What Makes Premji a ‘Muslim tycoon’? Can we see his philanthropy without religious blinkers?

Right said, Premji? Pic: The Telegraph

Azim Premji is the right type of man. India deserves every bit of him and his contribution, both as entreprenueur and philanthropist.

Therefore, when he announced recently to give more, it sounded just right:

“I strongly believe that those of us who are privileged to have wealth should contribute significantly to try and create a better world for the millions who are far less privileged.”

No one can have a problem with this. However, it raises two issues.

• Did he have to sign up with the ‘Giving Pledge’ group, co-founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? I have discussed my reservations about this sort of philanthropy earlier. It is his money, his country, his concerns. Globalising it obscures intent, if not action. He is right that education is the way forward. Unfortunately, there appears to be an increasing move for ‘quality’ education, ignoring the massive illiterate ‘market’.   

• Is it necessary to make him into a showpiece of a community? There is a difference between keeping a low profile and not being proactive. It is indeed commendable that he does not flash his faith (a luxury he has, incidentally, because money has no religion), but what about the desperation by others to thrust it on him, and for him to do the proper secular thing?

I will have to reproduce in entirety the piece I wrote in 2007 in Counterpunch as a response to the execrable interview in Wall Street Journal. Azim Premji may be “The Bill Gates of India” (which tells us more about our foreign obsession than globalisation), but even the international media will sell his story tagged with religion:

Is Azim Premji really the world’s richest Muslim entrepreneur? Is there a list which mentions the richest Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Christian, Scientologist, atheist, Rastafarian?

Unlikely. At least nothing that would make the Wall Street Journal want to give it front page legitimacy. Talking of legitimacy, surely we are talking about legitimate enterprise, for the underworld and the mafia, Muslim or otherwise, are flush with money. In all likelihood, they are investors in the big companies.

Mr. Premji heads Wipro, India's third-largest IT exporter. Its fortune rests at $17 billion. I like rich people. But this gentleman is not just rich; he has been saddled with baggage. And the newspaper goes out of its way to prise it open by saying that he defies all conventional wisdom about Islamic tycoons - he does not hail from the Persian Gulf and does not wear his faith on his sleeve.

Where did the term ‘Islamic tycoon’ come from? What is unconventional about not wearing your faith on your sleeve? Is it even important to discuss?

Of course, it is. Imagine the world we are living in. Azim Premji has to be displayed as the nice guy – no beard, well-fitted suit, an amiable demeanor, likeable. He might have been a crass bore with filthy lucre, the Tom Cruise type who had to jump on an Oprah Winfrey sofa to declare his love for a Kate to become interesting. Mr. Premji has been given a moment quite unlike that cheesy one. He has been profiled (and do pardon the pun) in an article titled, “How a Muslim Billionaire Thrives in Hindu India”.

I am an Indian and have always lived in the country of my birth. It is not a Hindu nation. It may have a majority of Hindus, but then it has a majority of illiterates. Why wasn’t the report called, “How a literate billionaire thrives in illiterate India”? There are many such potential headlines I may offer, but I should hope the point has been made.

This ‘Muslim billionaire’ has thrived because he had a family business to start with. He had money to get a decent education and he had the spirit of enterprise. Hindu India did not contribute to these, neither did Muslims. It is an individual achievement.

It is unfortunate that Muslims are being made accountable for aspects of life that would under normal circumstances not identity them with religion.

Yaroslav Trofimov, the writer of the article, says, “Yet, to many in India's Muslim community, Mr. Premji's enormous wealth, far from being inspiring, shows that success comes at a price the truly faithful cannot accept. They resent that Mr. Premji plays down his religious roots and declines to embrace Muslim causes – in a nation where people are pegged by their religion and where Hindus freely flaunt theirs.”

What price has Mr. Premji had to pay? He has quietly gone and made a success of his business. There is no resentment against his hesitation to talk about his Muslim identity, and no Muslim social organisations are dependent on his largesse.

What is resented is the fact that in a country where most of the 150 million people of the community are ghettoized, the likes of Premji are touted as examples of Hindu tolerance. This just does not wash. It is most patronizing, and a huge insult to those who do make a decent living but are tagged in ways that are negative simply because they lack the visibility of a high-profile profession. On any given day there will be a handful of Muslims taken out of the celebrity closet to reveal the mothballed magnanimity of the majority community.

No one wants Premji to stand up and be counted. But there is no reason for him to play along with this secular sham, and he has been doing so for a while. He said in an interview to the paper, “We have always seen ourselves as Indian. We've never seen ourselves as Hindus, or Muslims, or Christians or Buddhists.”

The report further states, “Mr. Premji has mentioned his Muslim background so rarely in public that many Indian Muslims don't even know he shares their heritage. None of Wipro's senior managers aside from Mr. Premji himself are Muslims. The company maintains normal working hours on Islamic high holidays.”

This does not sound like a report in a respected newspaper but something straight out of a pamphlet. What heritage are we talking about? Is there one Muslim heritage? His last name could well be Hindu as his roots are in Gujarat. What is so heart-warming and significant about not working on Islamic holidays? Does it become news when many Hindu-owned companies celebrate religious festivals with a puja (prayer) and in fact during Diwali (that is an unabashed ode to the goddess of wealth) people even offer prayers to account books? Is it news that this includes Muslim entrepreneurs? What is the purpose behind such a statement? And why is it surprising considering that most of the 70,000 employees of Premji’s company are non-Muslim?

These are devious little tricks. No one mentions good old Adnan Khashoggi and his cruise liners in which the international high and mighty had fun vacations.

Isn’t there a mean between riding the Islamophobia and secular waves? The latter is as ridiculous as Mohamed al Fayed screaming about being discriminated against by British society because of his religion.

Azim Premji is a thriving businessman in the globalized world he keeps talking about. A globalized world that is unwilling to dignify him as just another wealthy guy and has to mention his religion not just in passing but as the very crux of his defiance – a defiance that is as imaginary as other stereotypes.

He says with what appears to be an element of arrogance, “All our hiring staff are trained to interview in English. They're trained to look for Westernized segments because we deal with global customers.”

Indeed. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians are doing rather well for themselves, and they don’t go around kowtowing to some colonial mentality that talks about English in such a fashion. He mentions that most Muslims are educated in Urdu. Perhaps he might like to check the statistics that say Urdu is a dying language. Perhaps he might like to sponsor some schools for Muslim children; he can do so incognito so that his secular credentials are safe. Perhaps he might like to know that even madrassas these days use his computers, so it is entirely possible they are cracking codes on them. Perhaps he might like to not even entertain questions about his Muslim identity. He is rich enough to afford to say, “No comments”. That is true liberation.

However, being called a Muslim tycoon is like being addressed as a hot Eskimo. And who doesn’t like a touch of oxymoron?

Are we grown up enough to accept him without strings attached and our baggage of expectations and stereotypes? Why does he or anyone need to do something specifically, and self-consciously, secular to prove their nationalistic stripes?

---
Update Query: Wonder why I forgot to add here that among all the industrialists who sang paeans and promised and were promised a rose garden during Narendra Modi's 'Vibrant Gujarat Summit', Azim Premji was not around. He is or Gujarati origin and interested in development. What made him stay away? A point that needs to be noted. 

Veena, the Mufti and Berlusconi

This is not about Pakistan, yet the Pakistani media is going into overdrive about a starlet and creating a scene far worse than the reality show Bigg Boss. As is the pattern now, Veena Malik was pitted against a cleric on a TV discussion. Aren’t there other kinds of people in that country?

Mufti Abdul Kawi called her immoral. What did anyone expect? Forget the maulvi, most people here in India thought she was going a bit out of line, and we are not talking about just Muslims. She was the only one who engaged in this sort of behaviour. On the show with the Mufti, she cast aspersions on the Indian contestants and how they abused her, and this included the women. “Where was the Pakistani media then?” she asked. Indeed. They were watching from the sidelines, enjoying the show, cackling away, so that when she finally came out and was, as expected, pulled up by the fundamentalists, they could then rush to rescue her for ‘taking on the maulvi’. Wah, wah.

This is the country where even the liberals question the classical dancer, actress and activist Sheema Kermani and think she is a bit of a drama queen when she mentions the law against her performances, but they will lend their support to Veena Malik. Why was she on the show? She says she was asked to contest because of her bravery. What gallantry award has she received? Had she done anything that might be considered courageous?

She says she was representing herself as an entertainer and whatever she did were tasks as per the show’s format. One would like to question the producers of the programme that if these were tasks, then why was there a huge ruckus in India to change the timings and since they wanted it to be on prime time they decided not to carry certain footage?

The maulvi was, of course, a strange creature and was probably selected precisely because of that. He kept addressing her as ‘sister’ and mentioning her ‘husn’ (physical charms). According to her, in Islam a man cannot cast a second glance at a woman and he ought to be punished. Taaliyaan from the gallery of front-bench liberals. Little do they realise that this is buffering the image of a country that would then need to stop all entertainment activity and this might involve keeping the madrassas away from regular education and access to the internet and the outside world. Her constant use of ‘alhamdollilah’ and her fibs just did not work. In fact, the emphasis should have been on her single relevant poser to the cleric that he should first look into how the maulvis behave and the prevalence of rape within the religious bodies. This was the most important point.

It is stupid to tell us that she offered the namaaz and even Ashmit Patel did so. Honestly, it is a fact that such namaaz by a non-Muslim has no currency and when Ashmit spoke he said that it is similar to yoga asanas and he respects all religions and wanted to know what it feels like and that night he slept peacefully. What does all this mean? I am sorry but a lot of other things can have the same effect.

And, please, she should just shut up before telling people that Salman Khan said it was because of her that people in India had started talking in Urdu. Get over it. He might have made a passing comment because she kept using the term ‘meri zaat’ which her co-participants mistook to be ‘religion’ when it meant ‘identity’. What Urdu was she speaking, anyway? She was practising her English.

One of the points that came up was regarding her drinking champagne at a post show party. Without as much as blinking, she said it was sparkling water!

If she could stand up for the ‘tasks’ at Bigg Boss, then why did she not stand up for this? After all, while she was happily giving examples of other Pakistani women who walk the ramp in fashion shows and actresses who kiss – things that she would never do, effectively making them seem less honourable – this too is what many Pakistanis enjoy. And just by the way, since she kept alluding to chauvinism: “Kyon ki main ladki hoon” (because I am a girl), did it not strike her that the others are women too? It isn’t that they have never faced problems. Why, even people in other professions face these questions.

It is time for Pakistan to have its own version of the show because Veena Malik’s ‘taking on the cleric’ has made Pakistan look like a country that badly needs a veil over such asinine antics.

- - -

Silvio Berlusconi may be booted out of power because of the sex scandal regarding his township of women on call, but some of the stuff that is seeping out is pretty much unbelievable.

Nadia Macri, a prostitute who went to a police station in Milan to give a statement, in which she revealed that after sharing a swimming pool with an allegedly nude prime minister and five or six other girls, she watched as he headed for a room used for massages.

“After a bit, he said: ‘Next one. Next one’. And every five minutes we opened the door and had sexual relations. One at a time,” the Guardian quoted her as saying.

I am not sure what she means by ‘sexual relations’ here. Every five minutes? Are the Guinness guys listening? Imagine the pressure on men the world over who roll over and wait for thawing time.

Not to worry. I suspect he’d call the girls in and say, “La Dolce Vita”, pat them on the bottom like good Italians do and send them off to spin a yarn.

Obama Talkin'

Mr. President why do you say you have a funny name?

“Well, they think so.”

How do you know?

“I mean the place where I was senator is called Illinois, so what do you expect?”

Then aren’t they the funny ones? Or shall we say 'ill' and 'annoy'ing?

“They are projecting.”

So, are you a Muslim?

“Moslem, Moslem, that’s how we say it here, with a zee sound and an ‘o’, like Mozambique.”

Were you born in Kenya?

“I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.”

It isn’t about your birth certificate but your roots.

“That would be Hawaii.”

Hawaii is a place, but your origin, your ancestry is more than that.

“Is it? I thought I talked about change. Change means getting out of the old.”

But you are still following Bush’s agenda. You are still in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Maybe it is the Muslim in you.

“Those are just rumours. I don’t believe that Pew Research Centre poll."

That 18 per cent Amercians think you are Muslim. What’s wrong with that?

“The facts are the facts. So, it’s not something that I can I think spend all my time worrying about. I don’t think the American people want me to spend all my time worrying about it.”

But you are tetchy about it.

“You know, there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly. We dealt with this when I was first running for the US senate. We dealt with it when we were first running for the Presidency.”

At that time you called yourself Barack Hussein Obama.

“I did?”

Yes. You even swot a fly in a TV studio.

“Yeah, that must have been a conspiracy. Like this survey.”

There will be several factors that surveys may throw up; that you like broccoli, you look good without your shirt on, you need to get out of Afghanistan. These are a part of your identity. So why does that 18 percent make you dodgy?

“If I spend all my time chasing after that then I wouldn’t get much done.”

All those drones to be managed. Swimming along the Gulf Coast. You are indeed a busy man.

“Yeah, it ain’t easy bicycling in Martha’s vineyard, too.”

I can imagine. Not when they think you know Martha.

Beyond Ayodhya's property dispute

What judgement can they pronounce on the Ayodhya case when it is now referred to as the “60-year-old Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi title suit”? 18 years ago it was just the Babri Masjid, a mosque that was demolished with the connivance of the political leaders. Just as it supposedly was several hundreds of years earlier by the Mughals. They were conquerors, as I have to point out each time I write about this. The people who called for its demolition in 1992 were our own politicians in our own democracy.

The judgement to be announced on September 6 will be about the piece of land. The media has one more topic to create fear and then try to assuage the dread. Since the Vishwa Hindu Parishad held a core meeting in July, some fellow from the Helal Committee and a tea stall owner, one Muslim, one Hindu (cute) are afraid because when that happened in 1992, there was also a four month gap. Are these guys calculators?

Then there are cops stationed outside and someone “lowers his voice” and says they were there the last time too! They have been there all these years, the site has been fenced. What do they expect? It has nothing to do with judgement day but the way things have been.

To make the event more interesting in what the TOI refers to as the ‘temple town’ – could someone tell me how many temples are there and how many are regularly visited as pilgrim sites? – we have the sadhus enter the fray:

Recently, Ayodhya woke up to another high drama—this time a non-stop recitation of Hanuman Chalisa, 11 times in 121 temples, to mark the official launch of the Hanumat Shakti Jagran Anushthan—a four-month long saffron jamboree to “awaken the somnolent Hindu pride”. “Lord Hanuman, say scriptures, needs to be reminded of his might now and then. He tends to be quite oblivious of his true potential,” says Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, the burly head of Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

Sitting in the Maniram Chhavni, a sprawling marble fortress amid a bevy of guntotting security men, the mahant insists it is purely an apolitical and religious affair. “We are seeking His intervention to rehabilitate Ramlalla, and no offence meant to anyone,” he said with a smile.

They have every right to do their recitation, but why does a man of god need gun-toting security men? How is it apolitical when the idea is to rehabilitate the idol, which was a political act? Is Hindu pride dependant on such recitations and how will it get awakened? Why does Lord Hanuman have to be reminded of his might now? And why does he have to intervene when the case is in the courts and there is no Sita to be saved, for the marauders were the ones using the name of Hanuman’s hero, Ram?

Whatever the court verdict, and I hope politicians stay out of it and not make political capital, it will help the vote banking parties, and they run across the spectrum. I am not particularly concerned about who gets the property. And I hope Muslims just accept the judgement on it. The mosque has gone.

However, no Indian citizen should permit anyone to take charge of the site until those who were responsible for the demolition and the engineered riots and deaths are punished. Not a single individual must go scot-free. Not the cops, not the politicians, not the bureaucrats, not the religious leaders, not the lumpen elements who can be identified.

And make sure that the compensation monies are paid with interest for all these years when people have been at the mercy of the Establishment. This was not separatists; they were people who get elected and who in fact came to power after this. They are paid to look after our interest and to protect every citizen. If citizens commit any crime, there is a judicial process where they must be tried.

Just in case these leaders forget, they happen to be citizens of India too and they darn well be treated like us.

Abstinence and egotism

Now that we know Muslims can just do it, courtesy Junoon’s Salman Ahmad, how are believers to manage abstinence? You forsake food, water and other bodily needs for a month and transform into a seraph rather than a siren or a rake.

This sort of austerity is disturbing. On a trip to a Muslim country I was told that even stores that stock pork products to cater to their foreign clientele would continue to do so but behind curtains; the same applies to restaurants in malls where they put up a screen. It is utterly debasing. Why must people who want to eat be made to feel guilty? Do Muslims who stay away from food spare a thought for the jobless in shanties lying on cardboard sheets on stone floors, for whom going hungry is not a matter of option?

It isn’t only about Islam. Hinduism too loves good abstainers. Each day is designated for a god and people fast depending on which deity makes their tummies rumble the most. Christianity relies a great deal on suffering. Mother Teresa’s emphasis on a beautiful death denied people medical facilities. Let us not forget the irony of holy men who perform miracles that produce Rolex watches out of thin air! The Jain devotee who wishes to get initiated into sainthood has to pull out each hair from his head. Years ago when a diamond merchant’s son decided to give up the material life, his family spent crores of rupees on the celebrations and threw precious stones along the route. No one thought of building a hospital or a school. Self-denial is desperate for an immediate halo.

I am not dismissing the believer’s need to follow rituals, but why make a public display of it? Just as flaunting ostentation is déclassé, making a show of abjurance is equally gauche and rather hypocritical if you have a post-sunset a la carte menu. Look around at discussion boards where there is much talk about appropriate cohabitation timings. In this context, Salman Ahmad’s ideas easily qualify him to be a televangelist advising people on how the religion is “good, awesome and great”. His film called Islam sexy. The contextual explanatory analogy is weird: “Westerners talk about ‘Africa being sexy’ to dispel the commonly held image of a region and a people who are mired in pandemic diseases like HIV and Aids, extreme poverty, despair and violence. It’s a way of showing the other side of Africa just as I’m trying to show another side of Islam which is tolerant, thought-provoking and modern.”

If westerners refer to Africa as sexy, they are sick to the bone, the bones of the poor Africans they capitalise on. This is what happens when you use the paradigm of religious and cultural beauty and sell it to the Occident. We can be amused by such flaccid attempts for they posit themselves against cruel fundamentalists. Given that human beings do not lead uniform lives, these guys can turn around and justify perversions too. Despicable as it may sound, we have instances of human sacrifice and virgin blood being offered in several faiths to appease gods. Denying one person dignity and life is used to add to another’s potency — sexual or as power play.

Gandhi, who mastered the art of abstinence, had the luxury of publicly ‘experimenting with truth’. The point is: were those at the receiving end mere guinea pigs? It is worth ruminating that each time we deny ourselves something, it is a choice we make that most cannot. Abstinence is, therefore, just a bonsai version of indulgence.

- - -

Published in Express Tribune, August 10, 2010

Star-crossed Borders

Star-crossed Borders
by Farzana Versey

Inside the well-rounded cosmopolitan atheist persona of Shujaat Rizvi, there was a Pakistani nationalist and Islamist waiting to come out.

I turned out to be the catalyst, unfortunately, for this ‘homecoming’. Today, when I sound a bit wary about cross-border alliances, I have reason to believe that even if you share a faith, the political dimensions leap out like dragons.

Sania and Shoaib’s saga became a matter of precarious acrobatics; there are many others that cannot even venture into the circus arena as static cable wires, phone lines and meetings die slowly. More importantly, they bring out certain prejudices that we do not know we possess. Our earlier conversations about Sartre and Sinatra came unhinged as it soon turned into a battle of, and for, national and religious identity.

The day I landed in Islamabad, Shujaat decided to take me for dinner. We sat across from each other, a flickering candle between us. It was a mellow moment. “Would you have ever married a Pakistani?” he asked.

We were not young. I was newly single, hammering the nail on the coffin of a marriage gone wrong; he was a confirmed bachelor.

I had never thought about people as countries, but apparently that baggage had gone along with me. “Perhaps...” I muttered, afraid even of hypothesis.

“It is easy to get you a Pakistani passport and even an ID card. All that can be arranged.”

“I said I did not mind marrying a Pakistani, I did not say I would live in Pakistan.”

“This is a better place. You can walk with your head held high. You don’t have to suffer during communal riots. This is an Islamic country. There is no pretence.”

He was curious about the Muslim women in India. When I told him about the relative freedom of movement, at least among the urban, educated woman, and cross-religious alliances, he flared up. “I do not think Indian Muslims can get equal status by marrying their women to Hindu men. It is nauseating to imagine...”

He could not understand that relationships were not based on religion. “With such westernised and modern views, do not tell me that the man would say Islamic prayers before, after and during their intimate moments.”

Shujaat’s knowledge of this aspect was based on biased news and stereotypes, mine on experience. His prism only showed him a Muslim utopia. Was this about the scriptures or nationalities?

“If you don’t have a problem about nationalities, then why would you not live in Pakistan?” he queried.

“I cannot live even in America.”

“I think your attachment to your country is like a bad habit. Like smoking it can cause cancer. I am sure Muslims in your country would feel the same.”

It was a curious exchange at many levels – he appeared to be testing me personally and politically. Rather than a candlelight dinner, it seemed like Roosevelt’s fireside chat to his people via radio.

He had been active in student politics and his ideological leanings were leftist. He was clear that if he married an Indian, they would have to live in a Muslim country. It surprised me, for he was educated in the West and had worked outside too. In fact, during his stay in the US, he came close to getting involved with an Indian woman.

“Not just an Indian woman, but a Brahmin one. There was this desire to have an affair, a short affair.”

“So, would you not become impure?” I asked, since he often alluded to my cultural impurity.

“This would not be about love but hate. It is like war. You don’t love the land you occupy.”

This was territorial, whichever you looked at it – geographically or psychologically. We drifted apart, never to meet again, characters leaving the stage empty for more biases to resound.

- - -

This is my column in The Express Tribune, Pakistan, dated April 17. It was a special exception after the first Guns and Lollipops, which they wanted for the launch issue on Monday, April 12. My scheduled column day is Tuesdays.

They omitted to add the following footnote in the current column, at least in the Net edition:

Some portions in this piece are from my book ‘A Journey Interrupted: Being Indian in Pakistan’.

- - -


Results of the blog poll:

Are cross-cultural marriages...

A political statement - 3%; A secular statement - 10%; A chance to discover another culture - 17%; A recipe for disaster - 10%; If not planned, then just 2 like-minded people getting together - 53%; Why marry when you can be a tourist or commentator?! - 21%

The Halal Question

Culinary Communalism
The Halal Question
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, February 19, 2010

Let us not confuse matters. France’s problem with the veil is different from its problems with restaurants serving only halal meat. The veil is being banned on grounds of not being part of the mainstream and carving a separate niche. The argument against the restaurants is discrimination against the majority.

Quick, a Belgium-based chain, has gained popularity in France. Burgers are stuffed with smoked beef instead of pork. The mayor of Roubaix, a small town, said, “It’s very good that a restaurant like Quick offers halal (meat), but why get rid of what there is everywhere else? The fact that they do not offer other choices to non-Muslim clients is not acceptable.”

Has the mayor not heard about speciality restaurants? Would he have the same problem with sushi bars, vegetarian eateries, stores that sell organic foods, bakeries with only brown bread and sweets that are sugarless or eggless? Has it not become the norm to find new ways to market cuisine by emphasising that the place has only a certain kind of menu or even ambience? What about the Heart Attack Grill in Arizona built like a hospital that has cardiac arrest inducing burgers and provides wheelchairs to its clients as an after-meal incentive? Or the one in Japan that has toilet seats? What about picking a fresh piscine from a tank and open kitchens where you can watch the fish breathing its last just before it is brought to the table? We can take the argument even further – about places that offer only one kind of music, a limited wine list or are alcohol free.

Societies develop their own culinary culture that may be frowned upon by others, whether it is certain insects in the Far East or restaurants in Africa that serve game in what might be termed hunter style. How about a table with a hole where a monkey’s head has been cut off and the diners pick on bits of brain as it is cooked slowly? How about several parts of animals that are marketed as aphrodisiacs?

All these will be explained in terms that are politically correct or wonderfully chic. The problem with halal meat is that it is lawful according to the Quran only if the animal is bled to death and slaughtered in the name of Allah. No one protests as they have their probiotic meals in the name of bacteria or bothers to understand that several Indian restaurants that serve strictly vegetarian food first offer a bit to the gods.

These are cultural nuances and as long as you do not have to watch the process, and are assured of its goodness for your palate, there ought not to be any problem. Halal meat is not restricting others and it is not as if the French were waiting for this chain to open and are now disappointed. The motives are clear; no one is being cheated. You enter with the knowledge of what you will get.

Therefore, it is a bit surprising that the agriculture minister, Bruno Le Maire, is making it into an issue: “When they remove all the pork from a restaurant open to the public, I think they fall into communalism, which is against the principles and the spirit of the French republic.”

Communalism is when you force your thoughts on others. In my travels I have noticed that many countries in Europe do not understand the concept of vegetarianism. The troubles begin in the aircraft when “no meat” is understood to include fish. Should one accuse them of communalism?

The new French renaissance has a lot to do with the monetary aspect, too. It is a € 5.5 billion halal market catering to five million people, which is the largest Muslim population in all of Europe. A few years ago there was a halal version of Burger King, Beurger King Muslim (BKM) in France. It did not even attempt to look like an Arabic place. It serves an imitation of bacon made from halal turkey meat. This is rather surprising. Why would anyone who does not want anything to do with pig products wish to experiment with something like it? The only explanation is curiosity.

It is unlike some vegetarian restaurants that use soya to mimic meat and one restaurant in Hong Kong has specially created vegetables to look like chicken wings and lamb chops. Is this the grand idea of secularism?

Reports mention about how people drive from long distances just to get a taste of the sort of food they like but with the sanction that their faith permits. Besides the food, BKM also allows its female staff to wear the headscarf. What, then, would be the stance of France’s need to reclaim a national identity when it objects to the veil and yet wants its citizens to have access to a ‘restricted space’? Isn’t it a contradiction?

There are places where you go to experience exotica or the local flavour; it might include putting up with topless waitresses, having tea with yak milk or sitting on the floor. There are the subtle differences in the way cutlery is used or not used at all. I had once visited an institution in Mumbai and lunch was served as per old British traditions, but the meal was Indian. It was a sight to see my host roll his chapatti and use a knife and fork as he dipped it into the gravy as though it were sauce. We were alone in that dining hall, so even if he used his fingers to take bits of the chapatti and spooned the curry it would not have seemed odd. He would have felt perfectly in sync had he chosen to break bread with his hands, though, in a fancy restaurant.

However, amused as I was, I would not consider this as a loss of identity. He was just aping what he thought was modernity, while it was merely a western paradigm. Just as one would not see the West as one whole – the American hanging on to a Mac Whammy might seem a bit gauche to the Frenchman gently prodding quivering crab flesh with a fillet knife.

There are no standardised ways to eat and what to eat. It can be conditioning.

I do not eat pork. There are several other meats I do not eat. But, although I am not a practising Muslim, the reason I do not eat pork is considered a conservative option. The fact that I do not go looking for halal meat places should then make me a liberal. Combined, this may well damn me as a fence-sitter when all I am doing is exercising my choice to eat what I want without offending anyone.

Identity is larger than what you relish on your tongue or let slip off it.

The killing fields within America

Take this. An Army psychiatrist. Frustration. Opposes war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he was being sent off.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is not somebody one would have heard about. Today, as news comes in about him going on a shooting spree at the Fort Hood Texas Army base killing 13 people and wounding 31, his act is being called madness. Not any old madness, but with the subtext of madness with a method to it.

Retired Col. Terry Lee who had worked with him said:

“He would make comments to other individuals about how we should not be in the war in the first place.”

He also made “outlandish” comments:

“He said maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor. At first, we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently, that wasn't the case.”

I am afraid but there are many soldiers and civilians who believe the United States of America should not be in this war. And no American officer would publicly sound so naïve as to suggest that a mental health professional would talk as a Muslim about fighting the aggressor and mean helping the armed forces. What aggression have Iraq or Afghanistan displayed towards the US, until provoked? Their lands are being occupied by outside forces.

If Hasan got poor reviews in his previous posting, had “difficulties” that “required counseling and extra supervision”, why was he in the army?

Texas US Rep. Michael McCaul said that he “took a lot of advanced training in shooting”, and this helped him.

If he had made outlandish comments, had difficulties, and now they say he was a “devout Muslim”, which is enough to brand him, then who permitted him to get this training? What do the rule manuals say about it? Did he get a personal trainer as though this was some private gym?

It is clear that he opposed the wars, that is the reason he fired at his colleagues at the military base shouting out to civilians to move out of the way, something that the US establishment does not do when it uses drones.

His two handguns are said to be not “military-issued”, which raises the question about gun culture.

And what does President Barack Obama have to say?

It's "difficult enough to lose" soldiers in battles abroad, he said, but "it's horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil." The president promised a sweeping investigation of the worst soldier-on-soldier attack ever to take place on US soil.

He might like to consider trying to understand the thinking of his troops. The ones who kill at the army base on US soil or who abuse prisoners in lands they have been sent to under the guise of saviours.

I do hope Maj. Hasan survives (he is on ventilator), appears before the courts and is tried for his crime. There is no doubt about that. It will also open up a few cans of worms for this man dealt with the minds of soldiers. It must have affected him deeply.

The madness lies in the system. He is a cog in the wheel. It is unfortunate that he killed his colleagues. They probably hate the wars as much as he does. Though, one must ask: whose war is it anyway?

Amitabh Bachchan dargah mein haazir ho...

Bachchan at Tirupati with brothers-in-arms Anil Ambani and Amar Singh

We had no idea that Amitabh Bachchan’s religious routine includes visits to dargahs. This is news. How come we never heard about it before? Aww, of course you will say that Mr B is subtle, he does not show off, he is a private person, he is so dignified. Fine. But if his pictures can be taken at temples, then they can be clicked at dargahs too. It is permissible and every celebrity placing a sheet of flowers over a tomb has been photographed, including Shakti Kapoor.

There could be pictures of Mr. B but obviously he did not want them displayed. Wonder why. Incidentally, the Haji Ali Dargah is still being renovated, so it was really some effort on his part to make it there. I understand the sanctum work has only just begun. Never mind such minor details.

Places of worship enjoy such famous devotees and the PR agents make sure their high-profile employers are given the right media coverage. Pandits and maulvis get into the act and feel good cordoning off the place so that the privileged worshipper can pay his respects in a privileged manner. All good.

Now, Mr Private Amitabh Bachchan has revealed that he has been threatened by an anonymous person via text message for visiting a temple and a dargah because it is “incorrect” to do so.

One assumes the person believes he cannot do both and it is tantamount to demeaning one faith. The report mentions visits to two dargahs and two temples in the course of a day. Interestingly, neither the individual nor the recipient mentions any particular reason or the religious belief of the sender. It sounds a bit strange given that fanatics of any faith would make their intentions very clear.

Obfuscation, of course, has its merits, especially to depict bravado:

“I am going to do it again, and shall continue to do it. And I want to see how you are going to stop me. If you have the courage and guts, come and get me,’’ he wrote (in his blog). The man has also warned the actor that his latest film Aladin, which hit the theatres on Friday, will not be successful because of Bachchan’s act of visiting both the dargah and temple.

“If the film has merit, no force on earth will be able to stop its worth. If the film is weak and does not have merit, no force on earth shall be able to make it a success. At the cost of every film of mine failing, I am not going to change my routine,’’ wrote Bachchan.

Aha, so it is a publicity stunt for the film. I knew it, but I wanted to leave this for the last. As I asked earlier, how many times have we heard about this routine of Mr. B? Aladdin, as we know, is an old Arabian legend; in the movie the actor plays the role of the genie. It is amusing that his routine is perfectly timed with the film’s release and is prominently mentioned in the SMS as well as in his response to it. The dargah angle makes complete sense now. How can you have an Arabic setting with a Muslim name and no little stopover at a place of that faith?

Clubbed together with this gimmick is the patented Bachchan self-effacing diversion: The film will succeed on merit and fail if it has no merit. This is just to make sure that a) the believers should throng the theatres, b) if they don't like the film, remember he went to a Muslim shrine too, so spare the Hindu one…okay, I am kidding!

But, someone is really smart.

This angel/genie persona is evident in Bigg Boss 3.

He tries to repeat the Kaun Banega Crorepati stunts with sanskritised Hindi and you almost feel that he is in inquisition mode. This season's show is boring as hell, but when I do catch some action on the day the contestant is voted out and that final salaam, it becomes obvious that the programme has suffered hugely because of him. The participants are aware of his stature and he is aware of his stature.

When he attempts the psychologist act it just does not ring true. Last night he tried it with Sherlyn Chopra and it was worse than a Nirupa Roy cliched tearjerker where he called up her mother and there was a patch-up with the lady referring to him as an angel.

All so darned staged. Understood? Amitabh Bachchan acts as genie and the poor little girl’s wish is granted.

I wish his Bhootnath had released now. It would have been fun to see him disappear. Yeah, that word: Disappear…uhm, King Lear.
- - -

Top image courtesy: Amitabh at Tirupati

Osama says...

Osama bin Laden has sent a message directly to the American people. This time there is no video footage; just an audio with some images. He says:

“The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby. The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine.”

Our land? I think by bringing in Israel he is deflecting the issue and really pushing the anti-Semitism idea, which is counter-productive. The funny thing is while some westerners are not willing to grant Al Qaeda the role of culprit in the attacks, this man wants to be seen as the criminal. Where was the Al Qaeda when America attacked other nations? The Israel lobby has always existed, and Palestine has rarely had support from Arab nations in real terms. In fact, Palestine is different in many ways and has to deal with Israel on a daily basis.

The response from the White House is facile. The press secretary said:

“I don't think it's surprising that Al Qaeda would want to shift attention away from the president's historic efforts and continued efforts to reach out and have an open dialogue with the Muslim world.”

Please. These open dialogues are as good as marshmallows during Halloween. What are these historic efforts? A lot of blah-blah, just like saying racism will end if the Prez has beer with Henry Louis Gates Jr. And Al Qaeda is not in the US. Does a small radio clip have the power to shift attention? Does the ordinary citizen care one bit whether Obama has historic or pre-historic discussions with the Muslim world, whatever the heck that means?

It is time the White House realised that there is no single Muslim world, just as there is not one kind of American. During elections, the red and blue states are clearly divided. So, wake up and smell the Starbucks, which is indeed the great leveller.

The Muslim Factor in Rakhi ka Swayamvar

...and sophomoric feminism

Mainstream liberal privately-owned Indian television slapped the Muslim community. I was expecting it, but not the way it finally happened.

Rakhi with her gift of love

A short background. The reality show Rakhi ka Swayamvar is currently NDTV Imagine’s best-selling prime-time money maker. Rakhi Sawant has to choose from 16 suitors, mimicking the swayamvar of the old days.

There were two Muslim contestants. The first one was booted out on Day One; someone had to be and he was probably not all that good. Fair enough. The other contestant was a police officer from Kashmir. Athar Pervez did not come across as the smartest bloke but he was quiet and fairly dignified.

Last night, they got the TV host’s wife as the bhabhi, a sort of support system for the bride-to-be. Athar met her and said he wanted to confess something. He was already married and had three kids! What the heck is going on? The channel screened the applicants. Did he lie to them? Why was that question not raised?

Instead, there was an attempt to buffer the stereotype of Islam and four wives. The bhabhi looked shocked when he said that his wife and parents knew that he was participating and his wife only wanted him to be happy. When Rakhi was told about it she sniffled and said he was one person she had begun to respect and was thinking of as a potential partner. In a conversation, he repeated what he had said and Rakhi asked him how it was possible for a man to have more than one wife. He told her his religion permitted it but he would not leave his family. She looked at him angrily and shot back, “How can any religion allow it?”…and then went on to give him a lecture on Islam and what the Quran in fact says. (Her version is not completely right.) Pervez Athar may be married, but this was no way to make a point.

Rakhi welcomes Pervez

The point being made here is that now the protagonist of the show can turn around and say that these contestants may all have skeletons in their cupboards or something to hide so, nope, she won’t marry anyone. This bit will come at the end. In all likelihood it is an eyewash, to begin with.

Why do I watch the programme at all? For several reasons. I do watch TV, including soaps. Long before she was legitimised by the posh set of coffee spelled with a K and togged up in designer wear, I had expressed some admiration for her position; I felt there was a hierarchy followed regarding who could strip more and, because she spoke little English and did not belong to the charmed set, she was doomed to be referred to as an item girl. I thought that after her makeover she would still come across as honest even if melodramatic. She is. Pretty much.

I also liked the idea of a swayamvar. This was a practice prevalent in ancient times and some of our epic characters chose their husbands in this manner – be it Sita in Ramayana or Draupadi in Mahabharata. True, these were from royal families and the suitors were naturally from similar backgrounds. In a contemporary setting, it would be an interesting concept and perhaps convey that women have the right to ask questions and be in command.

The first episode had Rakhi welcoming her suitors; each carried a gift. Then there were episodes where she tested them at various levels, and perhaps that will continue. Unfortunately, even though she is the one in charge, she has talked about wanting to live in a joint family. When a buffoon said if he had to choose between a plasma TV and a washing machine he would opt for the latter because he would not want her to wash clothes, she was impressed. Puhleeze…he could bloody well wash them. She also talks about the importance of dal-chaawal over lipstick – now this woman cannot hold her breasts till they are filled with silicone gel, has had every part either pumped up or tucked in, so what is going on? Why can a woman not want the best if she has earned it? Why is she playing this simple girl? Is simplicity only about superficials?

Some of the contestants were students or barely earned any money; she herself implied that a couple of them were looking for fame. Of course, they are.

When the channel announced the show, they reportedly received 15,000 applications. There is one contestant from Toronto. The channel is attempting pop psychology with little games, but this is not anywhere close to a feminist statement. I mean, she dresses in low-cut gowns to convey that this is what she wears and then simpers and asks whether some guy’s family will accept her. She fed a Brahmin vegetarian some meat and he ate it. I know many pure vegetarians and they would throw up. This guy just made a face and then gobbled it up.

As drama, this works at a sophomore level because most of the boys/men are stupid and only want to show themselves on TV. It is obvious. Or they could be besotted by Rakhi.

Pervez Athar said he was. Besides the Islam factor, she also said that she would not want to break up anyone’s home. The fellow is telling her in front of the world that he loves his wife and will not leave his family. Where is the question, then, of breaking up a home?

Pervez Athar

He lives in Srinagar and if his seniors really gave him permission to participate in this, then one must find out what exactly are the rules. Did he show the channel any such report? Before an audience of millions he has been made out to be a liar and a cheat. If the police force wishes to take action against him, it would only be right that the channel is also made culpable. If all this was only for effect, I should hope no organisation issues a fatwa or something. That is precisely what some of these people want. The fact is that Athar said that he loved Rakhi and not her religion so he would not ask her to convert. Therefore, it isn’t a bearded Muslim issue, okay?

It does not take too much intelligence to realise that many of the contestants will have hidden stories and agendas, too. The channel wants the show to be in the limelight. It was Rakhi’s idea and a husband is the last thing she is looking for. This is her spunky attempt at becoming ‘respectable’ or maybe even a naughty take on the bahus in our serials and, who knows, a big kick to her ex-boyfriend. Interestingly, his friend is a contestant; she knew him from before the show. How did the channel permit it?

Meanwhile, I hope today’s episode that will most definitely touch upon the married guy sent packing scene of last night does not repeat the stupid stereotypes. In fact, there ought to be an attempt to apologise, even if all this was stage-managed, which seems very likely. So is the possibility of a fake marriage taking place to save face of the purported motive.

As for the contemporary woman outside TV channels, I think they are doing fine in their offices and homes without dreaming about washing machines and a guy cleaning his dirty linen in it.

Surveying the Indian woman? Rubbish!

Last night I was watching a ‘serious’ discussion as part of the ‘State of the Nation’ surveys conducted by CNN-IBN on women across the country regarding different issues. The topic was ‘Morality and the Indian woman's mind’.

Let me quote one of the participants:

“This agenda of liberation that women have—which has come with financial freedom and changing roles—has made them prisoners of war in confines of morality. They want to free out of that. A prisoner of war is good only when he is free. I am not sure if the survey indicates that (women believe) marriage is a freer of women and live-in relationship enslaves them.”

Good. Except for that huh comment…like when a POW is free s/he ceases to be a POW. And how smart is it to call women prisoners of war…who is at war? No one knows. It just sounded so smashing tough that it made the grade.

This is a so-called ‘modern’ woman. Now let me get to the bottom of it. The survey showed that 48 % of Indians women want a ban on inter-caste marriages and 50 % want a ban on inter-religious marriages.

I would like to know how anyone can ask such a question in a survey at all. Who has given the media groups the right to butt their noses in what would amount to a legal provision? You might say this is hypothetical. Fine. Then, hypothetically the query ought to have been: do you believe in such and such marriages? We are not living in a dictatorship where we can have banning on certain kinds of alliances.

Now comes the ‘let us scrape the surface’ scenario. The above-mentioned modern woman, wearing two strings of pearls with a black outfit, who spoke openly about live-in relationships, about pre-marital sex, said that she would not be comfortable as a Hindu to be married to…uh-huh…a Muslim. Yes, she said it. She also added that she was being politically incorrect, which immediately made her feel veryyyy brave. This is not political incorrectness; it is prejudice. Her reason: The two religions are completely different ideologically. Yeah, sure. Like Hindusim is ideologically the same as Catholicism and Zoroastrianism. Come on now, we can see through this…

So would a Hindu be comfy marrying a Hindu from a ‘backward’ community? Or with less education? Or whose financial status was not good? Or who did not socially fit into one’s idea of an asset? All this because the gods are pretty much in agreement?

Worse, the anchor, known to be liberal who usually baits right-wing politicians, did not counter-question the lady. She just accepted it.

And this sort of nonsensical acceptance is what is passing for debate on television and numbing people’s thoughts.

Can mourning be a celebration?

I have never claimed expert knowledge of Islam or any religion, but I do think I have a fair idea about how faith affects worshippers and vice versa.

Having stated several times that in my family different versions of Islam are practised even within nuclear groups, my experience of Muharram is the tenth day of Ashura, the first month of the Islamic calendar.

What I remember as a child is that in one particular lane they would take out the Tazia. We would go to Maama’s (my mother’s maternal uncle) house. It was an elaborate procession, and I recall the colours of silver and green. There would be dancing. The Tazia became an object of worship and, although I have not witnessed it, I am told that in some parts of the world they also put up petitions on these tableaux.

I have only one question: Does Islam, as practised today (if you forget the paganism of the early Arabs), believe in idol worship? Does this not amount to such idolatry, and this issue has been raised in the Quran: "Worship ye that which ye have (yourselves) carved?" (Quran: Saffat, 3)

This topic has become of some added interest to me these past few days because I hear that a Hindu on a website wished some people “Happy Muharram”; someone also talked about “celebrating Muharram”. This was considered unpalatable. It is another matter that during this solemn period some Muslims were using foul language and addressing people as “Haramzaadon (bastards)” and “achhoot (untouchable)” and far worse. This is the language being used to defend religion. I think Islam can do without it. Anger when it arises out of genuine hurt (as in someone posting pictures of the Quran being flushed down the loo) has a reason.

But do those who are berating ‘outsiders’ for ignorance not realise that their own do in fact celebrate Muharram, and it is considered a “celebration of martyrdom”. Just as Christ’s death on the Cross is a period of mourning, but it returns as a celebration on Easter.

Does one imagine that today, in January of 2008, people are weeping real tears for the martyrdom of Imam Husain, grandson of Prophet Muhammad, who was killed during the battle of Karbala? Mourning is catharsis, and in that it does serve a purpose. Though, it is often that the mourners too become glorified. A young relative would join in the maatam (ritual mourning, often violent) and beat himself with zanjeers (chains). I know him well, and many young men like him had wanted to become a part of something larger. It is a question of identity.

I would say every version of Islam or any religion has a right to exist and how ‘true’ it is is not for believers to decide because belief too is personal. I have said critical things about Hindu gods, as in questioned the role of say Lord Rama versus Sita, and it was done as a purely academic exercise and to question how the faithful could use what happened years ago to justify the aggressiveness of today. By the same token, I do not understand how someone referring to Muharram as a celebration makes it a topic to discuss the “Hindu bhindi”, which isn’t okra but a derogatory reference to a more intimate part of the male anatomy. What Islam are these people talking about? What Muharram? What mourning?

If one needs to fight someone who has hurt your religion, then fight her/him with facts. And there are facts, which may be disputed, but they do have some currency.

Before pointing fingers at others, Muslims need to look at their own brothers and sisters. Were the Shia Iranians not fighting the Sunni Iraqis with the slogan, “Every day is Ashura, every place is Karbala, every month is Muharram”?

At that time there was turmoil and they felt they could relate to events that took place centuries ago.

Muslims who are always critical about polytheists end up doing things that are prohibited in Islam, including how they embellish graves…and this is true in Islamic societies too. No walls are supposed to enclose the grave, no cement or concrete over it, no marble or decorative material, no inscriptions, even from the Quran, no flowers…

How many Muslims adhere to these?

And have not many made the Prophet into a god-like figure? Let me end with the Prophet’s own words:

"Do not utter such exaggerated words of praise for me as the Christians do for the Prophet Jesus, the son of Mary. I am nothing more than a servant of Allah and His Apostle. So, call me only that."

Is it in?

Maverick: The Trend Settlers
by Farzana Versey
The Asian Age, Op-ed, Jan. 1, 2008

Her lashes fluttering like a fan, she asked, “Is it in?”

“You should know!” he said with the vehemence of one whose pride has been hurt even if only for a few brief seconds.

Having just read that silicone implants were on their way out, she persisted.

“The world is flat,” he stated flatly.

Trends may change but the idea of the fad will remain. It is not merely about couture. People, professions, issues, non-issues too become talking and mocking points.

Here are the two major trends and their offshoots that will not go away…

Who’s afraid of Islamophobia?

This fad of Islamophobia is so infectious that even when British society fights Harrods, Mohammed al Fayed screams out the word.

Islam has ceased to be a mere religion; it is a huge cinematic production for many. The box office registers don’t stop each time there is a new Islamic release. There are several reasons for it.

Jihad is the most rocking contribution of Muslims. They just have to bare their teeth, ball their fists, carry a rucksack and they are said to be on a jihad. Most people associated with it have no idea what they are fighting. At least, George Bush was aware that oil could be a weapon of mass destruction; Muslims don’t even notice the oil under their feet.

The fatwa is something that lays a price on the head of anyone who has a swollen head. Potential targets are writers and anti-Islamists. It helps the world understand the religion better when an exiled writer has a fatwa issued against him/her. This is also the Muslim way of doing zakat towards Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Islam has also changed the terror business. It is seen as a corporatised entity with one CEO who no one wants to find, for the moment he is found this whole industry will fall apart. If you don’t have Islamic terror then you cannot put your army to use and an unused army is not good for patriotism.

Which brings us to Osama, a fictional character created by the US establishment to whitewash its past and justify its present. Meant to be devious, we occasionally get to see him in comic-strip TV format wearing clothes that tell us he has found a laundry service and a beard that has been coloured, which means he has a future as brand ambassador of L’Oreal.

All the world’s a globalised stage

Even as individual nations become highly xenophobic, they continue to talk about how small the world is.

More and more people will leave the shores to become ambassadors of the country. Not all will refer to their wives as headless chickens, though. Due to outsourcing, fewer men are looking for ‘innocent divorcees’ these days, mainly because of hymenoplasty. Women with a history are also seen as valuable as antiques. These and not the mini-skirted, bustier-busting babes-in-the-hood are the new trophy partners.

Neo-politicians are no more fuddy-duddy daddies of boom and doom. They are snazzy and trim their ear and nose hair. Since everyone from fashion to film stars to industrialists is in politics, this was bound to happen.

Internationally, they will fight terror. They don’t have to do anything else after saying that. Oh, they might like to take their model/actress/singer girlfriend on cruise holidays or convert to some other religion.

The Leftists have made it possible for people to stop saying they are Leftists; these days you say you are left of centre, which means you like your martini shaken and your ideology stirred. They don’t believe anymore that Lenin is better than borrowin’, though they continue to leave their Marx and some stains.

The farm fatales are rich politicos who have made loads of money and now think the only way to prevent farmer suicides is to buy the farms. Like buying the bathwater to bathe the baby.

Women in politics will continue to be seen as a different species. While in the west they will be expected to dress sharply by their makeover and publicity agents, in our part of the world you need to show that you are a grassroots person, unless you are a Rajya Sabha member, in which case you must look like a dream girl whatever be your age.

Survivors will be those who manage to save a few big bucks at the stock market. Self-made people will be those who go through a sex-change surgery.

Advertising remains superficially progressive. Remember the ad that was considered offensive because it showed a woman experiencing what seemed like orgasmic pleasure washing a male undergarment? The objection was to the sleaze. No one bothered to point out why on earth she was washing his clothes. See?

But these guys will go to Cannes and get some award for their ads on how to save trees or the girl child. Both die sooner than they’d have walked the length of the beach.

Then you have the NRIs who make home-video type movies about eating two-minute noodles with your fingers. It is a profound metaphor for confusion and coping with disparate cultures. The two minutes represent the fast-paced world we live in.

Bollywood will attract youngsters who are not from film families. Some have been to college and only because they have succeeded at the box office they assume they would have been great architects, doctors, rocket scientists. They speak in measured tones, often with an accent. They say they are striking a balance between art and mainstream cinema. They talk about how comfortable they are with their bodies (If they won’t be, then who would?). You can hear them whisper, “I may be signing up for that crossover film, The Devil Wears Parandi.”

Most over-used quote that will live on: “I am controversy’s favourite child.”

Me too. Like this column? SMS 2008. Lemme know if im in b4 im out!

- - -

For some readers who may not know the background of certain expressions, here…

headless chickens – the term used by the cocky Indian ambassador to the US for our politicians who were nuking the nuclear deal with America

innocent divorcees – believe it or not but Indian matrimonial columns in mainstream newspapers did ask for such a creature

The Devil Wears Parandi – Parandi is the tasseled extension added to the braid of women, mainly in Punjab.

Like this column? SMS 2008 – This is a dig at The Times of India, India’s largest venerated newspaper. For a while now it runs this at the bottom of every column. I find it sick. Publications survive on ads, and the TOI had years ago decided that its Response Department would supersede its Editorial. I say, if you don’t have confidence in the abilities of your writers, then why have them?

Santa's little Muslim helper?

Today is Eid-ul-Adha. Most of the newspapers in India wish the readers for all festivals. Today's issue of The Times of India had a token crescent-star in the masthead.

This is the picture they had on the front page titled 'SANTA GETS HIS LITTLE HELPER' with the caption: "CLAUS AND EFFECT: A young girl shops with her mother for a Santa Claus figure for her school’s pre-Christmas party in Powai".

I love the idea of cultures meshing, but I am sorry I found this utterly devoid of any sense, forget sensitivity. A woman in a veil, her face completely covered, is with her little kid, also wearing a hijab.

Several messages go out here:


1. Eid is of no consequence and poor Muslims need to be helpers.

2. Muslim women cannot be shown without the veil or else they won't be recognised.

3. For Muslims to be seen as part of the mainstream they have to do all these lovely things; no one shows people of other communities doing one damn thing on Eid. (And I say this because in India we do go on and on about how we have so many religions, castes and ethnic types and yet remain a thriving democracy.)

4. Powai is a newly-developed area (where this picture is purportedly taken) and hardly a ghetto, so the veiled women do stand out.

5. I went to a Christian school and we had a Christmas party a day before the festival, so this pre-Christmas shopping thing is only a ruse.

I have said this before. Only because newspapers occasionally bash up Modi it does not make them secular. Do not forget that the TOI had stopped covering the hearings of the Srikrishna Commission regarding the Bombay riots in its early days and had not wished its readers for Eid on an earlier occasion.

Time to wake up and smell the stink of fake gestures.

Eid...

Heard firecrackers. Which means the moon has been sighted.

Tomorrow will be Eid. I wonder whether I have any right to celebrate at all. The festival is supposed to be a sort of thanksgiving for all that one has denied oneself for one month. If this is the yardstick, I should be celebrating every damn day of my life.

Technically, I have not woken up early in the morning to pray, not fasted through the day, not eaten dates nor been dry-mouthed. Yet, have all those who have tortured themselves in such a manner really been denying themselves anything?

I see a lot of sad lives – and I mean sad as in pathetic, not the deep sorrow that burrows through the arches of an ache and abandon – and I want to tell them that the most potent prayer is the one addressed to oneself. It is called introspection. The most important fast you can keep is the one that gives a little of yourself.

Only then can Eid be mubarak. You can celebrate and congratulate yourself only if you see life beyond what you assume is victory. Why claim victory or defeat when there is no fight at all?

This is not to belittle those who have in fact gone through the process of such denial with the true spirit...I can only wish you the light of moonbeam whenever a dark thought assails you, as it does all of us.

- - -

I am not insensitive. I too have memories. I wrote in The Scent of Eid last year...

For me the festival is associated with scents of all kinds.

- The first thing in the morning would be the whiff of henna being removed, its overnight stay on my hands giving it a deep tinge; I’d cup the palms before my nose and inhale.

- There was the strong ittar, the one day when non-alcohol-based perfume was used; it wasn’t mandatory, of course, and since I hated it I only hoped that heaven was nothing like Jannat-e-Firdaus, the particularly preferred one.

- There was the fragrance of aggarbatis as the fateha was said before one small bowl of sheer khurma, the rest to be distributed was spared any godly intervention.

- The smell of onions and potatoes being browned on a slow fire to be added to the biryani.

- The scent of gajras, strings of jasmine with a rose in the middle, which the women wore in their hair.

Finally, the aroma of gulkand and supari from the paan as they were chewed to pulp in the mouth.

Nostalgia has a very strong whiff…try as I may I cannot wash my hands off it.