Sunday ka Funda

"Poetry and beauty are always making peace. When you read something beautiful you find coexistence; it breaks walls down."

— Mahmoud Darwish

Bitter vs. Insecure: The Natwar Singh-Sonia Gandhi Saga

Natwar Singh is right about one thing: Sonia Gandhi should have kept quiet. The one-time Congress loyalist and senior minister has written his memoirs in which there are some unsavoury references to the Congress party chief. Irrespective of whether he wrote it out of bitterness (he was made to leave after the oil scam), it would be quite a natural thing for him to talk about his tenure in the government, and it might include his perspective on the people he was interacting with.

Sonia Gandhi told reporters in Parliament:

"I will write my own book and then everyone will come to know everything... the only way truth will come out is if I write. I am serious about it and I will be writing."

This is disturbing. It assumes that her truth is truer. Just as there are people who will not buy all of Natwar Singh's 'truth', there will be others who would question her version. The one incident that seems to have had an impact is that she refused the prime ministerial position not because of the "inner voice", the touted reason, but because Rahul Gandhi gave her 24 hours to refuse because he thought she too might be killed like his father Rajiv Gandhi was.

To any observer, both seem relevant. A son wanting to protect his mother is a most natural emotion, and a woman cast as an outsider might realise that this space has its own niche and abjure overt power. A good sixth sense, or inner voice, has saved many.

She is a politically pragmatic person. As I wrote in The Accidental Prima Donna:

While her slain husband and two children were hesitant to enter the fray, Sonia Gandhi was never a reluctant politician. Her refusal to be the prime minister was also a political act that stood her in good stead. Indians connect emotionally with detachment. She came across as one not ambitious for herself.

Therefore, the Natwar natter would have just fallen by the wayside had she not responded. Now, people with some sense will expect a sanitised book from her. They will read it, but might doubt its veracity even more. For, if he is a "bitter man", then she is a defensive woman. Such statements make it only worse:

"I can't be hurt (by revelations), I have seen my mother-in-law riddled with bullets, my husband dead...I am far from getting hurt with these things. Let them continue to do this, it will not affect me... They can continue to do this if they so please."

By saying this she has exposed her hurt more sharply. Which secure person would in a flash decide to write a book to clarify their own position? And why is former PM Manmohan Singh saying, "Private conversations should not be made public for capital gains"? An expensive book in English reaches a limited number of people.

Dr. Singh probably does not like the fact that he is portrayed as someone who had no real power, and all files went to Ms. Gandhi. In retirement he would want to salvage his reputation. Circumspection is a good thing, but responding to the rash isn't particularly circumspect.

The Congress Party members will all huddle together anyway, and certainly not protest against their leader only because she listened to her son. If anything, they will see him as someone who has real influence on her and is therefore the leader they believed he ought to be.

Natwar Singh quit the party only in 2008; he was forced to resign in 2005 for the Iraqi food-for-oil scam. This itself is revealing. If he was bitter, why did he not leave the party immediately or prove his innocence then, as he claims now?

It would take naïveté of some kind to blindly fall for his interpretation, especially if he comes up with statements like these:

"No Indian would treat a man who was loyal to family for 45 years who had been very close to her and 30 years older. .... It is just not done in India. There is a part (of Sonia) which is ruthless."

And further:

Asked if that was her Italian part, he shot back, asking what else can it be adding, "some part of it is not India. Jawarlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi would not be like that".

He is sounding like a political rookie, treating this as some sort of soap opera. By emphasising his loyalty he is inadvertently justifying her arrogance that he seems to have issues with. The India of his imagination is certainly not real. Age is not respected even in everyday social situations; in this case it was professional. His insistence on making it unprofessional is grating and obsequious, for ultimately he is holding a candle for most of the Nehru-Gandhi family even if it means ignoring their ruthlessness.

Natwar Singh also needs a quick visit to Italy to discover how they uphold family values. Or he can just get DVDs of 'The Godfather' series. The Italian mafia too respected the unit. In Don Corleone's words: "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."


© Farzana Versey

Support Gaza, Lose Your Bank Account - HSBC's New Mantra?

Why is HSBC closing down the accounts of its Muslim clients in UK? Is it connected with where their sympathies lie on Gaza? On July 22, a few prominent organisations got letters saying that they have until September 22, after which they would not be permitted to bank with them because the services "now falls outside of our risk appetite".

They are solvent, and owe the bank nothing. So, what is it and why the pregnant-with-meaning "now"? According to the BBC report, the bank has said:

"Discrimination against customers on grounds of race or religion is immoral, unacceptable and illegal, and HSBC has comprehensive rules and policies in place to ensure race or religion are never factors in banking decisions."

They have an alibi in "poor money-laundering controls". This should be their lookout and not of those who have no such history.

The Finsbury Park Mosque's chairman Mohammed Kozbar said:

"The bank didn't even contact us beforehand. Didn't give us a chance even to address [their] concerns. For us it is astonishing - we are a charity operating in the UK, all our operations are here in the UK and we don't transfer any money out of the UK. All our operations are funded from funds within the UK."

HSBC is being irresponsible. It could not be because Abu Hamza, who was earlier in charge of the mosque, was convicted of terror offenses in the US. He was not with the mosque since 2005. Nobody is trying to hide anything. In fact, Mr. Kozbar said:

"The positive work we have done since taking over over from Abu Hamza to change the image of the mosque, there is nothing really that can explain [HSBC's decision]."

Ummah Welfare Trust has a more real Gaza connection. The letter from HSBC-UK said, "You will need to make alternative banking arrangements, as we are not prepared to open another account for you". The Trust has become defensive:

"We make sure we go out of the way to work with organisations that are non-partisan. What we do now is we do a check on Thomson Reuters and make sure that there is no link whatsoever with blacklisted organisations. We don't want to damage our relief efforts. We have tried our best to be non-partisan as much as possible."

A Trust has a right to choose its beneficiaries, and in Gaza they don't have to be balanced because Israel is getting enough from the West. Who is deciding on the blacklisted organisations that benefit, and what are the yardsticks to gauge that?

The Cordoba Foundation, a Muslim think tank acting as a link between Europe and the Middle East, and Anas al Tikriti who runs it, his wife, and two children have all separately received letters of closure without any reason at all. He said:

"It is unsettling. I am not used to being addressed in those terms. It's like I have done something wrong. The involvement of my family disturbs me. Why the entire family? I can only speculate - and I wish someone from the bank could explain [why the accounts were closed]. The organisations are mainly charities and the link is that many of them if not all of them are vocal on the issue of Palestine. It would be a great shame if that was true. As I'm left to speculate, that's the only reason I can come to."

HSBC-UK is doing something patently wrong, not only to its clients but also to itself. Had it provided a reason, however vague, it would still have some ethical leverage. If non-Muslim organisations have been told about closures, they would have had similar complaints. Where are they? Are they being circumspect, and if so why?

A sharp Op-Ed in Forbes blames it on "some discreet pressure from the American authorities (or the possibility of it in the future)". It also points out the hypocrisy:

"Whatever the youngest Mr Tikriti has been spending his pocket money on, it’s hard to believe that a small boy falls outside the “risk appetite” of Europe’s largest bank. And especially a bank that was, until recently, perfectly happy with the business of Mexican drug cartels, allowing them to launder their money through HSBC accounts in the Cayman Islands. Not only that, but the same US Senate committee that fined HSBC $1.9bn in 2012, also questioned the bank’s dodgy links with financial institutions in Saudi Arabia that, they believed, were responsible for funding terrorism."

Is the bank more concerned with its financial interests?

Nicholas Wilson, a HSBC whistleblower and UK-based financial activist, thinks so, and believes that is the reason for its pro-Israeli stance:

“HSBC has a bank in Tel Aviv and have held a licence there since 2001. They claim on their website to be the only foreign bank in Israel offering private banking. It could therefore be possible that they consider being seen to bank for pro-Palestinian organisations puts them in conflict with their ambitions in Israel."

What HSBC-UK is doing is passive-aggressive at different levels.

• By not giving a reason, it is being non-committal while at the same time expecting that the 'banned' clients come out with their own doubts. This will, the bank and its masters hope, expose them. Once their social and political affiliations are exposed, they can always use that to hit out at them. It won't be past them to suggest that money laundering is done through those tunnels of Hamas.

• The BBC report states:

The Charities Commission has confirmed that it is not investigating any of the organisations involved and says that if the charities don't have a relationship with a bank it could harm public trust in their work.

Targeting specific organisations will ensure a slow death of many of them, thereby pushing them out of the mainstream.

• Bringing young family members into the picture is the absolute low in stereotyping. It can have a psychological impact, and these youngsters might be forced to either protest (and oh the West knows how they will protest) or retreat and stop being "partisan". It is another matter that in their school other kids can take sides.

It comes down to just one thing: You can only be on the side that is decided for you.

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: Finsbury Mosque, Reuters

Sunday ka Funda

“What do you think an artist is? ...he is a political being, constantly aware of the heart breaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image. Painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war.”

― Pablo Picasso

There is destruction everywhere. And I thought about Guernica. As those who visit here often know, I am opposed to posting violence porn, especially if the images have children. I explained my stance earlier.

Guernica is not just art; it is deliberate defacement. That becomes its message along with the motive and the inspiration. The realism lies in the unreal.

How would it be if that painting came alive not as faces behind the 'masks', but as masks? Here is one interpretation. In the robotic sinew one can feel the cracking of bones.

A Fasting Muslim and the Shiv Sena

Who would have imagined that the humble chapati would take centre stage in politics? It is on national television in the form of grainy images of a beefy-looking man forcing another man to eat it. They are no ordinary men. One is a Shiv Sena leader, the other is a fasting Muslim. Being Muslim is tough enough; a fasting Muslim seems to be even more of a dangling identity.

However, I'd like to ask whether it is only the Shiv Sena that is using/abusing or capitalising on this identity. To get to the story first:

A group of around 11 Shiv Sena MPs, apparently angry over not being served Maharashtrian food, allegedly forced a Muslim catering superviser who was fasting for Ramzan to eat a chapati at the new Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi last week. Within hours, IRCTC, the Indian Railways subsidiary that was catering for the Sadan, stopped all operations in protest, and complained in writing to the Maharashtra Resident Commissioner, saying the employee, Arshad Zubair S, had been “deeply pained and hurt… as religious sentiments are attached”.

Would this have become news had it not been a Muslim at the receiving end? Unlikely. And the tone would have been vastly different. What we see now is bluster from all sides, and Mr. Arshad who might have certainly felt violated in some way will have to go along with the "hurt sentiment" politics because he is only a pawn. In his complaint, he said:

“All the guests along with media reporters and staffs of Maharashtra Sadan got into kitchen where I was getting the orders prepared. They caught me and put the chapati into my mouth. I was wearing a formal uniform set as prescribed by IRCTC and everybody in the panel also knew my name as ‘Arshad’ as I was wearing the name tag. Even then they inserted chapati in my mouth which caused my fast to break on the eve of Ramzan. I was hurt with the thing they have done as religious sentiments are concerned.”

The hurt should be over such physical abuse, of forcing anybody to eat anything. The Shiv Sena is communal. It is obvious that those MPs deliberately made him eat, although they knew he was fasting. They had problems with other facilities like electricity, so would they give shocks to the person in charge? Why did the media keep quiet if they were present then? This is being projected as protest against catering vs. religion now.

The incident occurred a week before it was reported. Did it take the authorities seven days to figure out what happened and what hurt was involved? Worse, we are ignoring the issue of damaging of property, parochialism and arrogance of power that the episode is also about, even if there is no story in these.

The MPs were throwing dish covers and threatening the staff. What kind of behaviour is this? Why was there no police complaint immediately, which gave leeway to the officials to cling on to the moral dimension of a fasting man?

The MPs want a Maharashtrian caterer, citing other state bhavans as an example. Arvind Sawant said:

“The food at the Sadan is terrible...They even gave stale water. We wanted to sort these issues out amicably, and did not come with the intention of committing violence. But even on that day, the Resident Commissioner refused to meet us, and after a lot of delay, said that he had gone to receive the Chief Secretary at the airport. Is that not an insult? No tod phod happened at all, but we have been provoked in a sustained manner. Nobody was manhandled, but if you keep abusing, will someone not slap?"

I am quite flummoxed about "stale water". But it is important to note that while denying that any unruliness took place, he is justifying it. The mob wrote "Jai Maharashtra" on the walls of the Regional Commissioner's office besides the behaviour mentioned earlier.

The Shiv Sena often talks with its hands. However, this incident could also be about its political equation with the BJP for the coming assembly elections. Using one chapati, they have raised their 'concerns' before the ruling party:

• The North vs. Marathi maanus
• Violence as legitimate means
• Role of regionalism
• Muslims as religion flashers

All these happen to be the BJP's favourite subjects, too. Therefore, who will benefit the most from emphasising the religious aspect? Or, should we ask, who is bailing out whom?

© Farzana Versey

Are your jeans distressed by lions?

If you are the sort to shell out over a thousand dollars for a pair of jeans “designed by tigers”, then you have until July 21. Animal conservationists are marketing this bizarre idea to you. Even if you won’t buy the jeans you might feel like you are contributing to the welfare of the poor beasts.

Japanese brand Zoo Jeans includes wild beasts in their design process to create the perfect pair of ripped denim. In order to do this, sheets of material are added to old tires and giant rubber balls and tossed into the animals’ cages at Kamine Zoo in Hitachi, Japan. The lions and tigers then have the chance to chew, gnaw, and scrape at the fabric, taking “distressed denim” to the extreme.

Do they even realise how cruel this is? Lions and tigers are carnivores; they tear into pliable flesh. Bears are omnivores. Denim does not smell or feel like skin or plants, and rubber has a unique scent and feel. The animals probably assume they will be rewarded after they’ve got rid of the ‘excess baggage’.

The zoo and World Wildlife Fund are being horribly insensitive, and to think this is to benefit the animals. WWF and People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) rant about ill-treatment; they file complaints against cosmetics and pharmaceutical companies for using animals as guinea pigs. They have a point, but they aren’t doing any better.

These organisations have a history of regressive ads that put human models behind cages, chain them, or make them wear edible clothes. At the same time they use loaded, even sexual, imagery. With Zoo Jeans too, ripped by animals has a certain ring. It defeats the purpose. They end up perpetuating an idea they claim to oppose – that of the ‘wild beast’ as fantasy.


© Farzana Versey

Football's Holy War?

I have not watched a single World Cup football match this year. Among the slew of trivia surrounding the players that often overtook the games, the best one has been left for the finale.

Will the Pope root for his home country Argentina and would this be in conflict with his predecessor, a German? After all the society type gossip about hairstyles, shoes, girlfriends, and lookalikes, and that goth moment of the Suarez Bite, the finals between the two countries have found a new niche.

Pope Francis has shown that he is quite worldly-wise and not confined to the Vatican. The media is discussing whether he will be pitted against Pope Benedict XVI who is living in retirement now. Both are said to be football fans. According to Christian Today:

Some are cheekily suggesting that it will be a testament to who is the greatest pray-er, and perhaps even who enjoys the highest favour with God.

Sports do have the same appeal, and demand obeisance, as religions. The sounds from the stadium have an effect similar to mass elation or grieving during defining holy festivals or moments. The players have a cult following, and their posture during a winning or losing strike is quite like one of prayer. In fact, it often is a prayer.

The website calls it "the holiest World Cup final yet". One assumes other World Cup finals had their holy moments, or perhaps all such games have divine provenance. Where did Diego Maradona's "hand of god" come from?

Now we have the more urgent: "The question is: who will pray the hardest?" One might have questioned the almost direct intrusion of religion in sport, but the pope vs. pope imagined skirmish sounds like harmless amusement. And it is unlikely that those rooting for either team will do so for their papal affiliations. It's not like we are talking about Mick Jagger!

© Farzana Versey

---

The image is obviously a meme.