Holy cows and cartoons

India loves cows, the temple variety not the ones left with festering wounds to forage in garbage dumps. The new government is serious about cow protection. As I said, we love cows, some worship them.

So, when a cow knocks on the door of an elite space club should it be considered insulting? According to the Indian worldview, the cow should have the right to be there, was in fact born to be there. Why, then, did some demand an apology from the New York Times for this cartoon in response to the Mars Orbiter Mission?

Do we consider the farmer and the beast any less when compared with our space missions? If so, then this is cause for serious concern. India is largely a rural country and agriculture continues to be its mainstay. How does it convey the image of a backward society when this is what feeds us as well as a few importing countries?

The farmer is not being obsequious about entering the elite club; he is assertive. The cow too is rather saucy and sanguine. It is the westerners reading the news who seem to be worried and shocked. They look backward because they have not come out of their cocoons to keep in touch with the world to see how far others have progressed, far enough for India to be the only one to succeed in its Mars Mission at the first attempt.

We anoint a scientific operation with a Sanskritised, almost mythified, name like Mangalyaan, we pretty much treat it as some sort of divine intervention, and then we project our insecurities on others. Strangely, I hear that Malayalis objected to it most on social media because many of ISRO’s scientists are Malayali. What does this tell us about our parochialism? It is natural to feel proud of one’s own, but let us not see a slight where there seems to be none.

The farmer and the cow are as much images of India as the camel and the bedouin are of the Middle East, in fact more so. It does not mean we have nothing else. If anything, this is a paean to the India of the majority – the villager. It is true that the farmer did not send the mission into space but scientists may come from rural backgrounds. Have we forgotten the euphoria upon the success of the mission? The most telling picture was of women scientists with flowers in their hair jubilating.

If we have a problem with the cartoon, then why not with this impression of what is Indian womanhood from a certain perspective? That too is a stereotype, where the lab-coat is seen as elite privilege.

After being pressurised, the newspaper apologised. Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor, said:

“The intent of the cartoonist, Heng Kim Song, was to highlight how space exploration is no longer the exclusive domain of rich, Western countries. Mr Heng, who is based in Singapore, uses images and text - often in a provocative way - to make observations about international affairs. We apologise to readers who were offended by the choice of images in this cartoon.” He further added that the cartoonist “was in no way trying to impugn India, its government or its citizens”.

India is too vast; the people are too many and disparate. That leaves the government. This mission did not happen overnight after Narendra Modi came to power, so it is not the success of the present government at all. But I see this more as NYT trying to still play host to the PM after his NRI-slavering visit. The Indian authorities might see in this censorship of a kind an opportunity to use as precedent whenever we are faced with some truth even if it is not, or should not be, inconvenient.

We’ve got the apology from NYT (and it is always great to see NYT apologise, for different reasons), but are we going to hide the farmers from us? Will cows be placed on pedestals behind walls? Why can’t we own up to what is ours?

Sunday ka Funda

"Out with stereotypes, feminism proclaims. But stereotypes are the west's stunning sexual personae, the vehicles of art's assault against nature. The moment there is imagination, there is myth."

— Camille Paglia

"Do not put garbage in our mind." This graffiti on the wall outside Tunis City Hall has been quoted to explain the attitude towards women's dress following the Arab Spring.

As happens with all such studies in a cocoon, it uses a small sample and reaches broad conclusions, that too about what the respondents thought 'might' be appropriate but is not necessarily practised. Worse, it is actually based on the false premise of what constitutes "MidEast countries". Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan are not in the Middle East.

While the research, and mainstream commentators, assume a superior attitude towards "secularism", they forget that their obsession with what is termed "Muslim dress" is anything but. They are working their way backwards, and become as veiled as the veils they find constricting when their idea of "women's choice" becomes selective.

This is not even the imagination or myth that Paglia speaks about. It is merely a lame excuse to falsely manufacture how free they themselves are.

The above tongue-in-cheek response in the web world to the research chart shows us just how hollow such statistics and stereotypes can be, using mere mode of dress to formulate a point of view. Are you what others wear?

To paraphrase the graffiti, the garbage is in their minds.

© Farzana Versey

A Mirage called Malala

A Mirage called Malala: Another Daughter of the East? 
by Farzana Versey, CounterPunch, July 15

Had Edward Snowden exposed the dirt of the Taliban, he would have been standing behind the lectern in New York at the UN hall on Friday, July 12.

The contrast, and irony, is stark.

• A young man is hounded by the government of his country for exposing its sly mechanism, of its covert war against the whole world, not to speak of its own citizens. He waits at an airport in Russia that had fought a war against Afghanistan, which was backed by the CIA.

• A teenager’s birthday was officially declared Malala Day by the United Nations. She addressed a well-heeled gathering in the United States that was one of the two countries to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the other was Somalia.

Malala Yousafzai’s speech had a captive audience. 

Malala at the UN - Pic The Guardian

They wanted a cinematic moment. The gooseflesh groupies, including the mainstream media and urban Pakistanis, were not interested in going beyond the script of her address. They became the protectors of a girl who they could not protect in their own country. The legal imperative is not even considered to fight such cases. What bothers them is their pretty position would be threatened and questioned.  

Politician or puppet?

If we are to treat her as just a courageous 16-year-old, then perhaps we ought to disregard her role as activist. She cannot be hoisted as a symbol of resistance as a cocooned marionette.

In the very first sentence, Malala said it was an honour to wear a shawl of Benazir Bhutto. This was a political statement. From being a victim of the Taliban, she appears to be a “mind-controlled victim” of the elite. Like Benazir, Malala’s power comes from being wronged. Nobody will deny that they indeed were. However, the dynamics of power play are not about the literal, and this the souvenir dealers do not wish to understand.

When she was being treated at the hospital in Birmingham,  President Asif Ali Zardari visited her wearing a coat with a lapel that had her photograph on it; to honour her, he pledged $10 million for girls’ education to UNESCO because “sending girls to school was the best way to combat extremism”. While Malala’s school in Mingora, in the Northern region of Swat, was renamed after her, the President did not offer this money to a local organisation. To get legitimacy, it would appear the issue has to have global appeal.

The Interior Minister at the time, Rehman Malik, was quoted as saying:

"Until terrorism is over, she will continue to have security until we feel she is OK. You never know the circumstances, what will happen. The Taliban might be zero tomorrow. Still [while] we think or successive government feels she needs security, it is of no issue, to be honest, because she has become the icon of Pakistan, she has stood against terrorists and Taliban and she has become an icon for the education of young girls.”

Why do many Pakistanis refuse to see this as a convenient ploy by the leadership to put the onus on iconoclasm to deal with the issues, knowing well that this would work only as a mirage? Where are the political initiatives to tackle terrorism? Benazir Bhutto too supported the Taliban regime in its initial years to ensure that her position was not threatened. The progressive discourse overlooks the fact that she did not expunge any law that was anti-women.

Ever since she was shot at by the Taliban, the cheerleaders have expressed cursory concern for the “other Malalas”; the sidelight is brought out only as a nervous tic. Malala too made a nodding mention of her friends, now forgotten by everyone. They were also shot at, but not as grievously. Where are they? Are they protected? Any school named after them? No one seems to notice that despite her environment, she managed to learn, to seek peace, and to take on the militants.

The omission of any inspiring contemporary figure in her speech was startling. Yet, she managed to please the activists when she spoke about “hundreds of human rights activists and social workers who are not only speaking for their rights, but who are struggling to achieve their goal of peace, education and equality”. 

Students in Mingora (Pic: Pak Magazine)

It would have been politically incorrect for her to add that her sponsors and their allies not only kill civilians in the regions they occupy, but also employ child soldiers. In an earlier piece, I had raised these points: Is this courage or just canny marketing by consumerist consciences? Do we even pause to think about the consequences of creating or supporting such vulnerable ‘revolutionaries’? …Just think of the kids the US forces fought in Iraq and then took them captive to Abu Ghraib. Think about them in the Maoist Army in Nepal, as human shields in India’s Naxal groups, of them in Israel, of stone-pelting Palestinians now holding guns. These are representatives of their countries, not fringe groups.

Malala even sent out a message of forgiveness for the Taliban using time-tested figures: 

“I want education for the sons and daughters of the Taliban and all the terrorists and extremists. I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there was a gun in my hand and he was standing in front of me, I would not shoot him. This is the compassion I have learned from Mohamed, the prophet of mercy, Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha. This is the legacy of change I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. This is the philosophy of nonviolence that I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa.”

This is what Barack Obama says. This is exactly what the West, specifically the US, has done with its neat division of good Talib, bad Talib. Besides, as America is due to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, it will have to deal with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Whoever drafted Malala’s speech was taking no chances, even carefully omitting Hinduism, aware that it is a touchy issue in Pakistan where the infidel is associated with the idol-worshipping faith more than any other.

Besides, what change did Jinnah bring about? His major contribution was before the Partition and in helping to formulate the idea of Pakistan. He did not live to watch it veer away from the avowed secularism he hoped for. Malala recalling Mandela and Gandhi seems like a staple politician-beauty pageant fortune cookie moment, but Bacha Khan? He did not want to be with Pakistan and had specified that he should be buried in Afghanistan, to retain the purity of his Pashtun dream. Violence of thought is not something to be shrugged off.

Who is educating whom?

Like the caricature of the Taliban frightened of a girl with a book is simplistic, the catchphrase at the UN that day –‘Education First’ – is restrictive, especially when you consider the number of school dropouts in the West. But American kids willingly emptied their kitties for a charity that turned out to not only misuse the funds, but also mislead. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who wrote the bestselling ‘Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace ... One School at a Time’ set up the Central Asia Institute charity that funds schools in the Balti region. President Obama made a handsome donation, and the book compulsory reading for the forces in Af-Pak.

However, the greater crime, as I wrote in the Counterpunch article Fabricated Philanthropy was “one by default – of whitewashing the image of the US administration, even if to a small degree. It has come to light that he was not kidnapped by the Taliban. In one of the photographs of 1996, his so-called kidnapper turns out to be Mansur Khan Mahsud, a research director of the FATA Research Center.”

Those who oppose religious factionalism that the Taliban propagates have been using religious arguments against militancy. Certain clerics had issued a fatwa against those who targeted the girls; the liberals did not know how to negotiate this similarity. Pakistanis have lived with their Islamic laws, so they cannot ignore the mullahs.

Such lounge activists do not take on the Taliban or the government. They merely participate in the usual candlelight vigils and sex up the debate with their passive-aggressive act. Quite reminiscent of what Madonna did soon after Malala became a talking point. At a concert in Los Angeles, the singer had said, “This made me cry. The 14-year-old schoolgirl who wrote a blog about going to school. The Taliban stopped her bus and shot her. Do you realize how sick that is?” As reported: “Later in the show, Madonna performed a striptease, during which she turned her back to the audience to reveal the name ‘Malala’ stenciled across it.”

When Malala mentioned the problem of child labour, it did not strike her that she is now even more a victim of it, albeit in the sanitised environs of an acceptable intellectual striptease.  

© Farzana Versey

---

Do read Our Guns, Children's Shoulders

Aamir Khan: Only a matter of Time

It is not the fact that Aamir Khan is on the cover of the September issue of Time magazine that is as important as how he is projected.

Recall how our beauty contest winners won with that finale answer about their idol being Mother Teresa? The purpose was a clear need to sell beauty products to the huge Indian market. Once that was achieved, we had the Bill Gates-Warren Buffett philanthropy where our industrial bigwigs were lectured about the art of giving, something they had mastered thanks to income tax exemption to channelise black money. Publicly aired social consciousness is only a part of this.

The extracts from the Time story makes it seem as though the Indian population is a willing hostage to one actor.

The blurb itself sets the tone:

"He's breaking the Bollywood mould by tackling India's social evils. Can one actor change a nation?"

Would they say the same about Hollywood stars who speak on social issues or take strong political stands? India’s social evils have great demand for a hungry media, at home and outside. For the outsider, this obviously has some exotic appeal.

"Now, with his groundbreaking TV show Satyamev Jayate (Truth Alone Prevails), he has dispensed with commercial considerations to indulge his conscience. With it, Khan has taken on the mantle of the country's first superstar-activist.”

Has he dispensed with commercial considerations? We have been through it here before. The conscience does not gather a herd. What does being the first superstar-activist mean? There have been films from years ago that raised social issues - Duniya Na Maane, Do Bigha Zameen, Mother India. These were not a candyfloss look at farmer suicide, widow remarriage, dowry, poverty. And I am not even talking about regional cinema and parallel cinema.

The piece is obviously a paean when it says:

“It's a ballsy move, and potentially jeopardizes his status as the beloved idol of millions.”

If anything, it has got him a new audience, the sort that attends rallies by Anna Hazare or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Art of Living sessions. It is utterly patronising to read that the show tackled subjects that “are precisely the sorts of harsh realities from which many of Khan's fans seek escape in his movies”; it probably works for this group.

If anything, the actor fancies that he does films that have a message, whether it is Lagaan, Rang de Basanti, Taare Zameen Par, Mangal Pandey, Peepli Live. He makes a point to go on a road show as a ‘messenger’.

"Can a movie star affect the mores of a nation of 1.2 billion? It might just be possible in India, where a national obsession with cinema, unparalleled in the world, gives popular actors an influence beyond the imagination of Hollywood scriptwriters.”

Such a limited understanding. There are places where cinema halls have been shut down. Films are banned. If the national obsession is an escape, then it applies to realistic cinema too, for that reality is not mirroring what people go through, but what characters go through. Cinematic projection of such truths is like sharing misery with others, if we really wish to look at films in that manner.

Hollywood actors use a particular issue and take it to a forum to push for change. One may be cynical about their motives, but the public does not assume they will bring about change.

“Whatever Khan chooses to do next in his quest for grace, there's a good chance it will lift India a little closer to what he - and fellow Indians - would wish their country and society to be.”

This is just so weird. It builds up an individual as a messiah, that too on a personal “quest for grace”. India has several dreams and different people have different dreams. This certificate of granting one person the keys to the kingdom is so feudal. I wonder why Time magazine did not make him wear a maharajah turban in the cover picture. Or, perhaps contemporary maharajahs just look intensely into the eyes of the camera.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

The rest of my pieces on Satyamev Jayate are here

Hosni''s Cage, Osama's Ghost

Is this a zoo? Or a scene from one of those stark message films?

There is jubilation. Hosni Mubarak, the ousted Egyptian leader, together with his sons and seven others, has been confined to a steel bed behind a cage. The trial is on.

He was a despot, they say. They tolerated him for decades. He certainly was power-hungry, stashed away ill-gotten wealth. But Egypt did not initiate what has come to be called the Arab Spring.

The public display of anger has resulted in the death of innocent people. The uprising still does not have a direction. In such circumstances, civil society resorts to its baser instincts. Recall how Saddam Hussein was captured and tortured purportedly to save
America with the added glow of ushering in democracy in Iraq. Has that happened?

Will all those who like this sort of inquisition accept that this justice is taking place in a 'backward' society? A society they berate for 'inhuman' justice methods?

Mubarak was bad for his own people. What about those leaders who trample on others and make it seem as though it is to protect their nation and the world?

Will you see this happening in the West even when their leaders are caught in scandals and tax payers are doling out hard-earned money for defence based on delusions?

Will this happen in India where we are steeped in scams and even the prime minister is implicated by default? Will we see those leaders behind such a cage, the ones who watched when riots took place and they looked the other way as their loyal cops followed their instructions? Will people watch as they are questioned? Will our system even permit it?

The answer is No.

So, why must we jubilate over this form of vicarious justice when we watch the 'dignified' western leaders behave like tribal chieftains and our own pretend that slings and arrows only give them a tragic aura?

I am uncomfortable with sights such as the one Hosni Mubarak is being subjected to. And I can already imagine that a few months down the line some self-righteous American leaders will express disgust over such an 'uncivilised' display of justice.

Then, will someone tap them gently and remind them of Saddam?

- - -

We cannot remind then of Osama the invisible. Now there are long stories by the unidentified man who pulled the trigger. The President of the United States of America does not know his name. An operation that was conducted with the Pentagon's active participation is mired in secrecy. It is made to look like the United SEALs of America.

They had said at the time it would have been difficult to bring his body. Now they say they did not want any detainees.

They had said then that his face was unrecognisable and too gory for the pictures to be released. For someone who got one bullet on the chest and one near the eye, one wonders about the level of impact that might have made him unrecognisable. Now they say the intelligence officer unzipped the body bag and confirmed it was Osama. How?

Anyhow, the epic story is being lapped up. And what does Barack Obama reward the team of commandos?

A measuring tape. It seems they did not have one with them when they got the "most dreaded terrorist". So, to certify Osama's height, one of the team - a six foot guy - lay down beside the corpse and they figured he was four inches taller. All this to prove what the world knows to be his height. Smart. But they could have carried a little
ruler at least.

Oh, and the first words uttered by the killer commando were: "For god and country - Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo."

We know about the code word. America must learn that country means just one country. Keep your war on terror to yourself. Don't export it. And since you've brought in god, live with your own holy war. Carry your 'jihad' mirror wherever you go.

That will be your cage.

They don’t have terrorists in Norway?

He is just a killer. Got it? No? Don’t you read the papers, watch the news, listen to the experts? Heck, don’t you see that Muslim organisations are so accustomed to being taken for granted that they jump in claiming that they did it. Ah, one more terrorist attack. But Norway? Why not? There are Muslims there and somewhere in Islam Norway too must have been mentioned. It did not work. This time someone was scoring points. That is what it is made out to be when a nice blond, clean-shaven guy in cop/military uniform, confesses.

He is not called a terrorist, no blanket judgement yet. Even as radical, he has his reasons – he is anti-Islam. He wreaked this terrorist attack to draw world attention to the end of multiculturalism. The New York Times had this precious nugget:

“Yet, some of the primary motivations cited by the suspect in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, are now mainstream issues. Mrs. Merkel, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister David Cameron in Britain all recently declared an end to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism “has failed, utterly failed,” Mrs. Merkel told fellow Christian Democrats last October, though stressing that immigrants were welcome in Germany.”

Is this not great? The bloke is now supposedly speaking or echoing the views of world leaders and the international media is going along with it?

The fact that he is seen to have acted alone puts him in the romanticised category of the lone ranger. He has himself said about how it was all “in the head”. They might just analyse it as mental trauma due to seeing so many immigrants around; maybe he suffered from claustrophobia; perhaps he was just playing some video games and decided to re-enact those scenes in real life. It would be attributed to madness. I would like to know why other sorts of such attacks are not. Because, they are not. They are planned and always have a purpose. There is, therefore, no reason to give him the benefit of doubt and to put him on a psychiatric couch only because he was alone. He has already displayed enough gall to declare that he wants to explain his stand. Explain the killing of a hundred people? He also wants to appear in uniform for the court hearings.

I am afraid but all this adds to the ‘heroism’. It won’t be stated in so many words, yet the subtext is clear. In a rather surprising statement quoted in the NYT piece, Joerg Forbrig, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin who has studied far-rights issues, said:

“I’m not surprised when things like the bombing in Norway happen, because you will always find people who feel more radical means are necessary. It literally is something that can happen in a number of places and there are broader problems behind it.”

Stunningly simplistic. “More radical means are necessary”? So says the Al Qaeda too, but they are not given this Prozac kind of treatment. “Broader problems behind it”? Sure. While radical Islamists train and prune everything, except their beards, they could have broader problems as well – like their countries being decimated by powers that have no business to be on their land in the first place, and every person being considered a suspect if s/he is a Muslim, and their clothes and lifestyle being questioned.

Had this terrorist – yes, do use this term – been wearing a hijaab would it be seen as concern over multiculturalism? After all, when westerners go bang-bang and bomb-bomb in Iraq and Afghanistan, those places are superimposed by another culture and a fascist regime that seeks puppets to play with. Multiculturalism is not only about one nation deciding who the bad ones are, if they have granted them visas and they are working and in many ways contributing. If they are criminals, treat them as just that. Not as terror suspects. That does not happen. The chap at the pharmacy could well be a terrorist and if he takes an afternoon break for prayers, then he has had it. The teacher who wears a hijaab could be smuggling in Islamic literature for the bright kids who will soon turn into terrorists. Europe and America cannot take such risks.

We will forget the evangelists, the guys who burn the Quran, the people who say god told them to do it, the guys who move away if they see a person who does not look like them. Oh, they love chicken tikka and now vegetable jalfrezi. The curry kingdom was great till it lasted. Now it is time to just take the recipe and make it very clear who the boss is. As though it is not evident. As though it were any different when they ‘got Saddam’, they ‘got Osama’.

Breivik’s terrorism is as bad as any other is, so let us stop making excuses. The immigrant problem is there and must be dealt with by the relevant department. Neo-Nazi groups have been active long before 9/11. The new xenophobia has got a pedestal.


I also have problems with questions about how Muslims must integrate into societies they adopt as home. It brings the idea of globalisation down to a convenient ghetto. It is like Wall Street where you can get bullish and wager over funds the world over sitting at a desk. A closed group. You go to Muslim societies and Westerners work there and make no change in their lifestyle. They are immigrants in Middle-East countries that clearly call themselves Islamic and have never pretended otherwise. There is talk about how people cannot wear bikinis and I have maintained that a bikini is not a dress, not even casual smart. It is meant for the beach and beaches in those countries do permit people to wear what they want.

This is a digression because multiculturalism has different meanings. The West has always promoted itself as such a haven, a melting pot. It appears to be a simmering pot where discontent is now being given a more aggressive form. It is done slyly, as a protective garb.

Breivik’s “individual capacity” act is one such manoeuvre. This is what he had written before going on the killing spree about how he will be portrayal in the media after the act:

"However, since I manifest their worst nightmare (systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors), they will probably just give me the full propaganda rape package and propagate the following accusations: pedophile, engaged in incest activities, homosexual, psycho, ADHD, thief, non-educated, inbred, maniac, insane, monster etc. I will be labeled as the biggest (Nazi-)monster ever witnessed since WW2."

He gets points for getting the media down pat. It has stopped being a kangaroo court; it is now all about pop psychology.

Those people who died and their families do not know why this happened. Do they agree with him? I won’t be surprised if days later some adept media person will land up at their doorstep and get an ‘understanding’ version of the misguided soul who was disturbed by what the world was turning into because their jobs and lives were at stake. He was frightened, do you understand?

And you will see images of Islamic terror more than this act. There will be great editing. Shots of Norwegians weeping. Cut to some bombing by Islamist groups.

Who will this help? Both. The West in its endeavour to keep the ‘war on terror’ iron hot. And the radical Islamic groups who are so gung-ho about their role that the media attention will in fact help them by default. They did not do it, but they could. They always can.

Neither will realise that the world is not about them, but about people who are just living their lives.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Published in Countercurrents

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

Whose burden is the burqa?

Those who object to the “moving prison” say nothing about men displaying the physical assets of trophy wives in a consumerist paradise.

If anyone is benefiting from the Islamist idea, specifically the veil, then it is the western elite or the westernised liberals among Muslims. I might have been a part of the latter given my mode of dress, speech and general deportment. I choose, instead, to play devil’s advocate. The reason is that the debate over whether a woman has the right to cover her face and body has become a western discourse. Its validity is reduced partly due to its being co-opted by an alien yardstick and partly because, ironically, it uses the religious paradigm to justify the ban on the veil.

The Quran does not prescribe it, the Prophet did not enjoin it and so on go the arguments. That is not the point anymore, and incidentally men too follow certain dress codes. It is beyond religion and one must understand that the Muslim world, and even the Arab world, is not of one kind. Therefore, discussing anything in such uniform terms reveals paucity of insight. I’d like one single commentator to discuss this issue without bringing in Islam and then let us watch the fun.

Contemporary society has many areas of darkness and every religion is rediscovering its roots. The rediscovery probably has nothing to do with the essence of the faith. The Pat Robertsons often go well with TV dinners for those rushed for time and prayer. Patriarchal paranoia too would be justified if it also took into account how non-Muslim societies choose to treat their women where they are subtly left out of mainstream political and social opinions. Why is the West obsessed only with Islam?

This is an extension of the old xenophobia. Some are upfront and brand others as terrorists or suspects; the others go the other way and play patronising angels who understand the ‘pain’ of the Muslim woman. In France, where the veil was banned on April 11, a very small percentage of its Muslim population wears the veil. Why is the rest of the female population not considered in the arguments put forth? Does the fact that some women defied the ban not reveal that they cannot be herded into an ignorant, backward stereotype?

When the Bill was first being considered Andre Gerin, a Communist Party legislator, had said, “Today, we are confronted by certain Muslim women wearing the burqa, which covers and fully envelops the body and the head like a moving prison”. His 57 colleagues had signed a document that stated it amounted “to a breach of individual freedoms on our national territory”.

Whose individual freedom is it? I may personally not wear the veil but I do not think any woman doing so is infringing on my freedom. If the religion of France is secularism, then it does not as a matter of course mean that no religious choices can be made. Secularism is not atheism. If the issue is regarding security risks, then the government must make it clear that certain checks will be mandatory, but to sneak in ethical arguments is vile.

It is also extremely offensive to question veiled women who believe they feel empowered. Like grand vigilantes, the anti-veil group thinks it is important to probe the basis of such a choice. As a stand-alone poser it is legitimate, but then how many women have access to equal opportunities in the workplace or rights even at home? Those who object to the “moving prison” and contend that male insecurity puts a wife or sister behind the burqa say nothing about men who feel secure having trophy wives and displaying them for their physical assets in a consumerist paradise.

There is a belief that the veil defines a woman completely. It does not, just as a skirt or a lipstick does not. Whether they choose to wear loose ‘tents’ or scarves with tight clothes is only one of the choices they make in life, as much as others do things to please their partners, peer groups or societal trends. The people who can ensure that no one is forced to wear what she does not want to are those who understand the construct and not imposers who come with their own moral values garbed as liberalism. A true liberal is not offended by others and most certainly not afraid that she cannot bond with a face behind a niqab. With botox and cosmetics, not to speak of public facades, what about the masks we wear?

(c) Farzana Versey


The images are posited to emphasise the exaggerated positions and draw home the point that there are several layers between the two aspects.

Published in Countercurrents, April 25, 2011

What is Zubin Mehta's peeve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewels of India

When Union human resources development minister Kapil Sibal announced plans for ‘navratna’ universities, his blueprint was not our own ancient universities like Nalanda or the brilliant minds of a Chanakya or Birbal. He looked westward:

“We are working on the concept of having navratna universities or an Indian Ivy League. We intend to nurture these select universities, like the public sector navratnas, by generous financial support, freedom in accessing external funding and total autonomy so as to free them from the shackles of government control.”

While the absence of government control in the running of such universities is gratifying, to what extent will it be so? Will it nurture an open-ended educational system where students are not trapped in outdated syllabi? Will there be freedom to explore controversial subjects and books? And will this further create a fractured society?

Recently, an elite school raised objections to students from less privileged backgrounds enrolling as per the requirements of the Right To Education (RTE) Act because they were concerned about the adjustment issues they might have; there have been instances when this hurdle has been crossed, but it is a fact even in regular schools that the social and financial status counts. The disparities are ingrained at an early stage.

Mr Sibal further stated:

“With regard to our existing navratnas —the IITs and IIMs—we are according full powers to their boards to create posts within the approved norms, top up the salaries of the directors and faculty from the funds generated by them, open centres in India and abroad, amend rules within the framework of their Memorandums of Association and Rules, acquire and dispose property and manage funds generated on their own.”

There is no doubt that some of our bright minds are nursed here and grabbed by foreign companies. By opening centres abroad, they will cater to a limited expatriate population or perhaps those from some Asian and African countries. The wealthy Indian diaspora even today chooses the American school franchises available in the countries they reside in.

As for the Ivy League inspiration, again those institutions do have a reputation, but does that translate into brilliance as a matter of course? The affordability factor is extremely important here, and the snob value. Those who are there because they got a quick ticket have no worries; for the others who are being sponsored the stress is immense.

Check the suicide rates and the culture of angst that these institutes give rise to and you will know that where the crucial human element is concerned, they may not be roughed up as in the colleges of some small town but it isn’t all glittering.

The nine jewels – navratna – must not create a parallel world of India Shining to gloss over the reality.

Squeaking about clean

I am charmed by Lalit Bhanot, the secretary general of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee. The fact that the facilities are unhygienic and he deems it as a difference in perception of standards of hygiene reveals a truth that we and the rest of the world refuses to accept.

It could be a nice cocoon within the complex, but does it change the way Indians perceive hygiene? Have you used toilets in public places? Haven’t you seen the manner in which people defecate and urinate in the streets? Before screwing up your noses, and we do that, let us remember that these people have no choice. Let us also try and look back at our ‘lesser’ athletes who have to make do with very basic facilities. Let us recall the times we have glorified this excreta and let the westerners make millions of dollars over the dump.

One is not pro-dirt. Bhanot has not ‘shamed India’ as the headlines claim. We need to see how we shame ourselves and our citizens everyday. If some countries want to bring their own janitors, then they might as well bring their mosquito nets and Evian bottles too.

It seems that they are deliberately showing these aspects much as the fear created over security. Why would our authorities let them take these pictures? And how do we know for certain what these particular photos are from and about? Something stinks here and it is not the poop.

Those who have travelled overseas do know that the quick-fix fragrance and automatic flush stuff is not always about cleanliness. Loos there have sanitary napkins and toilet rolls on the floor; the seats often have menstrual stains. We all know about the legendary lack of male aim, and it is universal. Garbage bins overflow and are collected weekly as they wait in the backyards of those who can afford backyards. People do pee against bushes. And where do you think the homless go to clean up?

There appears to be less dust due to the climate, but there is enough of it going around. Mouldy foodstuff is pushed into a microwave to come out as good as new. Yes, Indians spit, but if you have seen any Phil Donahue show or read some silly stuff about Hollywood starlets and models you will know that their natural resources are expended in quite public a fashion. I know of women unable to control their bladders who have sat nonchalantly on pub stools as their stockings got drenched. But, the weather’s so chippy nippy that it dries and their glasses of ale warm them up so.

Of course, it’s all nice and clean at Flushing Meadows and Wimbledon and the World Cup and other events because the guys who mess up in the locker rooms are the guys who win the medals. So, no one complains because no one talks about it.

Get over it, people. Cricketers rub their balls against their balls and footballers spit on the grounds; tennis players lick their sweaty upper lips and athletes fart in their shorts. And people will pay money to wear, touch these items of clothing. Go clean up your minds first, then we can talk about how prepared we are.

Are our players ready to run, pole-vault and stand tall? Ask that question and let the drains choke to death.

No citizenship please, we're phirangs

Actress Katrina Kaif, supposedly the queen bee of Bollywood and one of the highest earners, is not an Indian national. And she does not even wish to be an Indian citizen.

Today’s TOI had an interesting report that talked about how most of the prominent people are on work permits. Some are earning in crores. What are the tax liabilities? Whenh they shoot overseas, don’t they need to get visas from their home country? Since most of them are from places that are exempt from many struictures, it might not pose a problem, but one wonders about the lenient policy of our government.

Yana and Katrina

Among those who have been staying in India and working on an employment visa include UK national and actress Katrina Kaif, US national Dipti Nawal, UK national Salma Agha and Yana Gupta from Czech Republic. “Most of the actors and other foreigners working in Bollywood prefer staying here on an employment visa. Sometimes they come asking for an extension in visa period. We consider whatever is correct as per the law,’’ said a police official from the immigration department.

Deepti Naval is not doing much work, perhaps out of choice. How does the employment visa apply to her? What is Salma Agha doing? Yana Gupta was married to an Indian, but it appears she chose an employment visa. She is a model. It is a freelance job as are films. What are the strictures for such cases where there is no employer and contracts can change with every assignment?

As per the bilateral treaty between India and the US on tourist visa, an American national can stay in India on a tourist visa for as long as 10 years and the same tenure is applicable for Indian citizens in America as well.

I think this is not correct. One can get a 10-year visa, but it is multiple entry. Indians can live there upto six months and then return.

Pakistani singer Adnan Sami is staying in Mumbai along with his German national wife.

Adnan and new wife

Adnan Sami and his wives at different times seem to get some special treatment. He is of Pakistani origin; his ex-wife was from the UAE; his current wife is half-Afghan. He works here, buys properties, fights divorce cases here, buys dogs, the spouse fights for custody of the dog. Great. And then Indians have the audacity to questions Muslims in their own country.

I could not resist that. The important point is none of these people want to become Indian citizens. It is not only those from the glamour world, though. I know people working in NGOs who do the same.

Do Indians get the same treatment abroad? No. If the UK and US are now worried about their jobs, then India isn’t really flush with employment vacancies that Indians cannot fill. It is pretty disgusting that even the dancers in the background in our films are now whites, and don’t tell me that our girls are shy. We have seen item numbers and know they can jiggle and wiggle and bare as much as anyone else.

And just in case you did not know, to counteract the policies of these countries and due to our foreign obsession some of our prominent Indians make sure that their offspring are born abroad so that they become naturalised citizens. These are people we respect as Indians. Go figure.

Mukhtaran and Meena

How did a rape victim become an icon and why? Is Jamshed Dasti a stand-alone, callous bloke trying to use pressure and clout to stifle justice or is he representative of the pugnacious social structure? Mukhtaran Mai’s bravery is a personal one, I am afraid. There has not been a spurt of such court cases; it has not sensitised people at the ground level; it has not resulted in understanding of what rape, especially gang rape, conveys.

Meet Meena. She heard the screams. Her husband lay in a pool of blood. Before she could do anything, the men had pounced on her. After some time she managed to drag herself and get help. She then went to file a complaint. The cops tittered, looked at her breasts above her pregnant belly and said: “Doodh pila de”. She yelled out helplessly. Months later, life was still miserable, now with an incapacitated husband and fear. “They barricaded most of the area. If I left the hut for long they’d break it again. It was so bad that we had to defecate inside on sheets of paper and I’d carry the excreta and throw it on the other side, which was a swamp,” she said.

I was sitting with her far from the cold floor, but her story was chilling. She was indirectly caught in a fight between two builders. Her husband worked for one. The rival hired a goonda gang. This was cosmopolitan Mumbai and they were only earning a living. Until that day, a day that she had to leave behind even as she went looking for work and visiting the police station. Justice was being scraped out painfully; it could not be brandished in bold letters.

Does it all end after the devastation of riots, militant attacks, wars? No. Brutalisation is only the outer manifestation. Women become double victims — first of the actual battle and then of the ideology. In the days when sati was a sanctified institution, the motive was to save women from marauding enemy armies. But, what was being protected —their lives or their sexuality? We have heard about victims marrying their rapists. These are literal demonstrations of masculinisation of power.

Jamshed Dasti’s ‘compromise’ formula is based as much on the tribal laws that forced Mukhtaran’s rape. She was the price they had to extract for another’s ‘sin’. The urban politician is using a similar yardstick and, much as his views are reprehensible, there are often coteries that take over a symbol to showcase their concern for the co-existence of feminism and tradition. Mukhtaran has been hawked like fusion cuisine.

She has become a cliché for injustice and, ironically, even more exploited. The value system and marketing machinery are patriarchal. The victim woman who fights, becomes a canonised caricature, so beloved of the Wsest and the westernised, leaving little room for the voiceless. It is appalling that we cheer when a case gets international exposure. Our media gives them the exotic version when in those countries date rapes, incest and teen pregnancies are a common occurrence. How many of their victims are seen as icons?

Had Jamshed Dasti been worried about the international repercussions he would have shut-up. He is concerned about the local constituency. For all those disparaging him, yes, he is for real. If we look deeper, then he is what many surrounding us are about, including women who accept the status of trophy wives and state, “It’s okay if my husband goes here and there as long as he comes home to me at the end.”

If we have said or heard this and not given it a second thought, then Dasti’s crime is not very different from ours.

- - -

Published in The Express Tribune, July 6th, 2010.

Of PIOs, Rathore and the BJP's Prodigals

She is an advocate and the first woman attorney-general. But trust the headlines to play that down. Hindustan Times had ‘Indian-origin granny is PM of Trinidad’. The Times of India went with ‘Indian-origin’.




Kamla Persad-Bissessar has been elected the first woman prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago.

“I am grateful for the immense support from women across the country,” Persad-Bissessar, a devout Hindu, said. “I celebrate this victory on their behalf.”

Her forefather was among the 1,48,000 Indian labourers who were brought here between 1845 and 1917 to work on sugar and cocoa plantations.

How far back in time can we go to claim origins to specific places and fete it? I am waiting to see how much mileage this news gets in the Indian media, what analysis follows. After all, she is not heading a Western company. Trinidad and Tobago are in the news when we see beauty queens strutting down the ramp and their sash has many more words. If forty-four per cent of the country’s population is of Indian origin there may be quite a few who have achieved something. You never hear about that.

I should hope Ms. Persad-Bissessar will change that and we look beyond the US-Europe axis. And we have not missed the reference to her being a “devout Hindu”. I am quite certain if the Indian media interviews her, she will be asked how many times she prays, who is her favourite deity, what festivals she celebrates and she might lovingly display some idol. She has to keep her forefather’s home constituency happy. They don’t do Trinidad and Tobago often.

Oh, and Hindutvawadis will talk about how Hinduism is a global phenomenon.

Of course, I could be wrong and no one will give a damn because she is not heading PepsiCo.

- - -

Why is everyone celebrating justice?

Former Haryana DGP S P S Rathore was thrown behind bars on Tuesday, 20 years after he molested 14-year-old Ruchika Girhotra, driving her to shame and suicide,

He has got an 18-month sentence. He is in a barrack where they put undertrials and convicted police officers. The manner in which newspapers have been writing about his strip search is as though they feel something unusual is being done. He is a criminal and what is being done to him is what criminals have to go through. There is also this disgusting emphasis on his smile. Every report would mention his smile and now they sat there is no smile.

However, Rathore told TOI while coming out of the court, “The smile is on my face and it will remain.’’

Oh, my, what a scoop.

This man is disgusting for several reasons. The last time he mentioned the cramped space where it was impossible to molest anyone and he would have to be Hanuman and perform a miraculous feat to change his size. Someone ought to have slapped him. And where were the upholders of religion? This man is using a mythological character to say that he could commit a crime if he was one.

The judge, Gurbir Singh, pronounced the verdict:

“As police officer, his role was to protect the public. As president of the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association, his role was to train budding players for India. But he failed in both duties by molesting a minor girl. People are afraid to send minor girls to playgrounds due to the presence of such persons.”

Is this some dacoit film dialogue…so jaao, nahin tau Gabbar aayega? What if he had encouraged other budding players and had performed his police duties on other occasions? This is a specific case and the judgement should be specific.

Subhash Girhotra, the girl’s father, said:

“It doesn’t matter that the sentence awarded is one-and-a-half years or two years because justice has been delivered. The court has taken the side of righteous people. But the battle will continue for justice in the abetment of suicide case.”

The courts took 14 years and Rathore resigned seven years after his crime. How can anyone call this justice?

I am also intrigued that his wife, a lawyer, is representing him in court. It must not be easy. Does she truly believe in his innocence or is she performing her wifely duties? Is she under threat to do so?

- - -

If there was one person who was most certainly not taken in by Jaswant Singh’s ‘ouster’ from the BJP it was this writer. I had even alluded here that his martyrdom was a concocted act.

I had also maintained that Uma Bharti’s leaving the party is a superficial move.

Now, we have it in cold print. Just the way everyone likes it:

The BJP is all set to welcome back into its fold two of its expelled leaders — Jaswant Singh and Uma Bharti — it is learnt.

If things turn out according to plan, Singh could be back before the party’s national executive scheduled for June 12-13 in Patna and so could Bharti. Of the two, the prospects of Singh’s homecoming are stronger with senior partyman L K Advani himself having initiated the process.

Uma Bharti had quit the party she started! What more can one say about such power-hungry people? They will justify their return by saying things like, “We were always ideologically with the BJP”, “There are fights but we are one big family”, “Disagreements reveal that we are a democratic party” and ho-hum.

PS: What happens to those poor supporters of our sophisticated and shrewd Jaswant Singh?

The White House Whitewash Job

Mind your language
The White House Whitewash Job
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, April 9-11, 2010

Forked tongues are part of the political arsenal, therefore what the White House says and what the White House does rarely meet even the facile “Read my lips” dictum.

Hamid Karzai was the fattened cat of American foreign policy that intervened to transform their version of a tribal society into their feudal Afghan version of a democracy. As strategies go, it worked as well as LSD.

Cut to the new airbrushed initiative. While the Bush Doctrine underlined National Security Strategy in the document that stated, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century,” it was upfront about its limited idea of ideology. It meant ‘Attack’ and it did. George W. Bush had no clue about history and no vision for the future. He was not even attempting ‘change’ and was rather complacent about the status quo as much as Bill Clinton was with the blue dress.

All was not well and the world knew it. They had put Islamic nations, which included those who were beleaguered, being forced out of their own land or battling internal strife, into a shoebox to consecrate their febrile memory.

The shoebox was a metaphor for beneath the boots, unshod, in short of as much value as skeletons in the cupboard.

Tagged along with it was Islamophobia. We fell for it, at least the term. No one seemed to realise that phobias are about fears. If you are phobic, then you hide away. You do not taunt, tease or challenge unless you want to exorcise that fear.

Now Barack Obama is attempting the first two. He, like the aggressors, knows that there never was any fear. The Islamophobia construct was not the doing of Islamists but their opponents. It was to create the fear of fear.

Obama's band of boys has decided that phrases such as “Islamic radicalism” should be deleted from the shoebox. A report states that there will be a "new version to emphasize that the US does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say...The revisions are part of a larger effort to change how the US talks to Muslim nations."

Notice how counterterrorism officials are issuing such statements and how it is about the US talking to Muslim nations. One wonders whether there will be any real attempt at altered perspective. If the idea is not to get trapped in linguistics, then it does not qualify as a diplomatic manoeuvre and need not be emphasised. However, it is being dangled as a huge carrot not only of political correctness but empathy, and therefore is too cunning a ploy for Obama to be anointed as statesman. For, had there been any genuine intent, then there would be no need for the use of the words ‘Muslim nations’.

This is mere playing with terminology. What the United States and a large section of the western world wishes to engage with is not Muslim nations, but to create a fear so that the demons can be exorcised, and exorcised only partially. If you do so completely then there will be no shoebox.

They wanted to bring peace and democracy to Iraq? Rubbish. Besides the hallucinations and the ground level war, they managed to get local insurgents to fight the Al Qaida in Iraq. Was there any Al Qaida in Iraq, to begin with? A group of Sunnis, members of Sahwa, Awakening Councils, thought they were on to become big-time US allies. It did not work that way. Last week, gunmen dressed as Iraqi officers killed 25 people in a Sunni village; the victims were handcuffed and shot dead.

The forked tongues work wonderfully to prop up this idea of internal turmoil as a ruse for ‘preventive war’. Hamid Karzai announces that he might join the Taliban, as though it is like signing up at the local gym, and there is concern. This is fake. Quoting a minister, Farooq Marenai, who mentioned that the President said “rebelling would change to resistance”, the report helpfully added that he was “apparently suggesting the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign powers rather than a rebellion against an elected government”.

Karzai works best under pressure; in fact, that is the only way he works. The Taliban has always been a resistance to foreign powers or puppets of foreign powers. Their method of resistance may be questioned but Karzai’s grouse is personal, that Parliament reduced his powers over the electoral process. Since he cannot hold the Taliban responsible, he accused foreign powers. The simple fact is that it is true. He is making noises with the purpose of gaining extra rights for himself within the US-controlled system he heads.

His comments should not have alarmed anyone. They have. Peter Galbraith, a former UN envoy to Afghanistan, appeared on television and said, “He’s prone to tirades. He can be very emotional, act impulsively. In fact, some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan’s most profitable exports.”

Since President Obama is on language, he ought to make note of this. Forget what alterations are made on paper, this buffers the image of backward societies. If Karzai accused the US of fraud in the Afghan elections, then why is Mr. Galbraith out to limit his powers to appoint officials until he proves himself to be a reliable partner to the US? It just does not make sense. Wanting to reduce his clout is in effect an admission that it is possible to do so and might have been done since Galbraith himself states that the US had got him a second term!

One wonders who is tripping on what.

And while talking about reliable partnerships, is America going to decide the nature of it alone? Is a partnership not about two sides?

The CIA Chicks?

Would you like to sell your story to help promote war? Do you believe that troops marching into terrain that has abused women would truly help them?

The CIA plans to use women to market the war.

“Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing” the mission for Europe, according to the CIA analysis, posted on WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website. Afghan women could express “their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory”.

Isn’t there a difference between humanising and being humane? True, many of these women have suffered, but how will a war solve their problems, their social status, their gender roles, their subjugation? Who will help them realise their dreams once the war is over and there are many left dead, including their fathers, their husbands, their sons? What if they want a future that includes family?

The analysis, dated March 11, says “outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive scepticism among women in Western Europe”.

This is too conniving. You get women under Taliban rule (from where will they get real women or will they be westernised spokespersons?) to talk to women in the west and convince them that a war is essential. This is blackmail that is planned by one set of patriarchy to subvert another. Both kinds of women are being used.

Even if the Taliban loses, we already know the cost of such wars – in economic as well as psychological terms. The woman in the west perhaps understands that besides those being sent off to fight a futile war, the immense tragedy is of bringing back a baggage of guilt.

Those plotting such efforts simply reveal another dimension of machismo. This isn’t much different than keeping women in an intellectual harem and expecting them to send off the men to slay the lions while they wait for them to return, bloodied and victorious.

Neither woman gains anything. The memorandum is subtitled, “Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough.” The PR exercise is itself apathy, using a tragedy as a soap opera.

Liberals and Fundamentalists

She is a blonde from Central America. Did she need to be stripped to her waist? As part of an armed gang of robbers, Alejandra Maria Torres could have been arrested. But a mob had gathered, torn off her blouse, poured gasoline over her and lit the match. And stood by to watch. (My apologies for using these pictures, but it is to make a point.)


This is not some backward tribal region. The mob has not been given a name; they are not called terrorists. This happened on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 in Guatemala City.

The figures for this year read: 219 people lynched; 45 of them died.

The lesson here is that cruelty has different dimensions.

The picture of the Afghan woman being shot dead for a ‘crime’ is a potent one.


Here, you can blame the religious law as practised by a bunch of fanatics. The enemy is visible. But has any religious group been indicted for the Guatemalan lynching? Why was the woman's physical humiliation necessary when the crime has no sexual dimension? This is a democracy we are talking about.

In most societies, it is the women who have to bear the brunt of religious laws. All religions have arisen due to wars and been sanctified as such – it could be battles on the ground or battles of the mind. The seeking of supremacy is at the core of religious credos. There are other moral values that come along, but who has the time for them? It is about laws, rituals and a convenient interpretation that grants the male special powers.

A Somali man was stoned for adultery and buried alive. The Daily Mail had the caption, ‘Begging for his life: Mohamed Ibrahim appeals to Islamic militants not to carry out the execution as he is buried in the ground as his villagers are forced to watch’.


This photograph is by Associated Press. Were they invited, too? Could they not have taken along or alerted the Human Rights organisations? Were they too forced to watch?

I would pose the same query to RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan)that holds copyright to the Afghan picture. There is no doubt that it works under extremely difficult situations with women in Afghanistan, but why the need to take those pictures? To show the world? Has the world helped in these civil issues? The world is interested in the behemoth of terrorism, not what happens to innocent men, women and children.

The Somali man in this picture does not seem to be begging and his persecutors appear to be talking him into getting buried. This is not to in anyway deny the reality as it happens. This does take place. There are a number of people ready to flex their muscles – weak idiots who do not care about religion but their own invincibility.

Besides, why was a man stoned for adultery? Isn’t this the sort of machismo that supposedly comes with the territory?

And what does one do about the Tiger Woods case? Does not the morality have its source in some early indoctrination?


On the flip side, I have been shocked at comments that say his wife should have known that when you marry a celebrity all this comes with the package and that she has now spoiled his career. The onus is on her. She should have chosen to remain a nanny or must take this in her stride.

Interesting how the liberals speak the language of the fundamentalists.

- - -

I recall that there was a column by an Indian feminist titled ‘Adam’s Rib’. I found it pretty stupid besides being regressive. Around the same time I had a column where I did rather cutting profiles of prominent men. I had called it ‘Eve’s Adam’...I guess I could spare some ribs!