Abida Parveen for IPL!

While Abida Parveen shared stage space with Shubha Mudgal, no one was willing to pay a paisa for Pakistani cricketers. Moral of the story: You want a quickie evening shindig, then fine. If it has to do with money and no halo of ‘we are one’, then forget it.

To cheez badi hai mast...dust?

The excuses dished out for no owner in the Indian Premier League (IPL) III bidding for a Pakistani player are ludicrous. The considerations were that the players should be available for the entire season. Did any of the Pakistani players clearly state that they would not? Don’t they sign some contract? What if any of the picked up cricketers perform poorly or are injured or threatened, then would they be still considered available? Kolkata Knight Riders bowling coach Wasim Akram wanted Mohammed Aamer. No go. This means that people who understand the game are not the deciding factors.

It is a clear signal that the Indian government has interfered. If a team says that it did not have any Pakistani players in the past two IPLs, they were just smart enough to read the mind of the Indian government or be on the side of the establishment. You might wonder how that could be the case when we do have regular matches. That is different. It is two nations schmoozing; it is not about wow, let’s do peace. This is about bidding. It has its own dynamics. It means someone is worth something; the monetary part is based to a large extent on talent and ability to perform.

Pakistan are the T-20 champions, and there could not have been a better way to put them down than this. It is like, look guys you might be the winners, but you amount to jackshit in our stakes. You don’t even go under the hammer. This was clearly decided prior to the auction, for if they knew about non-availability they would not even be considered.

It also conveys to the Indian government that the franchisees are very understanding of the real relations between the two countries and will not do any mollycoddling. This is not done for the sake of the team but to send the right message to the relevant ministries (industries, petroleum, information and broadcasting) that, boss, keep us in mind in future. Money is at stake in ways other than on the cricket field.

As regards security concerns, there is nothing new. Remember the Shiv Sena destroying the pitches and warning against playing with Pakistan? Remember that it did not stop cricket matches and we did our friendly act in Lahore and Chennai as a cover-up for the ingrained animosity?

Some reports have mentioned about how demoralised the Pakistani cricket team is. Don’t know about that, and it ought not to be the case given that they know the undercurrents. Shahid Afridi said:

“Cricket is like religion in India and Pakistan. Sport is the only way to bring both the countries together. It is disappointing.”

This is competition and no one is bringing the two countries together. Cricket ceased doing that long ago.

Murder, She Said?

I do not recall reading any book on rape, murder and serial killers specifically because of the subjects. I am, therefore, a bit surprised to find a study that states women fear becoming victims of crime so they turn to true crime books in an effort to learn strategies and techniques to prevent being murdered.

Reported in the inaugural issue of Social Psychological and Personality Science (Sage), Amanda Vicary and R Chris Fraley go on to say that by understanding why an individual decides to kill, a woman can learn the warning signs to watch for in a jealous lover or stranger. By learning escape tips women learn survival strategies they can use if actually kidnapped or held captive. It is possible that reading these books may actually increase the very fear that drives women toward them in the first place.

Unless these books are specifically of the ‘How To’ variety, this sort of assertion, and even the flipside of it, is quite disingenuous. We may imbibe by reading and characters do settle in our psyche if they are potent. But these rarely apply to how we conduct our lives. There may be people we meet who seem like someone we have read about; it is often the intriguing qualities that stay with us. I don’t think when we see an orphan we think of Oliver Twist or everytime we find a thief we go, “Ah, Fagin”. I have chosen a simple example to show just how simplistic such studies can be.

There may be books on rape that a woman reads about but she will not be prepared for it. Have they talked to rape victims? Did they see the signals? If not, does it mean they don’t read the right books?

About being drawn to such “gory” stuff, there appears to be an element of negativity attached to it, as though this is not quite a woman’s thing to do. Even more appalling is the assertion, “But we do know that women, compared to men, have a heightened fear of crime despite the fact that they are less likely to become a victim.”

Less likely according to what yardstick? On what basis is this heightened fear measured? This is not a competition of who is victimised more and on what basis. The fact is that crimes are committed and both women and men are killed, maimed and psychologically and physically abused.

It appears we are a bunch of crime-fearing females. Imagine a woman enters a bookstore wearing a long jacket, all covered up, riffles through the pages of some romance novels and then stealthily her feet take her towards the gore. She sees knives, blood, and bodies on the cover and thinks, hey, this just might save me as she reads the back jacket. At home, she lounges on the sofa – after bolting all the doors and windows – and then gets drawn into the thriller. Instead of just reading it and perhaps getting a little spooked out, she makes mental notes of what to look for and what to avoid.

And then the bell rings and the child she has given birth to stands there with muddied clothes and she lets out a scream, “Help!”

The study reveals that women learn to be very very careful because women don’t understand something called mystery.

Oh, duh. Give me a break or I’ll bite.

Fishy Men

Imagine you are sitting with a man at a restaurant and taking a nibble of something that he feels is not right and ticks you off, what would you do?

Now replicate this social setting in marine life. Labroides dimidiatus don’t take nonsense from their female companions/compatriots. They whack the poor female fish if they as much as eye some parasite or salivate over mucus underwater.

Live Science conducted a study at the Zoological Society of London regarding this “three-party dilemma” – man, woman and target using an underwater plate to represent the client fish:

The plate contained both fish flakes and prawns, with the latter being the much preferred cuisine.The researchers took away the plate if any of the fish ate a prawn. They saw that the male cleaner fish—even in this unfamiliar lab setting—would punish, or chase away, the female fish if the females ate a prawn. Once the females had been chastised, they were less likely to gulp down prawns.

Apparently, this is not altruistic because by saving the client, the male ensures that he gets good grub for himself. As a bonus he is covered with the halo of being protector and patriarch.

The docile female just flaps her fins and goes hungry aiming to be marine life’s Kate Moss. I should think it has its benefits if the larger fish avoid skeletal food and these females are saved. It could soon prove to be a woman’s world down there.

Sunday ka Funda

Pat Robertson and the Eclipse

A doomsday quick-fix prophet on TV last night was holding forth on how the solar eclipse would muck up our lives based on our zodiac signs. After he had told us just how bad it would get, a godman sitting next to him asked us to place a pot and add things in it according to the level of muckery, recite some verses a given number of times and then maybe we would be saved.

It was appalling to watch this on prime time. Would children, who ought to look on such phenomena with a sense of wonder, be instilled with information? I would deem this x-rated because it affects the mind. Instead of seeing it as a natural happening and seeing it through at least some scientific prism, they are fed this rubbish.

There are two aspects to this:

1. We keep away genuine interest and believe everything in nature can have dire consequences.
2. The way it is projected, only one belief system was being promoted. I do not know whether Muslims and Christians have strong superstitions about these matters. There are ‘practical’ things I recall, which may or may not have any scientific basis. It is disturbing to see religion being pushed in this manner.

This brings me to Pat Robertson’s ‘Haiti deserved the earthquake because of its pact with the devil’. He obviously does not know about quakes in Los Angeles and how buildings are specifically designed to avoid tremors.

It is disgusting to see an island that was occupied by force by the United States, had several coups, became a slave to the French, and survived it all despite still dealing with debilitating poverty as some victim of voodoo.

Commentators have talked about racist overtones. Haiti, unlike good little black slaves, threw off imperialist shackles. If it was doomed, it was going to be on its own terms. Now the world, especially the big superpowers, cannot stand the idea of such obstinate self-respect on the part of people who are not supposed to be anything but dust underfoot. No ready theories are available, so the best one to pull out is the one with god. God has got to be White, so Haiti is in cahoots with the devil.

The logical question would be: If god is kind and all that, then why would s/he cause this destruction? If the devil is a real opponent of god, then why would the devil let it happen without putting up a brave fight?

What about natural disasters elsewhere? What about man-made calamities that we bring upon our fellow citizens, not to speak about other nations? What god or devil pacts are these about?

Meanwhile, Haiti’s hospitals have been destroyed and thousands are dying. It is an ongoing tragedy that needs to be addressed. Pop evangelism won’t get Haiti anywhere.

It would be easy to dismiss Pat Robertson, but he is not the problem. He is reflecting a problem that we have in some measure as societies on the brink of mental instability. You and I may not buy his thesis immediately, but it will register as something that someone believes. And this man has a huge following. He is dangerous because he thinks he is on god’s side.

At least the eclipse has the good sense to get off the sun after a while.

Outsourcing our security?

We have had news and opinions and theories about bullet proof jackets. Now comes another angle:

About six months ago, soon after D Sivanandan took over as Mumbai police chief, about 30 builders pooled in Rs 1.5 crore towards the purchase of bullet-proof jackets for the police force.

Our police chief says the money will be returned. If a loan was required, there are agencies specifically for this purpose. Builders constitute private parties and this was done in a hush-hush manner. It is appalling that builders were told to “do something for the city”.

This is not like planting trees or starting a cleanliness drive. Who chose the manufacturing company? Did the builders recommend any? Was the entire amount paid by cheque? Even if it was, is it not possible that the firm would agree to pass on some bucks for tangible benefits in the future?

Former IPS officer and activist-lawyer Y P Singh termed this a gross violation of government directives...

“…to accept charity from builders defies the principles of the Constitution. There could be cases where the police may have to investigate complaints against them.”

Not only is this an issue, we have to consider how it buffers the image of a slow-moving bureaucracy and a police force in desperate need. Builders are known to flout several laws; some are from Thane and Navi Mumbai – the burgeoning satellite areas of Mumbai where rampant construction has been going on. What would they have to do with bullet proof vests? Is it customary for them to indulge in such charity work? Why were these particular builders chosen? We do not have the very prominent handful. Does that convey something?

Another point is that with almost everyday something fresh appearing on these bullet proof vests, the main issues are being sidelined. It appears to be a shield in many ways.

We Indians don't get it

This Aman ki Asha surely won’t be a free lunch. We are still talking about peace this and peace that in a bubble gum manner. It’s getting to be a bit irritating. The TOI that has come to rhe forefront with this initiative devoted a whole page on how the “Gen-Now Flicks” will send us all in a tizzy because “India and the world love Pakistan’s BRAVE NEW CINEMA”. Aww.

Indians have loved Pakistani drama serials for years, and they were pretty brave and subtle. The reason for applauding this brave new cinema is because we want to extend our commercial space. The whole deal is collaboration, and it has nothing to do with political peace. So, we should just cut this and talk about what is on everyone’s mind – market economics.

Along with the main article there was a smaller piece by a Pakistani and I was quite amused to read some of it:

They (the audience) also love the man who played Munnabhai — Sanjay Dutt, fondly called “Nargis ka beta”.

This is utter rubbish and playing to some imagined gallery. I know people in the entertainment industry and I have met people of all kinds there. They do not refer to him as anyone’s beta; they might call him Sunju baba because they read our gossip columns and they know about his drug addiction and his prison term.

Even the ‘gay’ comedy Dostana had the women in hijab in splits.

Geez. This is a Pakistani woman and she is stereotyping the female population. Even if the women in hijab did go and watch Dostana, why is it so important that their being in splits about a gay comedy should be emphasised? Were the bearded guys wearing skull caps also in splits? And the women in jeans and the men wearing baseball caps backwards?

Come on. Grow up. Aman ki Asha is not going to happen by going along with this sort of cheesy and cliched caravan.

- - -

Juvenile ideas of culture seem to prevail. Now, you can dine at the local Eiffel Tower. Why? Because we need to strengthen our French connection. I know many other ways we can do so, but shall let it pass.


Puducherry – Pondicherry – does have a French influence even today, but it makes no sense for this gross expenditure for a Rs 25 crore-replica because not many in France dine at the real place and this is not going to be a replacement for a trip to Paris for those who can afford to or wish to visit. With competitive travel opportunities, people are in fact travelling quite a bit and not many would eat there, anyway.

What will the replica offer?

If things go according to plans, you could dine at the multicuisine restaurant on the desi Eiffel Tower offering a panoramic view of the Godavari river, the Bay of Bengal, the ruined Dutch port, the seaside town of Kakinada, the Reliance gas plants and the lush green coconut groves of the Konaseema belt.

Honestly, they could just build a tower. The French who have made Puducherry their home prefer cycling down the roads or spending time at Auroville. This might give a kick to some neighbouring city dwellers for a while. That’s it. Why multi-cuisine? Camembert soufflé wrapped in paper dosa? Or crepes sprinkled with mulgapudi?

There are interesting little French restaurants serving pretty authentic food and don’t cost a bomb and don’t look down at gas plants. If the Ambani clout is at work we might have some Gujju fare too…pure veg and no frog legs. Thenk yoo.

- - -

End note

As reports of another Indian being attacked in Melbourne ruled the airwaves on Saturday, the government appealed for “restraint’’ in reporting the incident, expressing fears that it would damage bilateral relations with Australia.

Is this what makes us want to be proud nationalists?