Murder, she said -- Sheena Bora vs. Indrani Mukherjea

When a murder case is described as a circus, an edge-of-seat drama, you know that nobody is interested in the dead. It is the killing that counts, especially if it takes us through a maze.

India is riveted by the daily assault of media stories on Indrani Mukherjea, the woman who killed her daughter (who she publicly referred to as a sister) back in 2012. It has been brought to light three years later; the reason for it is confined to footnotes when it ought to be the real news.

DNA

Briefly: Indrani married Peter Mukherjea, whose son Rahul from a previous marriage was in a live-in relationship with Sheena, daughter of Indrani, who also has a son Mikhail (introduced publicly as her brother).

An informant told the police that Sheena had been murdered. This led to the driver, who confessed and accused his boss Indrani and her ex-husband Sanjeev Khanna of the murder. Sanjeev and Indrani have a daughter Vidhie, who Peter legally adopted. The father of Sheena and Mikhail is a Siddharth Das whose mother says she can only vouch for one grandchild, i.e. Sheena, and not Mikhail. (Who named him Mikhail? Clearly somebody must like Gorbachev.)

There is bound to be confusion, what with all the players contradicting one another and themselves.

However, due to the sensational nature of the disclosures and the surge of pop psychology doing the rounds, the fact that the police in the forested area where the remains were buried did not pursue it should be alarming. Nobody seemed to know or care about her disappearance in all this time, including her fiancé, her brother and her grandparents.

But, it is also about how society does not care. The manner in which people are reacting too reveals little concern for the victim. And if there is, it is to judge the non-existence of moral values.

I have a vague recollection of Indrani as a Page 3 denizen. She and Peter, who was the CEO of Star India, were obviously party animals. Later, they started another channel. Now Vir Sanghvi, senior journalist, has given an interview about his ex-bosses. I don't understand this. If he does not have any clues about the murder, why should he be allowed to barf about what are essentially his peeves against them?

In the initial stages, I watched a high-society punk on two TV channels. It was amazing how he altered his tone to suit each channel's story, and the channels are playing favourites here too.

I fail to understand how these ‘friends’ who say they can't believe such a thing could happen are called upon to judge precisely that. Far more important than the motive, it is for the police to establish that a murder did indeed take place, and the identity of the victim. Right now, they have exhumed the grave and collected a bagful of bones and a skull.

We read this and write about it as though these are things we encounter regularly. The reason we are becoming desensitised is because of the inhumane nature of reportage. The emphasis is on the uber lifestyle. For the middle class, it is a story close enough but certainly not about them. They can, therefore, judge, be it the money angle, the lust angle or the power angle.

Let us pause here. We do judge all crimes and criminals, so why not a woman who has from all evidence produced thus far killed her daughter, a planned murder, wiped out all visible clues, and lived with this and other lies?

The feminist trope has become mandatory when discussing any public event or cases these days. So, some commentators tell us that it is wrong to diss Indrani by referring to her as ambitious or a femme fatale. There is nothing wrong in being either. I do see that such slotting might convey that a woman with drive is bound to clear whatever comes in the way through any means. It so happens that Indrani did indeed do all of these. Her gender is immaterial.

I read a piece where the writer was angry about this and went on to list quotes not only about this case, but two other publicly visible women, thereby drawing attention to what she was herself dismissive about. While it is a fact that a woman with more than one husband draws attention and sniggers, here these gentlemen were very much a part of the crime, either directly or as evidence.

Some part of her lifestyle will be highlighted for the same reason as some are now talking about how the dynamics might change after the revelation about her being abused by her father as a teenager. Are we going to justify her crime because of it? If we think he is a beast, then should we trust him to shed light on the case?

The driver was an important part of the crime; there is little attention being paid to him. Why? Because we do not have pictures of him holding a cocktail glass? I am curious as to why he had preserved Sheena’s photograph (supposedly to identity her just in case the killing was outsourced) years after the murder? Wouldn’t he have wanted to get rid of it?

What prompted the informer, who woke up after three years?

What intrigues me most is Peter, who appears to be given the benefit of amnesia. He does not seem to know about anything and has portrayed himself as a lovelorn man who only trusted his wife, and did not seem to know about anything, including her being the mother of these two children she called her siblings. He says he has never met her parents, either.

Since we do not know how well she knew his family, is it possible that they functioned as a supra nuclear family? They weren’t very young, and had experienced previous marriages. The term “delusions of grandeur” has been used for Indrani. It is possible that this was a delusional compact world they chose to lead, where ‘others’ were not admitted as more than passersby. He probably believed her because he couldn’t care less about another version, just as she probably trusted him for other things.

I am surprised that people are shocked not so much by the murder as by the relationship. These are the same people who are quite okay with discussing minutiae of their own ‘happy lives’ in private messages to strangers on the internet. Therefore, nobody is in a position to discuss the dysfunctional.

As regards the crime, usually we say there should be justice for the family. Isn't that redundant here?

Bollywood’s Killing Fields

Her life is pornography. Even as their bare bodies are entwined for a few minutes of pleasure, Mahi Arora is capturing the scene on her camera.

I know a wannabe Mahi from years ago. Strange hands splashed whipped cream in her cleavage, crawling higher and lower than needed, the movements robotic. There was awkwardness in her demeanour. I watched this helplessly at a photographer’s studio. The girl and I both rookies, our silences bought by fake dreams. She was a struggling actress and I was there to capture that struggle, write about it, take the message to the world. I felt like a lowlife. And when I did speak, the response hit me: “We are preparing her for the movies.”

This was foreplay where everyone wanted to be a part of what might be a success story. Kingmakers, rag makers stitching clothes so close to the skin that the needles poked into pores. 

***

The film Heroine has been panned by critics because it uses clichés. By turning away from clichés we often lose out on truth. It is superficial in parts because Bollywood is superficial.

The casting couch is a reality few want to accept even if they have made the mandatory visit to The Permanent Suite.  After the first time, it ceases to be about sex or even power. The “heroine ka rate-card” reveals how she is being degraded to fight for every endorsement, party invitation, paid guest appearance at some rich person’s wedding as the bride’s friend and not a celebrity. The diva is now a hanger-on, acting that part in real life so that she can retain the title of superstar.

I wept during the film not because Kareena Kapoor has torn every emotion to reveal shreds, but because I thought about whipped-cream Shanti. A name so common it had to be changed. It did not alter her destiny. Her foundation lay thick on the face, ending at the jawline, revealing another shade of neck. She was the tacky adornment in a few films that released in seedy cinema halls. Then, she disappeared.

I saw her a while ago at a televised award function. She was clapping away, her makeup a bit garish but not gauche, and a new body that she could afford to buy. Her rate-card had been made. She did not need to act anymore. Her applause was genuine. It was for a contemporary who had made it. She knew what their respective prices were. This was happiness projected.  

***

Every day brings a new story of desperate measures to seek attention. Some years ago when I read about a starlet’s tale of woe, I knew there was something amiss. She called up a newspaper office in an agitated state to talk about a photographer who was blackmailing her. She said, “The pictures were taken of me in a bathtub, but there was no indecent exposure. It’s no big deal, but I just felt they should not be published anywhere.”

So why was she making a big deal of it? If she believed that a picture in a bathtub did not constitute indecent exposure, then what was she worried about? Nobody pushed her into it. She had posed for them, some had been printed, and she had not objected at the time. The photographer would not gain much, for the supply of women in bathtubs exceeded the demand. But, by creating a buzz, she sent out a message to those who mattered – the filmmakers – that she had no qualms about posing in such a manner. She had to rescue her soap bubble existence.

It is not difficult to understand the extent people will go to in order to become automated products in phantom factories. It is a cruel world and they unknowingly make it even more cruel by sleeping with the nightmare. Often, the women hang on to men, sometimes to further their career or to portray themselves as a hit pair or to enhance self-esteem.

***

In Heroine a desperate Mahi, hands shakily holding cigarettes, liquor glasses, pills, eyes glazed with self-pity, is addicted to love. She clings to it and when she is tossed out like a squashed insect, its hair-like feet still writhing with life, she does not hesitate to use her private moments. She tells her PR agent to leak out the love-making clip with her star boyfriend. Had she captured it as a keepsake, or did she instinctively know that the only way to keep people was to be ready to risk losing them?

It happens with madams in brothels who were once prostitutes. They sting back at the new girls and the pimps with a mixture of benevolence and cunning. They are recreating their misery. The masochism psychologically scars them.

Heroine’s director Madhur Bhandarkar has created some caricatures. There is also pop psychology about people from broken homes and he is not as harsh on men. In a way, this works because the female star’s loneliness comes across more poignantly. She is leading an LSD existence, hallucinating about herself. Bollywood has amplified her persona, so when she sees it reduced in the bedroom or when her mouth tastes dust from the street, she internalises these as her own flaws. 

Clark Gable, who had a number of famous Hollywood stars as conquests, said he preferred prostitutes. “Because they go away and keep their mouths shut. The others stay around, want a bit of romance, movie lovemaking.”

He was expected to recreate in his bedroom what he had done under the arclights. That is the fantasy many of them begin to believe. And they try out various ruses on fading magic carpets.

Mahi, beaten and defeated, leaves for autumnal Europe where she can deny who she is. Is there really any escape? The Bollywood she was a part of thrives on killing identities. It is always synthetic spring here.

Published in Express Tribune, Sept 29

- - -

Also an old post here: The Fedora in us 

Half Truths: Satyamev Jayate (Dowry and Child Abuse)

“At least he is doing something,” they say.

Yes. This charity consciousness may work for those who do not have to go through the problems Aamir Khan’s subjects have gone through. ‘Satyameva Jayate’ cannot expect to be beyond reproach only because of a celebrity host.

Yesterday, it dealt with dowry. Why is it seen as something new and why must it be lauded as one more attempt? There are several. More importantly, why did they interview a man who was kidnapped in a village and made to get married? This is a rare custom of ‘pakadva vivah’. It gives the impression of being the norm and, if the impact of the programme is so great, then would it not justify women being kidnapped and forced into a marriage of convenience? Are women to be shown as only ‘marriage material’?

The other issue I have is with the simple, no frills marriage. Curiously, two Muslim social workers and two veiled women represented this. May I ask why? And what did the gentleman from Burhanpur mean when he said, “In 60 years no woman from our place has been burnt to death”? Is that an achievement? And the host and the audience applauded, instead of saying categorically that this was a crime and they’d have been behind bars had anyone done so. I do not see why women have to be demeaned with such a back-handed patronising attitude.

‘Samuh vivah’, community marriage, is quite common; it saves money spent on the hall and priests, and yet has a festive air to it. People do want nice weddings. Instead of lecturing others, Mr. Khan forgets the expenditure on his own and his nephew’s wedding functions. Of course, there will be some who might say I am getting personal, and I am. You cannot tell people to stinge on bricks when you live in a mansion.

It would have helped to also highlight the price for different categories of men - IAS guys are the most expensive apparently.Why not talk to men, the in-laws? This is effectively putting pressure on the victims to recount their experiences and therefore, in a way, be responsible for holding themselves up to scrutiny.

As for the girl who had done a sting operation on her future in-laws, she got lucky she found someone who she says is understanding. But stings are not the solution. The cases highlighted were of arranged marriages. This happens even when it is a love marriage, and it may not be called dowry. Today, a working woman is prized for her ability to earn and contribute to her husband’s joint family.

If some people do not know about this, then you can see it in one of Ekta Kapoor’s serials. Ah, but you might feel a bit ashamed to admit you watch those. So, it’s ‘Satyameva Jayate’.

- - -

I skipped commenting on last week’s show. It was dreadful. Child abuse is. Talking about it is. Getting exhibitionistic about it is. Before the painful details, the host informed us that we may not want the children to watch, so we should take them to another room (his audience will not live in a one-room house, ok?), but close enough to bring them back to the TV set towards the end. Those participating went into the details. One young woman, when asked why she came out and spoke, said that indeed she was single, but who knows after this show she might meet someone, for she did not want to be with a man who would not accept her past.

I don’t know why we have standard ideas of empathy. I feel for what she has been through, but she has coped well, and it is not imperative that she would reveal her abuse to a suitor.

The male victim also went into details. I would have liked the psychologist to discuss the case studies and help them. This man endured it from the age of six till he was 18; his body and hormonal changes would have transformed in this period; he is now gay, but says it has nothing to do with what he went through. These are questions that need to be examined. I am not being judgmental. But the emphasis on story-telling and cutting short genuine analysis makes it just another show. I have seen a dramatised version of abuse where a 12-year-old even got pregnant on 'Crime Patrol', based on real-life incidents taken from police records.

The man I mentioned said he led two lives, and in the other he escaped into the world of films. He adored Sridevi. Later, the actress made an appearance. If at all, sending a message would have sufficed. This is not ‘make a wish’ show. But then the lady is making a comeback to films, and we may see other such ‘appearances’ in later episodes. Already, Nita Ambani is a participating sponsor through the Reliance Foundation. Every cause needs money. And every business needs tax exemption. It is wonderful that someone is helping out, but we do not need one more lecturer living in a bubble to take us on a discovery of India trip during the breaks.


The worst was yet to come: A workshop where the host told the viewers to bring the children into the room. Hiding them would have already filled their minds with ideas of something secretive happening. Now they were made to watch a group of obviously well-to-do children (child abuse does not seem to afflict the poor) being educated. “What is danger?” they were asked. Then they were shown two figures on the monitor – male and female – and the chest, genital area and buttocks were highlighted. These were ‘danger’ areas and if anyone other than parents were to touch them there they should shout.

This is just horrible. Most children are taken to isolated places, or abused when no one is around. I am perturbed by the identifying of these parts of the body with ‘danger’. Imagine when they grow up and get attracted to someone, will it not impact on physical intimacy?

Can we stop these simplistic solutions? Are parents not the culprits sometimes? The problem is that such shows will skirt many issues that may be difficult to swallow. We had the prominent Mira Road case right here in Mumbai where the mother actively encouraged the father and a tantrik to sexually assault both her daughters. Why did the show shy away from such cases?

Or, of quasi religious ceremonies where young girls are offered and virgin blood is considered a cure for impotency? What about someone from a remand home where some of the worst such crimes are committed? Think of Madhur Bhandarkar’s 'Chandni Bar' and 'Page 3', in which high-flying industrialists entertain their foreign guests with boys procured from such shelters. Why were there no such mentions of these wonderful people?

Is the purpose only to make us cringe? Please understand that you are getting half the story, half the truth. Those reading this and watching the show are perhaps exposed to such cases and are enlightened. Think about the many who are not. They will sit wide-eyed thinking of those images expressed by the participants. They will imagine them.

This is dangerous.

- - -

No one can accuse me of not dealing with such subjects. So, I do plan to write on this show with the same fervour. To small minds, it might appear like I am using it, but it is less vile than using people who are suffering.

Demonising a smile

Adults fake it. Do children? Anders Breivik’s smiling picture as a four-year-old is being used by psychologists to analyse what led him to kill 77 people in Norway. It’s been called the smile of the monster. Such photographic ‘evidence’ will demonise children.

At his trial in Oslo, a doctor said:

“Much of what we see in him today is visible here, not least in the disarming smile he hides his feelings behind. He had difficulty expressing himself emotionally. He lacked light, joy and the pleasure of playing with others. We feared he would develop serious psychopathology (problems), which may indicate mental illness. Unfortunately we were right, but we never imagined that one day he would become a mass murderer.”

This is just so dangerous. There are children who are shy for various reasons. Many turn out to be writers, scientists, actors, pretty much involved in activities that either are done in isolation or to become somebody else. Look at the picture again. Have you never seen a child smile like this – perhaps your own or someone in your family, maybe your childhood pictures? Have you gone and killed someone?

There is much to discuss about troubled childhoods. They affect the children more than anyone else. Does every child with a not-so-happy background read works that are considered violent? Besides, does such a smile reflect exactly what form of aggression will be used? What is the impetus for choosing one over the other?

About masking, it is a defensive reaction or in many instances nervousness. It could also mean suppressed laughter, and that one is taught in classes on decorum – do not laugh out loud at someone or over a poor joke, it is bad manners. Like, don’t talk with your mouth full.

If the psychiatrists are saying that it revealed “serious illness” in Breivik’s case, and was used to keep away emotions, then it is used by many adults at different times. The most extreme example would be Hitler’s masked smile that seems to be a held-back sneeze.

Body language is a fascinating study, but it cannot be seen as parts of a whole. How we look at people or away, how we sit in company, how we talk to or at, how we purse our lips, how we cross our legs are all about a situation at a given time. This need not be about us as we are, but what we behave like with someone for some reason. It may change in a few minutes or a few hours, days, months.

And those who give a full jaws smile need not be ‘open’ really. That too is part of the faking, the congeniality people.

I do wonder if Mona Lisa had the makings of a terrorist since we just don’t know what she’s hiding or revealing.

Breivik's Day Out

They still won’t call him a terrorist. Anders Breivik remains a “right wing extremist gunman” and, with some concessional nod of late, an “anti-Muslim fanatic”. I feel that the trial is projecting his views in a circular light where despite what he has done, the emphasis will be on the statement made during the defence. It will work subliminally, for those he killed were not specifically Muslim targets. This would push the general sympathy idea and divert his motives.

He has displayed arrogance throughout. As a report says:

Norwegian killer Breivik breaks down as film of his hero Vlad the Impaler is played (but stays stony-faced as court describes way he slaughtered 77).

He smirked several times as the cuffs were removed, put his right fist on his heart then extended his hand in salute. “I do not recognise the Norwegian courts. You have received your mandate from political parties which support multiculturalism,” Breivik told the court after refusing to stand when judges entered.

“I acknowledge the acts but not criminal guilt as I claim self defence,” he added, seated in front of a bulletproof glass wall.

His self-defence was against “Muslims”.

The patch on his uniform

The Norwegian police plan to bring his mother Wenche Behring to the witness box because Breivik said during interviews:

“I just hope my mother is not there. She’s the only one who can make me emotionally unstable. She is my Achilles heel.”

They courts believe that seeing her will “reduce the killer to a quivering wreck”. This is ridiculous, for she has already stated that her son suffered from paranoid delusions five years ago. Why was he not treated for it? The insanity plea might work. And he might well be her Achilles heel.

All killers suffer from some psychological issues, and the ‘lone murderer’ or a group of terrorists being brainwashed is part of how the enemy is played on their minds subconsciously.

It is the job of the courts and the police to conduct the proceedings. I am surprised that such ‘motherly’ intervention is being made public. We are not dealing with a juvenile court. The man went on a killing spree, his acts are recorded, he has admitted to it. What more do they want to know? That he watched a Muslim running a store and it affected his mind so much that he decided to attack innocent people?

He is a terrorist, and not just Norway but all the western powers should treat him as such.

Also from my archives:

They don’t have terrorists in Norway?
Did Hindu or Islamic Fundamentalism inspire Oslo’s Terrorist?

The Anti-Islamism Hobby Horse: Out of the Wilders

The Anti-Islamism Hobby Horse 

Out of the Wilders
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, June 24-26

It was indeed “a beautiful day” as Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician, wrote after being acquitted for hate speech against Islam. It was a beautiful day not because it was a victory for freedom of speech, but because what Wilders has been doing is akin to sowing wild oats. One should hope he has now got his hormonal kicks and can get down to real political debate.

The first thing he needs to realise in a secular set-up is that religion ought to have no place in such debates. He comes with a huge baggage of a right-winger and a devout Roman Catholic. If this is his personal viewpoint, then it is perfectly valid – he can hate anything he likes. Does it have any place in public discourse? He writes:

“My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions.”

It is indeed possible to see religion through a political prism, and most societies do so as it is easier than selling new ideologies. Wilders 'Party for Freedom' (PVV) has risen to a large extent due to his rabid stance. Perhaps he does not have a mirror around to show him that his criticism of Islam comes from projection. His audience is clearly taken in by his totalitarian views and his own expansionism is quite evident.

It is inadvertently amusing when he says “now it is legal to criticise Islam”. This sounds like a statement of an addict seeking legitimacy for his habit. It begs the question: Why is it important to criticise Islam?

A Guardian profile of February 2008 states:

“Likening the Islamic sacred text to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, he wants the ‘fascist Koran’ outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim ‘criminals’ stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported ‘back where they came from’. But he has nothing against Muslims. ‘I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people’.”

It would have been nice if he could see culture more holistically instead of through the hole of some Arabian Nights dark fantasy, unless he is seriously filigree-resistant. More seriously, where does he draw the line between Muslims and Islam? His comments would have made sense had he been an atheist or born a Muslim and concerned about the state of people in societies that may shackle them due to stringent laws. He lives in the west and is riding on anti-Islamism because it happens to be at the centre of political turmoil in many parts of the globe. Besides internal strife, much of religious resurgence has been a result of western intrusion in such territories.

One commiserates with Wilder about Muslim criminals, but what about criminals belonging to other faiths? What if the Muslims do not have any criminal record and are contributing in professional capacities or as unskilled labour to these societies? Would being Muslim be sufficient to qualify as a crime? Should Muslim societies return the favour by deporting westerners who work in their countries?

The action against hate speech is not restricted to Muslims. “The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either ‘publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people’ or ‘in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished’.” These are Wilders’ own words.

The prosecution stated:

“Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable.” 

So, how can his acquittal be a victory for freedom of speech when it goes against the law? Why has he been treated with kid gloves? It is likely that had someone been critical of homosexuals or the disabled there might not have been a case at all except for a few rumblings.

* * *

This leads to the other question: Why do Muslims always protest?

It is a disturbing trend for it works against the Muslims more than anyone else. But can anyone point out to concerted hate speeches against other religions by non-militant Islamists, except for calling them infidels? If anything, it is the liberal Muslims who are critical of holy cows among Muslims as well as others. Then there are ‘career Muslims’ who have had a brush with censorship and get catapulted to fame solely on that basis. Take the case of Ayaan Ali Hirsi, Dutch writer-activist. She was included in Time magazine’s list of 100 most influential people in 2005, a year after Theo Van Gogh was killed for his film ‘Submission’ based on her script. She had already decided on her position, but her public stance was that the brutal killing made her aware:

“Militant Islam shuts down any criticism of Koran. Be it in any language – Chinese, Hindi, English – even if you touch upon Koran, all discussion ends with accusations of ‘traitor’ and ‘infidel’ hurled at you.”

One is not quite sure about a term like “militant Islam”, for those who believe it is militant cannot be Islamic. For them such militancy would be internalised. If the reference is to terrorists, then Islam is their calling card, although one does not have to restate that more Muslims have been killed due to this so-called Islamic militancy. It is unfortunate that people do not comprehend such a glaring fact.

One can empathise with Ali for being hounded by a bunch of fanatics, which is not how the debates deal with such issues by confining their ire to the fringe elements. There are blanket assertions about the faith with militancy added as a mere prefix. Ali’s views on the west reveal a certain cosy understanding:

“The idea that the US is conspiring against Islam is devised by vested interests such as Iran and Saudi Arabia because they resist the American demand for democratization, despite years of aid. In both Europe and the US there’s a fertile liberal ground to do anything.”

Indeed. You can burn the Koran, you can create paranoia, you can decide what people ought to wear and not wear. Aid comes with strings attached and the US has a relationship of convenience with Saudi Arabia. It is amazing that liberal commentators brazenly propagate the idea of American supremacy and how it can “demand democratization” when it has its snide unstated policies in place regarding the ‘others’ within its shores. The anti-Islamists are coddled because they can be used to showcase sympathy. Bring on the stand-up comics, the activists, the bold ones who stick their fatwa-ed necks out. It is the western establishments that use them and place a higher price on their heads than the militant groups. They are the prized jockeys for the multicultural derby.

Wilders had described his film ‘Fitna’ most audaciously:

“It’s like a walk through the Koran. My intention is to show the real face of Islam. I see it as a threat. I’m trying to use images to show that what’s written in the Koran is giving incentives to people all over the world. On a daily basis Moroccan youths are beating up homosexuals on the streets of Amsterdam.”

Are there no cops in Amsterdam to arrest these youths? Are they beating up these homosexuals because they have taken a walk through the Koran? Or is it homophobia that might have nothing to do with religion?

Social consciousness is being married to faith in every sphere and it has snowballed to such an extent that one cannot discuss any issue without the crutch of religion. While among some circles there is shock that liberals have come together with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, no one blinks when Tony Blair converts to Catholicism, a Bishop heads a government, the oath of office is taken in the name of god, courts make you swear on holy books, bedside draws in hotels in most parts of the world have a copy of the Bible, ailing members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood donations because it goes against their faith and missionary movements have spread their tentacles, especially in poverty-stricken areas. They offer sops for conversion.

* * *

What differentiates them from Islam, then? They do not have fatwas and jihad. It is purely a matter of semantics. The grammar of belief begins with full stops. It cannot grow because its fate has been sealed. Evolution – no, not the one that rattled the Christian Garden of Eden – is anathema because it is akin less to betrayal and more to freeing oneself from non-cognisable fences.

The concept of the infidel is to shirk any outside influence. At the scriptural level it was to create a following. In contemporary times it works as community. The books of all religions have some such survival mechanism. Christianity states:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” (2 Cor.6:14-17)

There are passages that are even more aggressive. The moot point is that books don’t talk. There has to be an apparatus that connects the dots and creates craters from them.

An apt analogy would be the priesthood. Joseph McCabe discussing the Psychology of Religion has brought in this important dimension:

“The American population is especially composed of religious, and often fanatical, contingents from nations of the old world who had suffered persecution; and even in the last hundred years the main streams of immigration (Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, etc.) have predominantly brought religious fanatics, because they naturally came from the poorest, least educated, and most overcrowded countries, which means the most religious.

“Now consider the fortunes of the most fanatical of them all, the Roman Catholics, when the great expansion of the American people toward the Pacific took place in the nineteenth century. It is true that there were not priests enough to found chapels wherever a few hundred Catholics settled – a difficulty which Rome can always overcome by consecrating German or Belgian peasants and drafting them abroad – but the main point was that priests were generally disinclined to leave Boston and Philadelphia and rough it with the western pioneers. The result was that in a few decades literally millions of these fanatical Catholics lost all interest in religion…The New York Freeman's Journal in the same year (1898) put the loss at twenty millions, and I have shown from immigration analyses that the loss was at least fourteen or fifteen millions. In other words, the most fanatical of all religious adherents fell away in masses when there were no priests to bother them, and, although priests came along as soon as there was money enough in any town to give a middle-class income to an ordained peasant, they never recovered the apostates or (in most cases) their children.”

The recovery has taken place as part of the marketing prototype to create a demand. The demand is accelerated when there is competition. Acquisitiveness is about having what the other does not. A health drink will show a child triumph over another who ends up with a bloodied nose.

All religions have been born with blood trails. The footprints have coagulated. The journey is, therefore, a tribute to fossilisation. Middle-men swoop down on the hardened remains – whether it is militants, evangelists or Wilders-like demagogues. It is business for these predator-priests of frisson.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents

A seatful for a million dollars

There is literary merit in the fact that J D Salinger’s toilet seat is up for auction. Think about the ideas many creative people say they get when they are digesting more than thoughts. Is there any truth in this phenomenon?

As a somewhat creative person, I do come up with the most imaginative description of post culinary indulgences while responding to pathology tests. One doctor even guessed I was a writer based on the poetic justice I did to what appeared to be a drab report that exposed me not only to amoebae and bacteria but also to a future reader.

Given this little episode in the nascent stages when my literary yearnings got a boost, I can conjecture with a degree of certitude that it has to do with the seating arrangement.

It is said that Rodin’s The Thinker is in such an inspired pose. With feet on the ground, while the left side of the brain is occupied in logical activity, the pressure reaches the right side and sparks off the dance of the cerebrum. There is also the psychological fact that something is leaving you; although the departure is welcome in this case, it harks back to a past. This becomes the manure to fill the fertile soil of the future. The mind suddenly has ideas and on occasion they could be psychedelic. It is quite akin to a state of deliriousness as closure is being reached.

The difference between a scientist and an artiste is that the former can soak in a bath tub, think up something and run out stark naked screaming ‘Eureka’ because he has a hypothesis; the latter, due to the peculiar task at hand cannot leave until it is over and therefore there is time to ruminate and think it through. You can later always say that you were preoccupied with your Muse.

- - -

“I'm the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life. It's awful. If I'm on my way to the store to buy a magazine, even, and somebody asks me where I'm going, I'm liable to say I'm going to the opera. It's terrible.”

(Holden Caulfield in Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye)

The Impersonators

Why would anyone want to be me when I sometimes have a problem being me?


I am not on Facebook, but I was there. An impersonator did it. I had no idea until I got a casual call from an acquaintance regarding something else and he asked, “Why don’t you reply to any messages on FB?”

“But I don’t have an account.”

“Rubbish. It is there. Go look it up.”

I did. Sure enough I was there. The profile was hidden but the links linking to ‘me’, who was not me, were all about my sites. I complained. Facebook acted promptly and removed the profile.

It is an interesting phenomenon. Why would a person want to impersonate another? Either there is a vicious motive or the person wants to be in your shoes. I have experienced both in the past when I was impersonated, before networking sites came into the picture. The level of malice is amazing. People who know jackshit about you try to malign you, create discord and, since one’s writings are public, it is easy to pick them up and appear authentic.

The Facebook impersonator would not have been terribly lucky for I often announce that I am not on any social networking sites, so those who know me or of me are aware. The acquaintance who alerted me is not a regular himself nor was he aware of my ‘unavailability’ in the cyber social world.

One can only imagine how visible celebrities become easy targets. It is inexcusable, but it happens quite regularly and can have a damaging effect. I guess that is the reason many have signed up to avoid any confusion.

Just yesterday, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen recounted his experience. “I do not have any Facebook site of my own, and do not intend to open one…the site referred to there, where someone pretending to be me answered questions, had nothing whatsoever to do with me.” Someone was, in fact, responding to queries from readers that contradicted his views. He is understandably upset: “The managers of the Facebook system are not helpful in monitoring the veracity of the sites and communications. I got no help from them...”

I am surprised at this as well as the audacity of the person running the account. It does not seem to be a harmless fan for he was providing skewed ideas. This ought to have alerted the Professor’s fans; they don’t seem to be a smart bunch! The only good thing is that it is in the open. For a less visible person, as in my case, one does not know what happens behind the scenes.

I can only conjecture about the dynamics here. There is some admiration mixed with envy and quite a bit of low self-esteem. The person will publicly praise you, and then there will be private communication that veers from desperate accusations to even more desperate regret. It astounds me to read bits of my life being replicated by a couple of these people. I know about coincidence and serendipity, but please don’t tell me that almost everything I do has been done by another person, when I know the person.

The impersonator personality can, on rare occasion, be truly someone appreciative and wants you to notice her/him. It is a weird way to do so. Then there are ‘plants’ that have been set up to kick up a storm. It is quite pathetic, for they forget that the steaming hot tea cup will scald their own lips.

I have concluded that, given the experiences I have had, being me is not such a bad idea after all.

Angst and the Alpha Male

Maverick: Angst and the Alpha Male
By Farzana Versey
Covert, March 1-15

Never understood this coming-of-age stuff, especially if it refers to that which is regressing if not regressive. Why would we need a reinvented Devdas who is trying to find a balance between his two selves – one that he has escaped to and one he is shackled by? How different is he from the fast-driving, pub-crawling yuppies? Is urban feudalism too a patriarchal construct?

The problem with films like Dev D that supposedly snip out the floss is that they in fact romanticise the dark alleys. Pornography, MMS clips, shagging, drugs, self-destructiveness are put on a pedestal. While the older versions had an almost Krishna-Radha-Meera sort of triangle, with the courtesan interestingly essaying the role of the pining woman, this new version has the Delhi belle as a full-blown slut willing to spend quality time with a good-for-nothing spoilt brat.

Even the love of his life is shown as a sexual adventuress only because she carries a mattress to the field for a roll in the hay. And, then, sick of his ways, moves on. As does the other woman. But, do they get sanctified for their conflicts? What I find disturbing is that we do not have any exploration about female angst. They remain two-dimensional characters whose clear-cut choices appear bold but are in fact tailored for them by society. It is still about the ‘hero’, even if he is a loser. A woman doing what he does and going through those internal pangs would have been deemed neurotic and hysterical. She would be in a psychiatric ward and not guzzling vodka.

This elevation of alcoholism forces the women to play the role of props. Even Sanjay Leela Bhansali, when he made a film on the same subject, had said that an alcoholic can be a beautiful human being. Tell that to the woman in the slums who pays for her spouse’s booze or the socialite in the skyscraper who smiles through insults to maintain grace under pressure.

We have a tendency to deify men who have been rejected and then behave as though the world owes them their marijuana and damn-you attitude. This Dev has also been called an idealist. What is he idealising about? The virginity of a lover whose nude pictures he craves for or the neatness of his drink or the rawness of his sexuality? He is just another punk from Paharganj, a mimic of the backpacker tourist who has come to India to seek nirvana, in his case from a rich family and poor self-esteem.

All through cinematic history you will find that tragedy queens die, tragic heroes become martyrs. It is not angst, but narcissism. There is nothing to beat the ego of a man on the Cross. We can easily hate the brawny guys, but the real danger comes from these hidden marauders. They are the eternal cribbers who declare in sepulchral tones, “I am going to die.”

A personality profile of such a man would be that he is most likely a hypochondriac, a one-line philosopher, and emotionally rootless. He feels let down by the world. He will blame his mother for giving him birth and his father for being the other man in her life. He hates his wife/lover for taking away a part of him. This character is guilty of being alive so he is busy yelping about imagined self-inflicted crimes.

This is a shrewd move. If he is not a knight in shining armour, then he does not have the responsibility of trying to save anyone. His motto is “Use me” -- the stuff they write on garbage bins.

Little of his guilt has to do with morality. By the very act of having suffered at the hands of cruel fate, he seems to have exalted himself. Women watch helplessly as he goes on with his childish games. He never quite rids himself of his oral obsession which manifests itself in drink and talk, both of great assistance in creating a simulated suffering.

For all his obsession with death, he is really striving for immortality. He takes his time dying. So how relevant would he be in today’s times? Such characters, and people, are not a reflection of the new age but a nod towards the renaissance cave man.

Ask the vexpert - 8

Question: I am 45 years old. Is spirituality connected with sexuality? I accept sex as something that's spiritual but then why does society seem to hate sex?

Sexpert: Every male has a sex pleasure centre in the brain which is meant to stimulate the body to have sex so that fertilisation takes place and the human race flourishes. Few if any, do not like sex. Traditions and customs often disturb their pleasures.

Me: Spirituality is most definitely connected with sexuality which is the reason all the sex symbols are heavily into religion, whether it is the Jewish Kabbalah, or Christianity or visiting temples and mosques. Those who are a little iffy about their sexuality choose Scientology because that is iffy about religion.

Places of worship are the best grounds for preparing yourself, what with the movement of several muscles during prayers. This makes the limbs supple. It also takes away the guilt that is associated with sex. It is like getting an A-Okay from god.

Society does not hate sex; it resents it that people are enjoying themselves. You are one smart cookie that you have already seen it as spiritual; this will make you a fellow with a halo.

What after halo? Ensure that it isn’t a case of the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Then just do your thing, levitate if you can manage to rise that high, and keep it between the sheets.

- - -

Question: I am a 22-year-old man and have a wheatish complexion. I lead a healthy life but have a problem. My penis is black. What could be the reason? Will it affect me in any way? Any suggestions to cure this?

Sexpert: As long as it carries out its functions efficiently and satisfies your partner it doesn’t matter whether your penis is purple, green or any other colour. Why worry about trivial issues? FYI, it is darker in colour because that area has more pigments as compared to other parts of the body.

Me: This is a psychological trauma. Perhaps, while watching some heart-wrenching news item on race discrimination your organ was accidentally exposed to the sight. It seems like an overly sensitive guy and it is entirely possible that empathy has made it take on the colour; since it is said that the penis has a mind of its own, it is likely that it is testing your attitude towards racism that is prevalent in India but never talked about. I am concerned as you have specifically demarcated an important part of your body from the rest of you and are in fact looking for a cure. The issue is not only about performance. Did the thought of using fairness creams occur to you? Are you aware that this could lead to a backlash from environmentalists, sociologists and liberals? What if your partner is a feminist? She will be deeply reviled by this discrimination on your part.

On the other hand, if she is a racist, then you will have to handle the situation tactfully. Make sure that she notices the rest of your complexion at all times while being aware of the ‘black’ one. It would indeed be a good idea if you did not permit her to see that at all. Or keep the lights switched off.

Also keep gifting her dark chocolate.

Benazir and Indira as Papa's Puppets

Benazir and Indira as Papa's Puppets

The Complex Electra
By Farzana Versey
December 28, 2007, Counterpunch

Brave and courageous. These words have not yet been applied to Nawaz Sharif who returned to a turbulent Pakistan, but Benazir Bhutto was honoured with such terms. She died on what people will now see as those terms. As the first Muslim woman to become head of state, she came with a readymade bonafide of martyr-rebel.

“Despite threats of death, I will not acquiesce to tyranny, but rather lead the fight against it,” she had said recently. If she would have got the opportunity, it would have been the third time. Politics is about erring often enough to be human.

Benazir may have identified with India’s Rajiv Gandhi, but those were superficial similarities. Her real mirror, if it may be called so, was Indira Gandhi.

Aside from the fact that both were ambitious women, they shared complete devotion to and obsession with their fathers. While Ms. Gandhi was India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s only child, it is rather interesting that despite the politics of the subcontinent, as indeed the world, being heavily patriarchal Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto chose his daughter over his sons as his political heir.

The two male parents became Svengali and nemesis, their ghosts continued to not merely haunt but hypnotise their daughters. When Indira first came into politics, she was called “goongi gudiya” (the dumb doll). Her whole political credo was therefore designed to hit back.

She was Papa’s puppet. Naturally, in that small stage she had to move according to a pre-set rhythm. Katherine Frank’s biography talks about her paranoia regarding those she considered Nehru’s enemies. She felt that they were “out to trap her father and bring him down”. What was happening is that she was fearful for herself. Even as puppet she wanted to be on centre-stage. Perhaps, by getting her father to move away from the clique, she was subconsciously trying to claim complete ownership.

Psychology would describe this as the Electra Complex that combines penis envy with castration fear. Symbolically, the desire for impregnation would manifest itself in being able to internalise the father’s ideology.

Neither Benazir nor Indira managed to strike out on their own in terms of policy or altering the role of the family as ‘monarchy’. Benazir, had she lived longer, would have brought her children into the political arena just as Indira Gandhi did.

Dynastic rule in democracies or quasi democracies has been about perpetuating the name of the father. (The widow as successor is essentially legitimised only as ‘carrier’ of the husband’s progeny.) The spouse is a prop, often a convenient one to act as buffer and even bear the brunt of blame. Indira’s marriage to Feroze Gandhi was a façade that went through moments of turmoil to keep it alive. In all likelihood, she took his name to try and be her own person and not merely the offspring of Nehru.

Feroze was known to be a womaniser. Indira was aware of it. Her humiliation would be avenged only if he felt that while he had proved his manhood, he had lost out as the “nation’s son-in-law”.

Asif Ali Zardari came with similar credentials. Benazir settled into arranged matrimony and baby-producing to give Pakistan the sort of woman who did regular things and had descendants to perpetuate the royal pure blood.

With such delusions, these women till the very last posed a threat only to themselves.

Indira Gandhi saw imaginary demons. The result: The Emergency. Like all frightened people, she camouflaged her baseless theories about others trying to plot against her government and stall its functioning beneath self-righteousness, declaring that democracy was not more important than the nation. She could not even tolerate a peaceful resistance movement. She was found guilty of corrupt electoral practices by the High Court.

Benazir Bhutto was exiled to escape corruption charges. The pretence of being the people’s princess had to wear off once it was realised her father had been the emperor with no clothes. The veneer of statesman was wearing thin.

Is it any surprise that Ms. Bhutto blatantly supported the Taliban regime in its initial years to make certain that the Afghans did not breathe down her neck?

This was similar in manner to Indira Gandhi propping up Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a leader in Punjab, when he was a non-entity. She and her younger son Sanjay used him till it was convenient.

The mistake we make is to confuse populism for popularity. There is no doubt that both these women had their ears to the ground; as opposed to the sons of the soil, they were the mothers of the earth. This again works well in the Electra Complex where the daughters aspire to replace the mother. In villages and remote towns it can have tremendous appeal. The poor and illiterate in our subcontinent like to be seen as loyal subjects being the benefactors of largesse. Political coquetry is a trait that comes with the territory.

To make the situation even better, both these women had the benefit of a western education and an urbane lifestyle. This seems a bit ironical for they insisted on holding steadfastly to the dying socialist principles of their fathers. These principles were for the most part straw pillars meant for the masses; these families remained committed to feudalism in their own lives. They had the luxury of encouraging coteries without seeming to court anyone.

In India, Ms. Gandhi took away the privy purses, but kept the princes. She spoke about rationality, but had a hedonistic ‘godman’ as a close confidante. She was suave and sophisticated, but she encouraged greasy middlemen. She spoke about “social democracy” but blatantly gave a fillip to underhand financial dealings that came to be known as ‘the license permit raj’. And she thrived on strife. This is how she came to support the Mukti Bahini in what was then East Pakistan and became Bangladesh.

A goddess was born. A few years later, she had internalised the spook and revelled in the praise, “Indira is India, and India is Indira.”

Benazir did not have to deal with such a coinage, perhaps because heading an Islamic country meant no idol worship. Instead, she deftly marketed herself as the broadminded, non-jihadi face of Pakistan. Her version of social democracy too was embedded in the old-fashioned ideals of dignity of other people’s labour while she sat back as her husband made the money and got to keep the change.

It takes some sleight of mind to master the act of playing both distressed damsel and the dominatrix-matriarch fiercely protective of everything around them and, as a consequence, their own position.

While most women in ‘tough’ roles are accused of mimicking men, as the ‘Only Man in the Cabinet’ and ‘Ms. Virgin Ironpants’, Indira and Benazir demasculinised themselves. Talking about woman power, what they really did was to build a cottage industry of being wronged. Politics became not just a playground for suppressed emotions but a serious arena for catharsis.

Both women were elected to office twice. Indira Gandhi was shot dead by her most trusted bodyguard. No one has as yet suggested that it could well have been a Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) sympathiser who did Benazir in. She was the visible face of the party, but the ideology was dictated by the spectre of Zulfiqar Ali. Some say that her niece Fatima Bhutto, who has made serious allegations against her aunt for the murder of her father Murtaza, could possibly play an important role.

If that were to happen, we would have one more “mind-controlled victim” avenging her father’s death and dreaming his dreams. Individual voices in Pakistan are being muffled by echoes of old thoughts.