Tweeting Tharoor Again

Come on guys, is there anyone out there calling Shashi Tharoor a jihadi apologist?

Imagine a statement like this coming from someone like you know who:

“Is all that worth it just in hope of making it difficult for a future Headley to recce? R we going 2 allow terrorists 2 make us less welcoming? 26/11 killers had no visas.”

This has been my position and that of quite a few people. Don’t know about the quite a few people, but we know what happens when I state this.

But, what are his reasons? He talks as though terrorists are spoiling the party when we had those cute pictures and sound bytes from tourists who ‘braved’ the 26/11 anniversary to be here, sat at Leopold with their beers, walked down the Gateway promenade and generally ‘challenged’ the terrorists.

Tharoor’s statement sounds a bit too smart and Obamaesque and falls straight in line with how the West thinks. Those governments may occasionally put out terror alerts, but they will make sure that they do not lose the India commercial connection. And sure enough, that is his concern: Tourism and business. He is one-dimensional in his approach, as has become clear by now.

It is our government and the opposition parties that have created the paranoia. Instead of tweeting about it, he should be discussing it with his ministers. By saying that the terrorists had no visas he is implying that our security is not up to nuff and anyone can indeed get in.

So, here’s a tweet for the minister: “Hol desntns full, Mum partng like crzy. Time 4 u to workout where Headley did n got Moksha. U cn get urs too. Hppy Nw yr n hand-on-heart sing Jana Gana Mana!”
- --

*Moksha is the name of the gym that Headley often visited.

The battle for no religion

Islam was written on my birth certificate, but that did not ‘make’ me a Muslim. In school we had to fill such forms. In the later years of college, I would put in NA – not applicable. The clerk was too busy to notice. Most people are, unless it is in an exceedingly important context.

So, what is this hullabaloo over a well-educated couple choosing “to battle an unremitting bureaucracy from the very start and refused to fill in the column titled ‘Religion’ in their child’s most basic document, the birth certificate”? Incidentally, the TOI headline was, "No religion please, we’re liberals"! The amount of time liberals take to discuss religion cannot mean 'no religion'.

Aditi Shedde and Aalif Surti are the Hindu Maharashtrian mother and Gujarati Muslim father of the special baby. Says the mother:

“A few months into my pregnancy, we had decided that we would not give our child any religious identity. We are not against religion, but who are we to choose a religion on our baby’s behalf? We will expose him to the values of different faiths and cultures, and when he grows up he will be free to follow any faith—or none if he wishes.”

That would have been possible even if they had added a religion. There are many of us who do not actively practise any faith even though we have been branded. Heck, we get branded anyway.

If it is different cultures they want to expose the child to, then they could have made him a Jew or a Christian. As it turns out they had to fill in “Others”.

“Others is just to facilitate the generation of the certificate. We know our child has no religion.”

I do not understand. If they insist the child has no religion, why make such a noise about it? It only draws attention to the fact that they have a religion which they are not practising. Adults make these choices. Their baby will grow up and make several others. He could take to certain habits they may not approve of (and I am sure they do have certain values they believe in) – will they leave it to choice?

Why give the child a name when he can choose it when he grows up? Or will they select one of those abstract ones or something from Greek mythology to make certain that their respective religions do not come in the way to brandish their views?
If both of them belonged to the same faith would they have done the same thing? I doubt it. I think this is more statement than a practical reality.

Over a decade ago, I had written this:

But religion per se cannot give anyone an identity in the fluctuating late 20th century society. It can only provide the much-dreaded moral fibre and a mistakenly-interpreted formula for living. Besides, it does colour our interpretation of the world.

If the child under discussion were to make the choice, is there any guarantee he will not be exposed to any religion anywhere? Why are the parents identifying themselves with the different faiths they were born in? What will they tell him when he grows up a bit and sees people around with tags? Therefore, it is about religion, anyway you look at it.

When I was a kid I was asked whether I wanted to have the muliyani come over and I refused. When I stopped participating in certain rituals – which were anyway a rarity at our house – no one questioned me.

Identity is larger than a label. If it is not, then we are in serious trouble and no amount of battling bureaucracy and having something fancy on a piece of paper will change that.

What if the child wants to change his gender later? Why put 'Male' in the form? I know this is stretching it, but how else do you reach out?
- - -

In an incident that worked in an opposite manner I once filled out a form for my mother and put NA in the religion section, but the person insisted it was required. I later informed her about it and she shot back, “Who has given you the right to make this choice for me? I am a Muslim and that is a fact. I don’t tell you what you should follow, so don’t interfere in mine.”

Sunday ka Funda

Revisiting these links sent to me. You may have issues with the message, but some things have not changed. Pat Condell was speaking between 2007-2008. Something to think about:

Hello America



United States of Jesus

Old Man and the She

Narain Dutt Tiwari is doing fine. He is the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and was caught with his pajamas down but with his shirt on lying on his back in bed, we are informed, with two women and a third at his feet. The women were “without a shred of clothing”.

Pictures of these appeared on the Telugu channel ABN Andhra Jyothi for an hour before someone had enough of the pajama party.

I have a few technical queries, but first the details.

A woman named Radhika sent the girls in return for mining projects she was promised, the channel said. As the promise was not kept, she handed over some pictures taken by her.

“We have evidence (to back) what we have shown,” said the person from the TV channel.

Right. The woman who did not get what she wanted sent them as bait.

What are the women’s organisations that are protesting going to do about it? Here are some of their quotes…

The Progressive Organisation of Women:

“We have a woman President and another managing the biggest party in the country. We will petition them to take stern action against this man.”

All India Democratic Women’s Association:

“But such action is not taken against a person who holds such a high constitutional position and has besmirched the highest office with this cheap act.”

A Rights activist:

“We must cleanse Raj Bhavan with milk.”

Is this a sex scandal? As Governor, Raj Bhavan is his house. Was he using office space? Did he leave a meeting for the rendezvous? Did he physically abuse the girls? The media has referred to them as call girls – have they complained against him? Did he call them? No. Then, what ruse did they use to get in?

Now, for my tech stuff. The man is lying down. These are stills. Was he stripped? Did he strip the women or did they opt to do it themselves? Did he pay them? Who took the pictures if they were occupied at the task at hand and they were wearing nothing where they could hide a spy cam? Was the camera positioned beforehand? Was a staffer involved? Is anyone thinking about security risk?

The issue of Telengana is still causing hiccups. Perhaps, this was a diversionary tactic and a political manouevre. Opposition TDP president and former CM N Chandrababu Naidu said:

“The Raj Bhavan incident shows the low level of ethics. Everyone should be ashamed. The governor should either resign immediately or should be sacked.”

Ethics! What a lovely word it is, can be used for anything. Is it ethical that some woman wanted to get favours, chose to bait him and get pictures taken and then sent them off to a TV channel that telecast it? How does it affect people’s morality? Do the Andhraites consider N.D.Tiwari as a role model who they have been emulating and this act has come as a shock and altered their perception of sexuality and high office?

And why are some people wondering about the ethics of having the TV channel muzzled? Don't we sit and ask questions about the ethics of reality shows? How different is this and how will it contribute to social understanding of anything? If those shows are staged, then what about this one?

We are a bunch of hypocrites. Had he used one of the circuit houses that our hardworking babus regularly do, would it have been okay? Had he given that mine deal, would it be fine? Had the TV channel not aired it, nobody would know. Then what? Would anyone talk about ethics?

As regards washing the Raj Bhavan with milk, where are the ethics of wastage?

People do not consider politicians as paragons of virtue, anyway. What about other professionals or figures we treat with awe and the tamashas they indulge in? Why do they get hushed up?

This one will be, too. There have been many cases down the years, but we just don’t seem to be able to accept them. Oh, Nehru’s relationship with Edwina was platonic kind of stuff. A lot does happen. And if it is consensual, then why not? If we want saints, we will ask for saints. Let these men and women continue to do what normal people do or wish they could do.

There was another instance about someone claiming he was his father. ND has had such disappearing stints earlier, and once everyone buys enough time for Telengana things will be forgotten, including that mine deal.

Obviously, his spokespersons have denied it was him. Poor guy, trapped in this titular post, cannot even show off. Or he would qualify for the Viagra Ratna award if he did more than just lie down.
- - -

Image: The picture is about the paternity case and obviously old, for the boy brought it up when he was 29

Creases: Silvatein

Aansuon ka shabnam hona bekaar hai
Jab palkein hi murjha gayi

~ ~

Jhuriyon ke beech andheri si galee hai
Usey tajurba kehne se roshni nahin milti

~ ~

Ab kitne hi qisse nichod lo
Yaadein sookhi pad gayi hai

~ ~

Wahaan mauzon ne angdayee lekar sab bujha diya
Yahaan reit neend ke liye taras gayi

~ ~

Aasmaan ko fark nahin padta agar baadal bikhar jaaye
Woh tau itaraega unke beech se bhi

~ ~

Deewaron se kharosh ki awaaz aati hai
Makaan bante waqt kuchch na kuchch tau toot jaata hai

~ ~

Khushiyon ke jab parr nikal aate hai
Unke udd jaane ke aasaar bhi nazar aate hai

~ ~

Agar bistar karvaton ka hisaab rakhne lage
Na jaane kitne maayoos sapnon ka haal mile

~ ~

Aanchal ko lehra diya khidki se
Dhoop uski aaghosh mein sahara lene aa hi gayi

~ ~

Jism ko dhaank kar kapde saazish ke haqdar ban gaye
Magar kahani tau silvatoun mein chhupi hoti hai

~FV

Ghalib and the kiss at Indian weddings

naadaan ho jo kehte ho ki kyon jeete ho 'Ghalib'
qismat mein hai marne ki tamannaa koi din aur

Would Mirza Ghalib’s ghost have stood waiting near the coffee maker amongst neon lights for his post-dinner beverage?

The news that his haveli, which was restored only 10 years ago, was used for a wedding reception is rather appalling. Imagine people in their finery jostling amongst the poet’s personal belongings. A report says the floor was “littered with food crumbs, crushed plastic glasses and disposable plates”.

Why would anyone choose such a place for their celebrations? Do they feel culturally enlightened and wish to convey that to their guests? Is it some sort of antique value they seek? This isn’t something new. It happens all the time – old paintings, old mansions used by the nouveau riche to convey some connection with a background they often lack. Everybody has a right to strive to make money and awareness is not the jaagir of those born into wealth. But the term nouveau is used disparagingly and not without reason. There is a category of people who will flash whatever they have.

The bride and groom may not necessarily have an acquaintance with the poet’s work. What about the parents? Assuming they are fans of Ghalib, could they not respect the space? These days every little religious icon gets sanctified even if it is put up by some goon. Why don’t we learn to value those who truly contributed to our lives and their works have lived down centuries?

There are many farm houses in Delhi. They could have been given that old world look and trussed one up to appear like a crumbling haveli.

Marriages are now all about event management, so this seems par for the course.

On the other hand, there is news that Indians are giving up traditional functions (that coffee maker is an indication!). I read this from an article about fusion weddings:

One affluent and typical Gujarati family had hosted an English dinner after the dandiya function. The desi best man and maid of honour, dressed in coordinated traditional Indian wear, made speeches and raised a toast to the couple as aunties and uncles grinned behind clusters of flowers on assigned tables. The last few phera mantras were translated into English on the microphone by the pandit and the couple even exchanged I dos, says the wedding planner.

I am concerned about the English dinner. I have seen food stalls with Burmese bhel, paneer dim-sums, but since we are talking about vegetarians would they stuff the jacket potatoes with poha or dal dhokli? People do drink, but I wonder about the toast. Something like, “May Jitesbhai and Falguni ben leeve hep-peeli after”.

The sardars would go full throttle with a “Chak de phate, Hramindarr pra and Hramindarr pojai. Oye gud luck and many tandoori nights…”

When one passes the Marine Drive there are several garishly-decorated wedding venues. Some have thermocole elephants flanking the gate; others have a Venus ice sculpture. I have not yet seen David in the buff.

For a relative’s marriage in Toronto that I was present at they had traditional ceremonies before marriage, then a nikaah with an English translation (I got there late, so missed it), and the reception was a complete volte face. The bride wore a gown. There was a Best Man who emcee-ed the show and took off his shirt. There were speeches; the tables had bows and gifts for everyone. And the couple took to the floor with a waltz…dancing to the Bollywood number "Kuchch na kaho”!

The boy migrated when he was in his late teens; the girl went there after marriage. So, all of this must have taken some practice.

Anyhow, after the initial gliding softly, everyone came to their senses and started doing the bhangra and the dandiya.

Eats the time to dhisco.

Global Bubble of the Revivalist

Maverick: Global Bubble of the Revivalist
by Farzana Versey
Covert, December 15-30

Those who left have it good. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wants them to return home as “brain gain”, the right-wingers have been lauding them for precisely the same reason with an additional halo – the global revivalist.

In one of the fancy social satsangs at the altar of Mammon the luminaries wanted to know where Hindus figured on the world stage. There was no talk about India. It is precious, then, to talk about marauding Mughals and Christian missionaries. Does this not amount to merely following those notorious footsteps, the only difference being monetary power added to spiritual piffle?

Has anyone tried to understand how in those hundreds of years of occupation, India did not become a Muslim or a Christian nation? Those Hindus who converted to certain sects, like Bohras and Ismailis, are among the most educated and successful people in the country today.

In the world of the freshly-minted sophisticated anti-secularist, such details do not matter. To this mind the restoration of a hotel must be seen in the context of the Somnath temple which rose after each fall. It deviously disregards the fact that the rebuilding has been carried out by the management that has also generously set up a non- religious Trust to rehabilitate those who were affected in other areas as well. The global clock-turner is busy patting his back over restoration of places of worship and landmark sites, but there is absolutely no concern about resurrecting the ordinary citizen’s right to livelihood and dignity.

Listing the achievements of expatriates is typical of this tunnel vision. Of the few that become entrepreneurs or have prominent careers, there are thousands who perform ordinary tasks. Many have entered those western countries illegally or gone through agents after a lot of effort. Instead of wondering why this happens, this neo world citizen with a limited cultural baggage is basking in the reflected glory of achievers who had to go elsewhere to make their fortune and earn their fame because their homeland did not nurture their dreams.

The Knights and Nobel laureates refer to their Indian roots only when there is a bit of exotic drama required. How can they be considered a part of revivalism of ancient culture? Would they identify with the dubious idea of taking religion to new lands? They are on Forbes power list because of how much they influence society. Osama bin Laden is sharing space, too. If some build temples, then there are others like Swraj Paul who donate to the London Zoo. They pay huge sums to political parties in their adopted lands to get leverage for themselves and not their faith. It is quite simply business acumen and social opportunism at work. It has got nothing to do with keeping the flame of any potential Ram Rajya alive.

Yoga and levitating gurus is old hat and has little to do with healing powers and more to do with hype. It did not start with the new revivalists but old hippies. Being honoured and having festivals celebrated work as totems for ethnic minorities who may indeed possess talent. But, as Venkatraman Ramakrishnan made it amply clear, his “nationality is simply an accident of birth”. He would not want to be hailed as a global Hindu hero or be placed on the same pedestal as ashram evangelists.

In the excitement over the well-heeled, fossils of accruing mutual fund culture whose high-walled existence is no better than ghettos, the revivalist boasts that his religion is the only one that does not have a history of massacres. Loss of memory means ignoring the past of what some rulers did to demolish Jainism from South India between the 8th and 12th centuries, and the contemporary history of the Sikh carnage, the Mumbai riots and Gujarat genocide. To clothe these in the garb of a global phenomenon that has risen from the suffering of centuries is skulduggery and hypocrisy.

Perhaps it might do them well to ponder over a small fact that those Hindus who are today a part of the White House clique have been appointed by a half Muslim, half Christian.

Shall we call such resurrection a case of appeasement since delusional apocalypticism can only be a mirage?