I find the phrase “diplomatic offensive” rather amusing. So, one such offensive took place yesterday when Pakistani singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan was not arrested despite being caught with $142,000.
He was not being harassed; this is customary procedure. I know there are people who will shoot back about transactions worth crores that get past. They do but they must not. It is as simple as that.
It is appalling that a report in the TOI can flaunt how he could get away with this:
The decision not to arrest the singer was influenced by the fresh peace process between India and Pakistan that started only a week ago.
At risk would be the PM’s latest effort to mend fences with Pakistan, because Rahat is not only a popular Bollywood singer, in many ways, he is also the voice of all attempts to foster India-Pakistan peace.
Great. It follows that we should not probe into other issues – whether it is Hafeez Saeed or Dawood Ibrahim – because we are talking peace. There was diplomatic pressure from Pakistan and there would be because he was a celebrity. The same prompt action is not taken when fishermen are caught only because of the tides that push them into each other’s territories.
And how does he become the voice of peace? We have had people like Mehdi Hassan and Reshma years ago, but there was no attempt to project this ‘aman ki asha’ commercial enterprise.
Let us not say there was no need. Our relations with Pakistan have always been strained. If he is a Pakistani icon then I wish he’d get more singing assignments there. He is a marvellous singer, but it isn’t that we don’t have any of our own. I have repeatedly said that the import of performers is limited to the safe bets and those who will increase the TRPs. There is not sufficient reciprocity, though.
Regarding the practical issue, why was he carrying this much foreign currency? It is common practice for performers, Indians included, to be paid in cash, though they do show a percentage of their earnings on paper. Therefore, this is ridiculous:
Documents revealed that Khan sang in Hindi films for free as “a goodwill gesture”. However, DRI officials don’t buy it and suspect that the singer was paid Rs 15 lakh per song through a different manner, which they are investigating.
We have had cases of high-profile Indians who have been detained. There was the wife of an industrialist who was carrying undeclared jewellery; she had to put up with the investigations although she was known to wear a lot of these baubles.
More recently, the Income Tax raided the houses of Priyanka Chopra and Katrina Kaif.
They are famous and ‘icons’, for whatever it is worth. I am quite certain they could and probably did use their contacts to hurry up the matter, but did the government put pressure?
The media is making it out to be a case of Indo-Pak relations and mentioning the cases of Adnan Sami and comedian Shakeel who was sent threatening messages by Raj Thackeray’s MNS. We know that this party threatens and roughs up Indians from other states as well. As for Adnan Sami, his property was attached because his wife has filed a suit against him.
Why does not anyone talk about peace initiative in this case?
- - -
Salman Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri
has been indicted, but on Valentine’s day students and other fans sent him roses.
Now, wasn’t he supposed to be a hardcore Islamist and doing his bit for the religion? Then why are the clerics not flogging his supporters? Some Maulvi Ibrahim had threatened to flog anyone who was spotted selling or buying red roses. He said:
“Islam condemns Valentine’s Day and boys presenting flowers to young girls is vulgar and goes against the norms of Islam.”
If Islam follows the sharia, is there any hadith that actually mentions Valentine’s Day? Who is this man kidding? Is there mention of flowers, roses or lilies or even cacti, mentioned in any religious scripture of Islam and their role in corrupting morals? What is so vulgar about it?
Anyway, this is some mullah who has nothing better to do. He should be sent off to Syria, a nice Muslim country, where women wear the most enticing lingerie that have feathers and flowers. Some of these are gifts from their husbands.
Which makes me wonder: Is it okay in Islam if a man gives his spouse roses on V day? Or will he have to consult a maulvi about this impious act? And does placing flowers on graves of persons of the opposite sex also go against culture? Just asking…
- - -
In India the Darul Uloom Deoband has come up with its latest fatwa:
“If a holy Muslim doctor advises that a woman is unable to bear birth pangs, then a less than three months old pregnancy can be terminated but if it is more than three months old, the abortion is absolutely unlawful.”
Medical practitioners already know that it is inadvisable to terminate a pregnancy later than three months. But how will this holy Muslim doctor know whether a woman can bear birth pangs six months in advance? Is he that holy? I assume this doctor is a male, so is it okay by the Deoband that a woman would be examined by him? Or will he only check her pulse and get a brainwave?
I think these guys should just take their business on the roads and get parrots to pick out cards to give ‘advice’.
- - -
A man has been granted divorce due to mental cruelty.
No, his wife was not tormenting him to perform well or nagging him or asking him for roses everyday. She just wore revealing clothes.
The courts thought he had a point:
Cruelty includes not only physical but mental cruelty as well. Ostensibly, she (wife) has indulged in bloating falsehood beyond proportions, additional district judge Manmohan Sharma ruled, accepting the husbands plea that he suffered mental agony as his wife regularly wore vulgar dresses. The court allowed the divorce plea saying mere living under one roof without the necessary ingredients of love and faith, which are the hallmark of a fruitful matrimonial relationship, is nothing but animal existence. The man contended that his wife wore vulgar clothes during their honeymoon. She dressed herself in a very vulgar manner and asked to change she retorted that she wanted to be noticed by at least 50 people.
Fine, it is possible for a man to feel disturbed and insecure. But there are instances when men like the idea of their wives being noticed. It is a huge ego boost. In this case, did she love him less? Did he lose interest in her? Was she unfaithful?
Let us flip this: If he wore lungis or tight-fitting jeans, would the court accept a divorce plea from her on grounds of mental cruelty?
These are indeed personal choices and the partners need to have some understanding, but it is unfair to undermine individuality. Men get attracted to women who are all sexed up but once they get married those very clothes, that foxy look and aggro attitude become a problem.
Stick to inflatable dolls. I think there is nothing in any religion's scriptures against this.