poses to their cocooned world.

Burning Evil

How interesting evil is. It makes all else look good in comparison. Without evil, there would be no concept of good. But can evil exist without good? It is like this: evil does not need something to compare itself with. You can see a wrong as an independent entity, as intent too. The right comes with an inbuilt halo, and there is a tendency to assume that a right thing is also the ultimate truth.

Today, on Dussehra, as the effigy of Ravana is burned, it is seen as a triumph of good over evil. I have attended one Ramlila at Mumbai's Chowpatty beach where the story of Lord Rama's battle with the king of demons is enacted. The costumes are garish, the swords covered with shiny foil. The actors are usually from the villages, and the audience is made up of a largely immigrant population from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. After casting curious glances our way, they were totally focused on what was so obviously over-the-top performances and looked fake, including crowns falling from heads, silky dhotis causing a few falls.

They guffawed not at this, but at the loud monologues, designed to produce just such an effect. For them, it was all believable. Even though the seats were plastic and so were the emotions. Even though they were munching peanuts and hollering out to old acquaintances from their hometowns. Even though they would return to the one-room tenements they shared with ten others and would report next morning to work in houses, from palatial to modest, or drive cars that cost a fortune or were bought on easy monthly installments.

They did not even want to think about how Ravana was quite a scholar, had the strength to move mountains, and that in some ways by kidnapping Sita he was only avenging the honour of his sister Surpanakha whose nose was cut by Rama's brother Lakshmana.

All this was inconsequential to this audience, as it is to most devotees. For those few hours, they believed what they had been brought up to believe. My understanding is that these people would not be communal. They were happy in their pragmatic devotion, their idols, their calendar with a photo of a deity on a peeling wall. They would not feel the compulsion to compare. They had seen the good and the evil within what was theirs. They owned and owned up to it.

I do not think the burning of the Ravana effigy is imperative for them. As a finalé, yes. Nothing more. As a sidelight, I might add that fire is a cleanser, and is used in certain cultures as such. Therefore, would it not amount to purifying evil? But that does not seem to be the purpose. It is an aggressive act. If we do it year after year, does it not reveal that evil does not die...it does not even get burned to toast? What we do is to beat an assumed-to-be-dead horse.

It is a cosmetic moral victory. The evil within, and the struggle to overcome our shortcomings, is sorely lacking. It is a vicarious thrill to watch a gargantuan ten-headed monster, a caricature of all that is bad, afire and turning to ash. Then we return to other caricatures and stereotypes in our heads.

Our walls have no mirrors. Nothing will burn. There will be no flame. No light.

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: Painting of Ravana's abduction of Sita, and the bird Jatayu coming to the rescue.

---

Meat, Drink and Judging Vivekananda

Would the young give up the occasional tipple and their cuisine choices only because of a leader? Does a leader who comes with a moral baggage — and selective at that — truly appeal to the youth? On the other hand, if the leader were given to some of these indulgences would the young be influenced by it, or is it something they are anyway attracted to?

Today, as one 'youth icon' Modi turns 64 (what happens when the youth grow older — do they discard these icons and refer to them as "senile" as some middle-aged folk have been doing about another leader?) — my thoughts turn to how self-righteousness plays itself out for political gain.

Last week, Shashi Tharoor was at the inauguration of a statue of Swami Vivekananda. BJP Kerala state president V Muraleedharan who was present stated:

“The union minister said that Vivekananda’s legacy cannot be appropriated by a particular section or group and went on to add that the monk used to eat meat and drink occasionally.”

Swami Vivekananda is now one of those sages that the rightwing is trying to claim as its own. He did have what may broadly be called a 'Hindu view of life', but it was certainly not a narrow divisive vision.

Tharoor often speaks before thinking, but this time, even if it is political expediency, he was merely trying to throw a spanner in the Hindutva works. In a fashion followed by the saffron parties, he was humanising Vivekananda, and there is much of that in his persona.

It was enough to create a controversy. BJP leader O. Rajagopal made what The Hindu refers to as "a frontal attack on Shashi Tharoor" (what could be the other option?) and demanded an unconditional apology. As the report mentions how this tale was spun:

Being a Bengali belonging to the Kayastha caste, Vivekananda may have had fish and even meat, but there was no reference of him ever having taken liquor.

His remarks hurt national sentiments and showed that Dr. Tharoor was still rooted in American culture and lifestyle. His remark that Vivekananda took to drinks was especially objectionable when campaigns are being launched to wean away the youth from liquor.

I should assume that these keepers of our palate culture will have no problem if Bengalis and other communities continue to eat what they want, and they do not have to follow state diktats on such habits.

Regarding drinks, it is not only the youth that needs to be weaned away. Kerala consumes a whole lot of alcohol; in many places elsewhere too the poor drink cheap country liquor that often results in death. This ought to be of concern and not whether it is a western lifestyle that some youth emulate. These young people are more likely to follow contemporary heroes than Swami Vivekananda, especially in their lifestyle choices. If the legacy of the Swami has any currency it will survive an occasional hic.

But that is not what certain parties want. They have no foot to stand on, so they recall saintly figures from the past and prop them up as engineers of some purification process. This only means that contemporary leaders are devoid of any good qualities that the youth can look up to. Swami Vivekananda is the new flag-bearer of this flushing.

The leader quoted in another report even said that "Tharoor has depicted him as an alcoholic". There is a difference between somebody having a few drinks and being an alcoholic.

It is clear that some of those who are sober can't hold their 'drinks' and in the stupor they find a little bit of trendy morality.

"Above all, beware of compromises. I do not mean that you are to get into antagonism with anybody, but you have to hold on to your own principles in weal or woe and never adjust them to others “fads” thought the greed of getting supporters." - Vivekananda

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: A young Swami Vivekananda

Who is a bad politician, Mr. Salman Khurshid?

When politicians do some introspection, they are planning to quit their party, or have got wind of being thrown out, or they have decided that a little bit of self-whipping adds a tragic edge to their persona, besides being trumpeted as “plain-speak”.

On Sunday, while addressing bureaucrats on Civil Services Day, Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid elaborated on the subject of 'Civil Services: Fit for the Future?' It was a ridiculously-worded subject, to begin with. Does it mean the services are unfit now, or that they will take over the future?

Let us take his words:

"We can make a civil servant fit but the big question is that how do we get fit politicians? It's my opinion that the electoral system we have is actually inclined to find the worst people for politics. Good people stay away from politics.”

The electoral system does not find politicians; it elects what is on offer. It is political parties that recruit members and then, depending on sycophancy, nepotism and, in rare cases, performance, they manage to get a ticket to political heaven.

As usual, the media started discussing the straightforward Mr. Khurshid, who is not quite the perfect politician himself. It turned out to be a smart move, then, for the FM. He was not critiquing political parties that are the root cause of the problem; he used an amorphous idea of politics with the good-bad moral masala to it. If good people are so important, then why are the ones that are proven to be bad allowed to remain in politics and hold important positions? We have criminals who are granted tickets and even contest from behind bars.

Besides, how does one define good people? Are they capable, are they honest, are they team players, are they individualistic? All these questions apply to any profession. Politics is not even seen as profession. You have businessmen, lawyers, doctors, journalists, film stars, armymen being welcomed. One does not appear to need any qualification other than to “serve the people”. Take a look at how portfolios are handed out. Does the industries minister know a thing about industries? Or, the civil aviation, education, environment ministers? These, as the others, would benefit from some knowledge, if not specialisation. Instead, those who are qualified end up in the Planning Commission or such mindless ‘bodies’.

I also have a problem with this ‘good people’ optimism that is floating around. It is clearly an attempt to get hold of the youth/citizens’ groups, assuming that because they are out in the streets fighting for a cause, their heart is in the right place. Goodness, apparently, is about such ‘heartfelt’ expressions.  

Mr. Khurshid chose a non-political platform, and would not dare name the bad politicians. His words were essentially to co-opt the bureaucrats:

"We stopped trusting each other. Both politicians and civil servants can make mistakes but now every mistake is seen as corruption. We need role models in civil servants and politicians for national renaissance.”

There! All those files and scams are now nothing about “good people”, but how every mistake by bureaucrats and politicians gets magnified as corruption. We do not need role models; we need people who can do their job. We do not need a renaissance; we need to clear the garbage.

There was a point when the minister seemed to have become a priest:

He said the idea of 'committed bureaucracy' in some states with civil servants owing allegiance to a particular party was an unwelcome thing and advised bureaucrats to say no to signing files under political pressure. When asked by a secretary-level officer in the audience that he would pay the price since there would be ten other bureaucrats ready to take his place and sign the file, Khurshid said: "Those ten civil servants will not be remembered in history...only that one will be remembered."

For the information on the ‘good’ minister, bureaucrats have a history of being independently corrupt. Mantralaya, and its equivalents in the states and the Centre, is the first stop for businessmen and others who want to get their work done. The “chai-paani” (a little bribe) phrase starts at the peon level and the “kaam ho jaayega” (the work will be done) is the final nod from the boss. This is where files do the good old in-out.

If it is a big ticket passing of orders, it needs government approval.  It does not matter to the bureaucrat who is in power, but who will make him powerful enough or be ignorant enough to ignore what happens. Mr. Khurshid wanted to make the civil servants feel empowered, but putting the onus on a ‘committed bureaucracy’ is like asking a guy to carry a condom in a whorehouse. It is only about saving one’s skin.

As regards history remembering a bureaucrat, the minister might like to take the names of a few. He will find that their achievements are about what they did for which leader. Perhaps, this whole exercise was to prop up one bureaucrat who became a politician and history will certainly remember – our dear Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

PS: It is worth noting that there is no Politicians Day.

© Farzana Versey

We, the animals: Bestiality and evolution

A still-born baby would not be news. Unless the baby is a dead lamb with a human-like face. Evolution throws up such surprises. How we react to them also shows how we perceive our evolvement when confronted with other forms.

Erhan Elibol, a vet, had to perform a caesarean on a sheep in a Turkish village in 2010. He said:

“I’ve seen mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-eyed calf, a two-headed calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this youngster I could not believe my eyes.”

The lamb’s head had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the mouth – only the ears were those of a sheep.

While the reports suggest that the fodder of the mother had abundant vitamin A, the subtext is the possibility of beast and human cohabitation. A similar example mentioned a goat from Zimbabwe. It managed to live for many hours. The villagers were so afraid, they killed it.

The governor of the province had said:

"This incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil thing. It is really embarrassing. The head belongs to a man while the body is that of a goat. This is evident that an adult human being was responsible. Evil powers caused this person to lose self control. We often hear cases of human beings who commit bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a product with human features.”

A similar fate, or at least ridicule, is meted out to children with dominant animal features.

Scientific Darwinian explanation would merely allude to the possibility of an ‘antecedent’ strain embedded in the human body and, perhaps, mind. We live in fairly close communion with what we term ‘domesticated’ creatures, much as we refer to human – unfortunately more often women – in such a manner to suggest a comfort with the hearth than with the caveman skills of slaying lions.

Have religious mores made the human less animal? How would then one explain “unnatural sex”, which mimics to an extent animal behaviour when in heat? Humans do not have a period of being in heat. Should one therefore assume that evolution has empowered the homosapien to continue with perpetual animalistic behaviour, and the true test is the amount of value-laden acts that manage to supercede pleasure? However, experiencing pleasure is a human boon; animals do not feel it, except perhaps as relief, much as scratching an itch.

When we read about instances of humans and animals, the preference seems to be for what might broadly be the canine and bovine family. There is rarely an instance of sex with simians, who are closest to us. Is there a ‘morality’ embedded in unnaturalism, where this would be deemed as incest?

Also, would we be able to stretch attraction to pets where the sexual act might never occur but the affection is a compensatory aspect, and indeed the nuzzling, caressing, licking are not too far from human foreplay? These do not worry us, or even cross our minds, because there is a clear demarcation in our ethical paradigm. Bestiality is when the lines blur. A human having intercourse with an animal is termed bestial. We refuse to see it from the animal perspective. Surely, we could not term it ‘humanistic’. And we do not even care much about it. That probably explains how eveolved we are, for we can take control of our acts and how we choose to see them, as also the moral dimension we give it.

“Evil powers” are blamed. Men have used such evil powers against other humans too. In fact, in the animal kingdom, there appears to be more equality in sexual encounters. There may not be long-term relationships, but the act itself is not confined to the male prerogative to ‘take’. In the human context, women who are adventurous may be exciting, but they are termed “wild” by their partners too. Even a progressive man would not fail to notice the uninhibited passion. It is, therefore, seen as a departure from what is common human conduct.

Recently, a 750-year-old stone tablet was discovered in Vasai, a far suburb of Mumbai, that suggests a woman had copulated with a donkey. 

The Times of India report quotes historian Shridatta Raut, of Kille Vasai Mohim, who chanced upon the tablet:

“The stone dates back to the era of the Shilahara kings, who ruled Vasai around 1,000 years ago. It bears a few lines in Sanskrit that we are trying to decipher. Years of exposure to the elements and accumulated dirt have blurred the inscription, but we have read a series of ‘Shri Shri Shri Shri’, which shows that the tablet must have been commissioned by a senior courtier or perhaps a Brahmin. The stone bears an image of a donkey copulating with a human female, perhaps threatening transgressors that a similar fate would befall their women should their menfolk ignore the warning.” 

This suggests that not only did humans a few centuries ago use women for procreation, but were not averse to the idea of bestiality as punishment. The female as wartime booty had become a fairly common occurrence. This ‘tradition’ continues. What is deemed as repugnant has been legitimised as machismo. For the male, woman is property is used to protect other property.

Is it much different from animals marking their territory?

© Farzana Versey

Rumours, News and Selective Probity

 
If it is gossip, then the consequences can be damning. It is about two powerful people. Hina Rabbani Khar is Pakistan’s foreign minister. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is seen as the political heir of the Pakistan People’s Party. A Bangladeshi tabloid splashed a story about their affair. Besides an 11-year-age gap, she is married with two kids.

The Indian mainstream media, as well as non-mainstream avenues, have highlighted this bit of news. Hindustan Times front-paged it.

I do not see how it is any different from carrying a story on former Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s CDs or the daily dose of scandals, which include intimate medical updates.

The media has quoted from the story in the tabloid.

The Blitz mentions a greeting card Hina sent Bilawal on his birthday with a hand-written message: “The foundation of our relations is eternal and soon we shall be just ourselves.”

Despite Zardari’s tough stand, Bilawal is said to be adamant on going ahead with his plan to marry Hina. The tabloid claimed that Bilawal has even threatened to resign as President of PPP.

The Bangladeshi publication has been called “sleazy”. Had it talked about new terror training camps in Pakistan, do you think we would have seen it as suspect? It would be given the status of evidence. There is a platonic tone to the article, unlike what the tabloid press in the UK indulges in. Incidentally, Prince Harry’s nude pictures story as well as Kate Middleton’s did make it to our front page as news items.

Therefore, the Hina-Bilawal one is nothing to get stuffy about. While it is true that Indians will make a meal of anything Pakistani, do we accord similar respect to a Veena Malik or a Shoaib Akhtar? Why, a while ago there were rumours about Asif Ali Zardari’s affair with a lady in Canada. Bilawal’s own outings in London were splashed as news.

If a publication uses improper language or passes moral or any sort of judgement on this, then one may question it. Right now, we have a situation where the social media that invariably spills over into mainstream media is now judging the probity of such a move. Some well-known names have been repeating the story, only to say how wrong it is, not to forget even tagging Bilawal so that he knows that they are against it.  Does it not amount to wanting to be on the right side? Had both the individuals not been in positions of power, would the attitude be the same?

Recall how Imran Khan’s love child as well as Jemima Khan’s affair with Hugh Grant later became big news. If the current rumoured affair is a personal matter – and obviously it is – then we need to ask whether the media should continue to carry stories about industrialists’ families or actors and their private lives. I am talking about those that are on the front page where dirty linen is washed, property disputes, sex change, amount of belongings robbed, everything is delineated in disgusting detail.

We seem to get this call of the conscience selectively. I remember the insurance company ad with cricketer Yuvraj Singh. He had already shot for it before he went for his cancer treatment, but when it was aired some people found it offensive, insensitive, in bad taste. Now that he is back, the ad has changed. He speaks about surviving. He is as much a part of the game. Where is the recollection of concern over insensitivity now? The same happened when Aishwariya Rai Bachchan put on weight post-pregnancy and the pictures were online. People were full of empathy. “Leave her alone, she is a true mother,” seemed to be the chorus. Had she got back into shape soon after, these same people would have admired her for being a “yummy mummy” instead of letting herself go.

Replace these names with less known ones and they’d be toasted, if not dismissed derisively.

If the Hina-Bilawal story turns out to be true, it will be interesting to watch the reactions. I’d also like to see if there will be any op-eds doing a ‘sociological take’ on the matter of “privacy”. Therefore, everyone is culpable of adding to what they dismiss.

If it is false, or denied, the Bangladeshi tabloid will have to apologise at the very least. There will be theories about who planted it. It is possible that there could be political rivals or even a foreign hand behind it. The stories about the stories will keep the ‘non-story’ alive. 

Born to live-in?

Gujarat has paved the way for legitimate live-in relationships. You don’t have to be in love, but if you are looking for a mate in your later years the Vina Mulya Amulya Seva (VMAS) has the option for you. On Sunday, they organised a “Senior Citizen Live-in Relationship Sammelan”. 300 men and 70 women attended. Seven couples found what they were looking for and will go on a few dates before they start living together. No wedding ceremony, no legal papers.

“I have all the luxuries in life, but I wanted somebody to share my feelings with and find an emotional connect,” said one of the lucky men whose partner’s needs are simple: to be with “someone whom I can enjoy life with, go shopping and watch movies”. Another 60-year-old male participant said, “At my age, sex is not a consideration. What I need is company, a person with whom I can live with for the rest of my life.”

Why are they not choosing the legal route, then? I also do not like the desexualising aspect. It is a sham. People can enjoy sex for longer and, in fact, this should be kept in mind. Is this just another avenue for people looking for an outlet? A report states:

The organisers would be monitoring the relationship status of the couples in future, and if required, would also make the men make a security deposit to ensure that the women do not get exploited.

Once the woman and man start living under one roof, the role-playing will start. The men will be at an advantage because they may need someone to care for them. The woman can be exploited to look after the house and the grandchildren, if any are living with them. Moreover, chances of him walking away are greater. At this age, how will the woman cope? There is nothing to bind them together. I also do not like the sound of a “security deposit” as though the woman is some object that has to be kept in a vault. Will the organisation arrange for a ‘replacement’ just in case one relationship does not work out?

I understand the loneliness, and how difficult it is to find someone to share so many of life’s pleasures with. This is possibly a good avenue, but I am a bit concerned about the consequences.

Is this radical? I am not too sure. Besides their immediate families, how will their neighbours, friends, relatives react? Will they be seen as spouses or will they be sneered at? How will they explain their status to the young kids in the family? When people of a certain age in our society fall in love and decide to live together there are question marks. Even today, in urban areas among the elite too, the non-marital status is emphasised.

And, indeed, I am curious to know how this sort of gathering did not rile the culture custodians that rough up young people for cuddling up and celebrating Valentines Day, and tears movie posters because ‘it goes against our culture’ and is a westernised import? Why are they behaving as though we are born to live-in? The reason is simple. They delude themselves, quite deliberately, that the people are too old to do anything and the patriarchy is so strong that they believe the poor man will need someone to look after him in his dotage without having to leave anything behind.

- - -

Unstoppable!

Talking about the ‘no sex’ angle, a 95-year-old man is getting tired of his one-year-old son. The bloke is impeding his fun. Ramjeet Raghav of Haryana who became the world’s oldest father last year, said:

"I used to be able to go on through the night, sometimes two to three times a night, and if I got the chance during the day then I would. But now we have our son it's not always possible. We're so tired all the time and there isn't the opportunity.”

But not one to give up and amazingly for a villager quite concerned about his 59-year-old wife Shakuntala’s enjoyment too, he saves up money to pop the V pill.

“I now take a capsule a few times a month so I can go the whole night again. “I'm up, down, up, down, through the night. I don't stop. It makes me feel like our wedding night again. She loves it.”

They don't want any more kids. No beating round the bush here. Straight and simple. I wonder if they have time to do the movies, though. And they sure as hell are emotionally connected if they like the same things. 

Let's dance

People were dancing, some close, some in a frenzy. The cops landed up and arrested them. This was private space in Mumbai, the great metro. Goes against our culture, say the moral police. Encourages unhealthy activities, they continue.

I can understand if they were in the streets or in places that families with young kids frequent.

Anyhow, another case came up for hearing to let the place remain open until late and permit people to dance. The comment by the judges is curious:

“One may think 3 am is too late; others may not. Customers want to dance. Somebody putting their hands up and dancing cannot be objected to. Innocuous dancing can be permitted. As long as nothing obscene or objectionable is happening… If police comes like this, then customers will be afraid.”

This is in a five-star hotel and people are not forced into it. What does putting hands up mean? What if the hands are not up? Is this a call for surrender? Some dances do not need the hands to be up.

Have the cops and those who are concerned about our culture ever objected to drunken street dancing during festivals? What about the ‘eve-teasing’? What about marriage functions? The young do dress provocatively at many of these. Only because it is ethnic clothes, it does not make them less titillating. And the hip swaying even in our kiddie talent contests on TV should tell us that we aren’t really a whitewashed culture.

Dance is an important manisfestation of our culture, anyway. Shiva’s nataraj dance, Krishna’s ras leela, and Menaka’s seduction of sage Vishvamitra are well-known. What about the mad-as-hell dervish moves at Sufi shrines?

I am a bit surprised that while passing the judgement, the bench mentioned that not allowing dancing would be a dampener for tourism. I do not think people from outside come here to dance. This is about us and how the urbanites socialise. The cops, the same cops who have often been caught molesting young girls, need not look beyond their own little dirty minds before they arrest people who are doing so of their own free will. Certain big industrialists have private parties that openly serve drugs. Has anyone heard about arrests there?

I don’t understand why every report mentions ‘dirty dancing’. And, yes, some years ago a television channel had taken shots of a discotheque to serve some voyeuristic purpose.

Dance can be a release or an elevating experience. The gliding on the floor, the meeting of eyes, the touch around the waist, the bend and the curve. It is a beautiful sight. People may lose control, but that happens even when you are not on the dance floor.

The Brotherhood of Hindu-Muslim Clerics

The maulvi says TV is haram. The sadhu says gambling is immoral.

Baba Ramdev and Maulana Madani

Under the skin they are the same, so what tells the mullah apart from the swami? Nothing. If we ignore the outside perception, then it is quite another matter. There is bound to be an Us vs. Them battle for the worse agent of regression. The mullahs win because the way they dress is pretty much how many traditional Muslims dress. The sadhu’s robes are restricted to the ashram community or the occasional flash of saffron donned by political leaders of a religious stripe.

Two recent reports have brought the underlying similarities to light and in fact raises questions about how religion is viewed by those responsible for propagating it. It is interesting that they seem clueless and appear to be more interested in playing god themselves. The media, predictably, plays to the gallery and especially in the case of Muslims tries desperately to get the moderate or liberal faces, though one is not quite certain about the distinction between the moderate and the liberal in this context. It is assumed that the Muslim community is held hostage by the utterings of a handful of mullahs and consolidates such a viewpoint. Curiously, they use other religious figures or scholars of Islam as the voices of reason, quite forgetting that the large populace has no such scholarly knowledge or interest and faith is just one more way to express their beliefs and identities.

This does not suit the Indian media, so you have a screaming headline: ‘TV and cinema are SATAN’S TOOLS’. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind (JUH) chief Mahmood Madani has declared:

“Watching television and cinema are haram. They are the tools of Satan and must be buried as soon as possible.”

This debate has been going on for years. and Madani is right that only such sensational pronouncements are reported. Education and employment reservations may lend themselves to panel discussions, but not quick news stories. The anti-polio stand has fewer takers than the anti-condom stand.

A moot point here is that rarely is there a poser regarding how these maulvis themselves appear on television to promote their version of religion or indulge in political discussions. If television is haram, then what are they doing before the cameras? Why are they using the internet to advise believers about everything from sexuality to health issues?

Maulana Madani on TV

Will the media have the courage to ban these religious authorities and then let us see how their views are made available? It is a mutually-beneficial game they both play, and it reached its absolute nadir when they had the audacity to conduct a kangaroo court on TV in the Gudiya case, where clerics debated about a young woman’s marital fate. How different is it from fatwas and underworld diktats or even regional politicians holding court and dispensing justice?

The progressive mullahs, usually the likes of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, state, “By asking Muslims to boycott television and films, they are Islamising non-Islamic issues.” He goes on to answer his own query: “How many Muslims will listen to them and switch off their television sets?” Precisely. However, what exactly are non-Islamic issues? Islam or any other religion can be applied to any field or behaviour, if the believers want it to be so. There is no reason to drag in Islam at all simply because by doing so such scholars make these issues haram, for to the faithful anything ‘non-Islamic’ will be unacceptable.


Blind devotees do not look at history. They might not even exercise their minds to realise that during the time of the Prophet there were no electronic gadgets. Unfortunately, it is the modern inventions that are projecting regressive views and are responsible for the creation of a standard scapegoat fanatic, when there is fanaticism in every sphere. What does a political scientist mean when he says, “Conservatism is only a step behind fanaticism”? Does fanaticism not base its fervour on the foundation of conservativism? How many liberals are deemed fanatical?

Entertainment is taboo in many societies, yet most of them skirt it by using music and even dance to sing praises of god. The number of shrines that have such performances is evidence of it. The camera-friendly staff members at such mausoleums are ready to entertain celebrities.

The discourse on Islam also ignores the fact that the idea of Satan is not in opposition to god, but to angels. Satan is a flitting character, which is why he has to be hit by stones in a symbolic ritual at Mecca. To grant Satan the ability and right to influence the gullible is itself wrong.


The Biblical connotation is a curious intrusion. It seems to have entered the Hinduism discourse, too. Is there a concept of the seven deadly sins in the religion? It is not even part of pure Christianity and is referred to only in Matthew’s Gospel. But a code of conduct has been promulgated for the priests in Karnataka to stay away from such sins. It states:

“Archakas (priests), who give prasada and teertha to devotees, should be above board. They should be free from sapta vyasanas (seven sins) so as to maintain the sanctity of the profession. We are also bringing in an amendment saying that priests should know vedic mantras or shlokas related to rituals of temples where they work, without which they can be disqualified.”

They must also not indulge in gambling, smoking, immoral sex and cannot take the money deposited in the hundis, which will go to the temple account. Why are these not seen as regular laws by the Temple Boards rather than sins? There have been instances where priests have indulged in some or all of these acts, but they usually operate from their own or smaller ashrams. One of the clauses in the amendment is rather surprising – priests should be free from virulent or contagious diseases. How can they lose their jobs over this? They may not perform certain rituals that might affect the gathering, but they are not to blame.


One might ask how it is possible to extricate morality from religion when the former is based on the belief system. This is largely true. However, the concept of sinning also has the convenient proviso of penance, so religious authorities might sin and find an exit through penance. This luxury is not as easily granted to the ordinary person, who often has to use dubious middle-men to cleanse themselves. Swami Nityanand is a case in point. Despite the videos where he was captured in compromising positions with his female devotees, he had audaciously organised a havan to purge himself.

Mata, Vidya and the cellphone

The sins also reveal that the activities mentioned are indulged in and this is across religions. Do the priests indulge in them due to lack of entertainment or because of their exposure to it? Access to the world and to religion itself has become dependent on such means. Why do pirs and sadhus advertise their ‘wares’? Why do they conduct nikaahs or hold pujas over the internet? Are they not aware that other ‘immoral’ websites are just a click away? If technology is haram or exploits religion, then before preaching to the public, the clerics should take the first step and refuse to use it. There was this photograph of actress Vidya Balan with Mata Amritanandmayi who is apparently blessing someone on her cellphone in a Page 3 moment. Aren’t these instances of commercialisation of religion where every scripture-reading session by some ‘devi’ or ‘maulvi’ is a sponsored event and the happening crowd that has suddenly discovered their roots gets into designer stupor?

The media will not highlight these, at least not to expose the farce. It needs the fanatics and it needs the liberals and they have to be on two sides fencing. This is prime-time faith, where even invoking of god’s name is TRP-driven.

(c) Farzana Versey

A Bloody Nose for Bloomers?

A couple of days after he had drawn women’s undies, Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi looked like someone back from battle.

The two events may not be connected, but it is interesting to find some connection.

Milan, December 13: At a political rally the PM is left with a fractured nose, two teeth knocked off and bloody cuts on his lips after a man hurled a miniature replica of Milan’s gothic cathedral at him.

After the attack

Brussels, December 11: At a meeting to discuss climate change, the Italian premier draws women’s inner wear and passes the papers around to other heads of state. It causes some embarrassment, some anger and some amusement.

The Daily Mail shows a sample of Victorian underwear

For a moment, imagine you are a world leader attending such a high-level meeting to discuss climate change. The pieces of paper have doodles that include the Egyptian loin cloth, Victorian bloomers, French satin panties, thongs, G-strings.

What would you do?

I think I'd see it as a symbolic representation of how women coped not only with social mores but also with how they chose to cover up intimate parts of their body. It might seem like stretching it a bit, but from the warm Egyptian clime to the cold English one, the way these undergarments were worn does give inkling into the climate.

As a moral issue, one could ask two questions:

1. Why did he choose women’s wear and not men’s? It is simple. He is not interested in men and men as nurturers of the womb of the earth do not have any totem value.
2. Does it become a head of state to indulge in such flippant gestures? It does not, but he could have sketched and not passed them around and then it would have been a secret and they’d imagine he was deeply interested in the talks that were taking place. Ethically, to mislead is wrong. It is quite probable that he was merely revealing the complete uselessness of such summits, and if it comes from someone who is rich and powerful, then it does send out the signal that the world needs to look deeper (and no pun this) instead of merely talking heads.

I am quite certain that were he asked to draw his own underwear he would have gladly done so.

How does it in any way connect with his bloodied face later? Some people were shouting out calling the PM a clown. Clowns are laughed at by people who see them as entertainment or for being silly. They are not seen as vicious enough to be physically harmed.

Was the man who lunged at him a moralist? He has been described as someone who has a history of mental health problems. It could be that he does not like Berlusconi’s politics. It could be that he does not approve of the scandals his PM is involved in. It could be that news of his drawing those thongs and things really was the final straw and he used a Biblical image, that too a medieval one rooted deeply in a spiritual union with god.

He did not use a camera tripod, the way another attacker had done several years ago when Berlo was less tainted.

In both instances the instruments made a pointed statement, and were phallic symbols, if one may say so.