Lindt it or lump it?

Minarets don’t really float my boat, but to ban them? That too in Switzerland by a referendum from the people. 57.5 percent voted in favour. It has been opposed by the Swiss government, parliament, business groups and churches but given the thumbs up by the Right wing Swiss People’s Party.

Here are a few issues raised and it reveals the hollowness that has come to apply to political discourses:

There are only four minarets among the tens of thousands of church spires in Switzerland but the SVP campaigned against them as a symbol of Islamic political influence, which it claimed could eventually undermine the nation's Christian values and democracy.

Since when has Switzerland become a Christian nation? Values cannot be politicised. Minarets do not stand for political influence. Muslims constitute about five percent of the population, and they are mostly from East Europe which can hardly claim to be symbols of Islam.

The spires are traditionally used to make the call for prayers at mosques but Swiss noise control regulations have already stopped them from being used for that purpose; instead, they became an architectural symbol of the Islamic faith. The ban on minarets does not stop the building of mosques, and Muslims were still free to practise their faith.

This is weird. A muezzin could shout from atop a dome as well. And what about church bells? Personally, I am against the call to the faithful at unearthly hours and would rather they invest in alarm clocks, but to use this as a stick to beat a community with is ridiculous.

Embarrassed government spokesmen agreed that the ban would "serve the interests of extremist circles" only, and Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey claimed that a yes vote "could make Switzerland a target for Islamic terrorism".

Wow. Even when they are decrying the ban, they are slyly suggesting that this could result in a backlash. Did they want it? Switzerland was not attacked in the two world wars. During the First war, Lenin lived there; it managed to remain unscathed during the WW 11 by playing along with the Germans, although it did not fall into the Nazi trap.

If it has managed to work its way around such major upheavals in history what is the fear now? Mosques have been attacked these past two weeks.

Ulrich Schluer, an SVP politician has been holding forth:

"We compare our situation to Germany, France or England and the problems they have in their suburbs. That is what we do not want here. Mosques are not part of freedom of religion. This is not against Islam. The minaret is a symbol . . . of conquest and power, which marks the will to introduce Shariah law as in other European cities. We will not accept that".

Obviously, someone needs a few lessons in history. How is it not against Islam if it assumes that Shariah law will be introduced? Civil society building mosques is going to now connote conquest?

The problem is that many of these nations will market their goods, send their expertise to Arab countries and bask in the special privileges they get there, but at home they treat immigrants with suspicion.

I have already talked about the breach in the White House security. This was no terrorist attack.

I understand the need for societies to retain their own identity, but what can five per cent of the population do? Are we trying to use examples of a few terrorists? There is no way to justify those acts, but how many people are gunned down in campuses, how many people are murdered, how many fanatics of different stripes – and not just religion – walk around selling their ideologies? What about those versions of ‘shariah’? No one can impose a religious law in a democracy. This bogey is deliberately created to marginalise some groups.

Businesses such as watch-maker Swatch and Switzerland's famous banking industry said they feared the ban could provoke expensive boycotts by Muslims around the world, while the Swiss government warned it could inflame tensions between religions.

Oh, sure. This is what the business lot would be concerned about. Here is news. Muslims, the real rich ones, are the Arabs. They will not boycott anything so long as it is kosher. Trade will continue. If they just kept quiet and went about with their Alps and stopped getting all jittery about something rising up towards the sky, there would be no problems. The rowdies may come out in the streets and make a noise. This seems deliberate.

In the form of direct referendum to get views, they could have asked people about more pressing issues. Why did they choose this? To please the rest of Europe? France, Germany? Perhaps the country should take a good look at itself and watch how the different sections of its own French and German sides are disparate and have an ongoing quiet battle on between them.

I only hope Muslims forget about it as a bad joke and go on with their jobs. They do work too, you know? And the Swiss can be certain that at least one Muslim here has worshipped at the altar of Sprungli. And will continue to do so.

Muslims for Kurbani

Read this rubbish…

Mani Ratnam is planning to make a film called Azan. This is what a ‘source’ said:

Unlike the films releasing in Bollywood of late, which focuses on either Jehad or Islam, this is a pro-Muslim film which will portray Muslims in a positive light.

What exactly is a pro-Muslim film? Is someone saying we are going to make you look like little angels? Well, then, those angels are a part of Islam and also jihad if the term is understood.

Mani Ratnam, even in Bombay, a rather nice film on the riots and Hindu-Muslim alliances, did fall for the stereotypes when he showed the father of the girl as a butcher who even takes out an axe to protest against the relationship.

- - -

I have not watched Kurbaan, the latest flop on terrorism. But it is really funny that all the publicity while focussing on its producer Karan Johar also uses his pictures wearing glasses. As though that will make him more enlightened and sensitive!


- - -

Results of last poll:

Mumbai First Impressions

Cosmopolitan - 4 (15%); Money - 2 (7%); 26/11 - 2 (7%); 1993 riots - 2 (7%); Bollywood - 4 (15%); Slums - 6 (23%); Page 3 celebs - 0 (0%); Snobbery - 0 (0%); Immigrants - 1 (3%); Opportunity - 5 (19%)

I voted for opportunity.

Sunday ka Funda

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"

- Annie Dillard

- - -
Anyhow, here is something to do on Sunday if you are already thinking about what not to do on Monday!

Gatecrashers, hoax calls...and then they wonder about security...

This sure wasn’t about being part of the hottest party at the White House al fresco dinner. You’ve already read about the couple who gate-crashed. It raises questions about security. The US creates this thing about how it must save itself from those monsters, and here two people, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, manage to not only be a part of the party but also pose for pictures with vice president Joe Biden, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, three uniformed Marines and CEO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi.

I understand it is assumed that those who are there have been invited and it is polite to take pictures. I’d be curious to know how they introduced themselves. If they did not, then it means that big ticket events are just another ruse for schmoozing. These guys had a reason, being celebrity wannabes who put up the photographs on Facebook. That is when the security agencies noticed the goof-up. Does it mean that now government agencies will have to depend on networking sites to get their information? Have we come to this sorry pass when citizens won’t know about the real risk potential until someone gloats about it on their ‘walls’?

Reports have said in a rather cavalier fashion that the couple did not get close to the President and weren’t a threat. They are saying this after it happened. What if they were a threat? Oh, of course, they look clean, they don’t fit a stereotype.

Therefore, the whole bogey is still about getting very, very scared only about certain types.
- - -
Certain types brings us to a question. Why would a year-old story resurface again providing no new information? This is about the hoax call made by the alleged killer of Daniel Pearl who pretended to be leaders of India and Pakistan and “heightened tension between the two countries following the Mumbai attacks”. The calls were made to Indian external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

“Omar Saeed Sheikh was the hoax caller. It was he who threatened the civilian and military leaderships of Pakistan over telephone. And he did so from inside Hyderabad Jail.”

I know that officials are corrupt and it is no big deal for criminals to procure phones inside prisons. Underworld dons in India continue to conduct business from the confines of their jails and even contest elections!

Shaikh’s wife gave him the information about the Mumbai carnage and when all the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists were killed, he made a call, first to Pranab Mukherjee, posing as Zardari. Anyhow, when he was told they’d get back to him, he called up Zardari and Kayani.

The question is: how did he have the numbers of these high-powered leaders? Anyone who has heard Pranab Mukherjee speak will never forget it for the rest of their life, especially people who have to deal with him. I understand that terrorists are getting smarter, turning into linguists, but mimics too?

Can they just pick up the phone and talk to presidents and army chiefs and threaten them? I mean, how would Pranabda get aggressive? Would he call up to say, “Asheef boy, harm tomar log ka oopaar vaar kaarega” (Asif bhai we will wage war against you)? And “Koyoni shaab, kaun-troll koro apna army ko nahin to homora army tomar aadmi ko phinish kor lega” (Kayani saab, control your army or our army will finish your army)?

This Shaikh guy was released by us in the exchange during the Indian Airlines hostage crisis in 1999. They say he used a British SIM card. Isn’t this a bit unusual that such powerful men would assume that their counterpart in another country is calling them up from a number of a third country? What was the exact content of the threats?

The reports do not mention that. They managed to trace the source of the call and are “baffled by his cheekiness”. Baffled? Where is their security?

Who is being taken for a ride here? The political leaders? The army? Or the people? It is the people. This drama that is costing a precious paises to the Indian exchequer and making a mockery of the judiciary in both countries is going to be a long-lasting soap opera. Kasab will be our new Kashmir issue.

The most amusing part was a report in Rediff that said, “Sheikh was brought up and educated in the UK, and briefly attended the London School of Economics before dropping out to pursue a career in jihad.”

Now jihad has become a career and not a passion or a misguided decision by men of god?

Getting your goat

Irony could not get more amusing. Today is Eid al-adha. Pricey animals are just another means to flash money. Muslims sacrifice a goat (or in some countries cow or camel) to symbolise the sacrifice made for Allah. I won’t bore you with the details. The link has more information.

As symbols go, one can have no quarrel although I do believe that we need to understand that what was a message at one time has got to be internalised.

Today’s papers mentioned about this goat called Khusi (happiness) who is going for Rs 21 lakh. The owner is not a Muslim and he had planned to sell the animal to the slaughter house months ago, but the potential buyer refused to butcher Khusi because he has some pattern on his black body that resembles the symbol '786' in Arabic and there is also some crescent moon formation.

That butcher probably felt that he would bring holy wrath upon himself. Now, things have changed. Buyers want this fellow badly. Imagine being able to flaunt a sacrifice that is so expensive. This goes completely against the spirit of what was intended. If something is so sacrosanct then how are they willing to go ahead and kill it? Will they preserve the hide and frame it with the holy words?

Naturally, the seller knows he has got a golden goat and he is waiting for the amount to reach over Rs. 51 lakh. I don’t blame him. I also respect the butcher who refused to buy the beast. It is the wealthy sacrificers, the ones who think they are following god’s dictates, who need to get their heads examined. If we go by the faith, then they ought to sacrifice their own children and only then will god spare them. But can we expect that? Anyone who can afford this much, would have kids who wouldn’t care and just Google the details. Symbols remain just that.

The other aspect in a country like India is that due to several faiths and communal riots at the sight of cows and pigs near places of worship, this becomes one more opportunity for a ‘tense situation’. I’d find this laughable had it not been so worrisome. Animals are slaughtered everyday for consumption and it is by Christians, Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs. Heck, butter chicken is not a Muslim speciality and the Malayalees also have meat dosas. So, this sudden concern by people of other faiths for animals is a bit precious.

Besides, animal sacrifices are common in some Hindu temples. Certain cults also perform human sacrifices. Real babies are killed due to superstition, sometimes for the silly reason of increasing virility if you drank the baby’s blood.

We are, for all the aggressiveness, becoming more and more impotent because those who need to be heard are silenced. Charlatans and totems work on minds too numbed by rituals – and these days such rituals are also politicised. Religion is far from anyone’s mind.

Yup, Eid Mubarak and may we all learn that if we want a ticket to heaven then don’t make life hellish here.

Justice?

I am not terribly enthused about the 1,000 page report by Justice M S Liberhan. It says what has been said so many times these past so many years. It was obvious that it was a conspiracy by the BJP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and VHP...

to not just demolish the Babri Masjid but bring the country “to the brink of communal discord”.

To the brink? It was a communal carnage, dammit.

Some of us have called Atal Behari Vajpayee a “pseudo-moderate’’ and worse.

Bal Thackeray is saying what he has said often:

“My brave soldiers were on the forefront in this battle. Some of them even laid down their lives for the cause.”

Amar Singh’s secular stunts do not even count.

Tell us who is going to be put behind bars and when will those who have not yet got justice get it.

Do we know? Are there records?

- - -

We seem to know more about our neighbour. Take this from General Deepak Kapoor:

“There are estimated 42 terrorist training camps in Pakistan as per intelligence reports. The total number of militants staged in these camps is roughly between 2,000 and 2,500, and they are ready to infiltrate to this side.”

The Army is, of course, prepared:

“We are ready to deal with them to ensure safety and security of the people of J&K.”

Jammu and Kashmir is not all of India, Sir. If we have all this information, how come we did not know anything about the handful who landed in Mumbai?

- - -

Vaishali Ombale may not meet Sonia Gandhi, but she is doing her bit. The daughter of assistant sub-inspector Tukaram Ombale, who was killed in the 26/11 attack, has declined any monetary aid without making a fuss over it.

She has asked the organisations to use it for needy children; she also handed over a cheque of Rs 1 lakh to Rukhsana, the Kashmiri girl who killed a Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist when militants barged into their house. (Seen in the picture with Vaishali on the left.)

Explaining her stand, she said:

“Had the money, which is being donated to us by many, been used to purchase modern arms and ammunitions, lives of a few policemen could have been saved today.”

End quote:

“God bless you for saying that!” cried Miss Harrison. “If we keep our courage and our patience the truth must come out.”

– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Naval Treaty

Hey Pakistanis, say hello to Manmohan Singh!

We ain't talking...just tickled pink

A head of state goes public and says that he does not know who to talk with in the country we consider tricky business.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is clearly sounding like a lost child:

“I do not think whether we have a partner right now. I think, when General Pervez Musharraf was there (president of Pakistan), I was to ask him and he said well I am the army, I represent the armed forces, I represent the people. Now I do not know whom to deal with. It is not clear if the president is in charge of the army.”

Why would the Indian PM want to talk with the army guys? We have a chief of army staff, we have a defence minister.

And what is this about a partner? Are we discussing trade?

Asked if the Pakistani army was serious in tackling terrorism, Singh said he was not certain if the Pakistani army would take on those elements. “I think the most elemental force in Pakistan is the army. There is democracy. We would like democracy to succeed and flourish in Pakistan, but we have to recognise that the power today virtually rests with the army,” he said.

Right. He is saying that the Pak army is powerful, yet there is democracy, which he likes, but he wants to talk to the army because they are supposed to contain terrorism, which they are not serious about, and they won’t let democracy flourish. What is going on?

He says all this sitting on the CNN seat with Fareed Zakaria before his trip to the US.

It might appear to be a smart move from the Obama angle, but people at home won’t find it remotely sensible. Aren't we supposed to take a stand on terrorism? Instead we have our PM going all Red Riding Hood with the big bad wolf act.

Here is a clue:When it is time for playing diplomatic footsie, it is the politicians and bureaucrats who come to the table. You go to war with the army unless a country is under military rule.

Next, Dr. Singh will want to chat up the ISI. That might not be a bad idea since the agency works with officers as well as ‘gentlemen’.