Ghalib Guru and the Media Circus

Should the son of a man considered a terrorist be feted for scoring 95 per cent marks and topping the 10th board exams? 

Afzal Guru is now legend. He was hanged to death for his supposed role in the 2001 Parliament attack. He was an educated man. His son Ghalib, named after the poet, seems to be academically inclined too. He is now in the news. Mainstream newspapers are doing profiles on him. Are they, in the process, already profiling him as the heir? 

This is my concern. It is not in the same league as sensationalists glorifying a criminal for copy. In this case, the young man is being pinned against a wall on which they've already stuck his father's posters. It is not Ghalib the media is interested in, but the ghost of Afzal Guru.

Probably the worst line of questioning came from The Times of India. Sagarika Ghose starts with these words:

"The Pathankot attackers said they wanted revenge for the hanging of Afzal Guru; and in the Kashmir valley, Afzal Guru's "martyrdom" has becoming a rallying cry in the valley. But Afzal Guru's 17-year-old son Ghalib Abdul Guru says he has nothing to do with the azaadi (freedom) sentiment and wants to become a doctor and study at AIIMS."

This is such a cheap shot. By including the recent attacks in Pathankot, the interviewer is updating Ghalib's profile. There are many doctors, who have studied at prime institutes, who continue to believe in azaadi. The two are not at odds. 

The interrogation is sneaky with the subject being given key queries from which there is no escape. Since this is not a Q&A format, the inquisitor can get away. 

Ghalib is indirectly quoted as saying he wanted to get an MBBS "just like his dad" (interviewer's words). This is followed with:

"I used to meet dad in prison. The Crime Patrol told me he had done something bad and had hurt some people that's why he was in jail. When I met him he used to tell me to study hard all the time and do well at my studies, to look after my mother and read the Quran."

Isn't it clear what is going on here? The boy is being prodded to talk about his father. This guy is happy with his marks and a journalist goes on hammering him not about aspirations and how the young in Kashmir think, but about Afzal Guru. 

What are his memories of his father? "I don't remember him very well. All I remember is he used to always stay with his books, always reading and studying. He used to tell me to do the same. He used to say everything is in the hands of the Almighty. Whatever is written in your naseeb (fate), that's what will happen."

This gives Ms. Ghose another chance to pounce with, "So is Ghalib also religious?" Not "is Ghalib religious?" but "also religious". Like his father, like the man who he seems to be following, from medical practice to the Quran? This is what the media likes to build up. 

When he says, "I want to work in Kashmir because there is a shortage of doctors here. I wanted to also join the IAS, but my family was against that", the brave questioner has nothing to ask or say. No comment on how the youth of Kashmir wanting to contribute to it is more mainstream than some weird idea of allegiance to the nation. 

It is pertinent to note that he wanted to join the Indian Administrative Services, but his family opposed it. Many young people start out with naïve dreams, but the past returns. It is not what they inherit but that history does repeat itself in circles of deceit.

Towards the end of the interview, we get this:

What does he think about the Pathankot attack where the attackers claimed they wanted to avenge the death of his father? "I don't know much about that. People should not try to harm others. But yes if the Indian government has done something wrong then they will be punished.

And does he agree with the azaadi sentiment? "I don't think about that. I stay with my studies and my work. I work very hard as that's what my mother tells me."

I do not expect a 17-year-old not to be politicised, especially one who is surrounded by politics, and who has to bear the burden of being the son of a shaheed. But why should he be dragged into such indirect battles when the media claims it is celebrating his 94% achievement? To end the interview in this manner seems to be projecting a future martyr. 

A reader left this comment at the end of the piece:

Why are U championing the son of a terrorist as if he is some great Yuga Purusha? There are countless children of soldiers who excel in their studies and career. Why dont U feature them? For all that U know, this son of a 3rd rated terrorist and traitor would still be supporting his father and his philosophy of Jehaad and may be nursing a feeling of revenge towards the nation for the hanging of his father...

This is how deviously some liberals work. They seem to 'champion' a cause, so that it plays right into the hands of patriots frothing at the mouth. The reason they do not feature the children of soldiers or others is because the real aim is to highlight jihad, draw people out so that others perceive it the way this reader has. (Note the last sentence here and of the second last para of Ghalib's interview.)

Such binaries emanate from their own comatose perceptions to benefit only themselves. 

Smriti Irani, Sycophancy and the Politics of Vengeance

Sunday ka Funda

What’s going on here under the garb of promoting the idea of voting as a right?

Young man stands before visa officer at the US consulate. She is impressed that he has got admission into Boston University. He tells her the date of travel. “Isn’t that the voting day?” He does not know. “Is it?” Then he shrugs that one vote won’t make a difference. To which the stern lady says:

“If you cannot make a difference to your own country, how can you make a difference to another? Why should they have you?”

Fool. The US is ‘having’ him because of his grades, and not because he is voting. And voting does not translate into making a difference. He is projected as some sort of dimwit, which is a bit strange. How did he get into a big university? He is going there with the hope that they make a difference to his life, add to his education. After which, in all likelihood, they will use his brain for their technological benefit, among others. If not, they will not suffer him.

The last thing we need is for Indian democracy to be upheld via the American route.

Sunday ka Funda

"Screw it, I’ll just be a porn star.”

What started as a joke became real. This is about Lauren, a student, desperately trying to finance her tuition fees, who landed a job as an adult film actress. And how it was not as bad as it is made out to be; in fact, how it empowered her to do with her body only what she wished, not what was forced upon her by lovers, spouses, exploiters.

A Mirage called Malala

A Mirage called Malala: Another Daughter of the East? 
by Farzana Versey, CounterPunch, July 15

Had Edward Snowden exposed the dirt of the Taliban, he would have been standing behind the lectern in New York at the UN hall on Friday, July 12.

The contrast, and irony, is stark.

• A young man is hounded by the government of his country for exposing its sly mechanism, of its covert war against the whole world, not to speak of its own citizens. He waits at an airport in Russia that had fought a war against Afghanistan, which was backed by the CIA.

• A teenager’s birthday was officially declared Malala Day by the United Nations. She addressed a well-heeled gathering in the United States that was one of the two countries to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the other was Somalia.

Malala Yousafzai’s speech had a captive audience. 

Malala at the UN - Pic The Guardian

They wanted a cinematic moment. The gooseflesh groupies, including the mainstream media and urban Pakistanis, were not interested in going beyond the script of her address. They became the protectors of a girl who they could not protect in their own country. The legal imperative is not even considered to fight such cases. What bothers them is their pretty position would be threatened and questioned.  

Politician or puppet?

If we are to treat her as just a courageous 16-year-old, then perhaps we ought to disregard her role as activist. She cannot be hoisted as a symbol of resistance as a cocooned marionette.

In the very first sentence, Malala said it was an honour to wear a shawl of Benazir Bhutto. This was a political statement. From being a victim of the Taliban, she appears to be a “mind-controlled victim” of the elite. Like Benazir, Malala’s power comes from being wronged. Nobody will deny that they indeed were. However, the dynamics of power play are not about the literal, and this the souvenir dealers do not wish to understand.

When she was being treated at the hospital in Birmingham,  President Asif Ali Zardari visited her wearing a coat with a lapel that had her photograph on it; to honour her, he pledged $10 million for girls’ education to UNESCO because “sending girls to school was the best way to combat extremism”. While Malala’s school in Mingora, in the Northern region of Swat, was renamed after her, the President did not offer this money to a local organisation. To get legitimacy, it would appear the issue has to have global appeal.

The Interior Minister at the time, Rehman Malik, was quoted as saying:

"Until terrorism is over, she will continue to have security until we feel she is OK. You never know the circumstances, what will happen. The Taliban might be zero tomorrow. Still [while] we think or successive government feels she needs security, it is of no issue, to be honest, because she has become the icon of Pakistan, she has stood against terrorists and Taliban and she has become an icon for the education of young girls.”

Why do many Pakistanis refuse to see this as a convenient ploy by the leadership to put the onus on iconoclasm to deal with the issues, knowing well that this would work only as a mirage? Where are the political initiatives to tackle terrorism? Benazir Bhutto too supported the Taliban regime in its initial years to ensure that her position was not threatened. The progressive discourse overlooks the fact that she did not expunge any law that was anti-women.

Ever since she was shot at by the Taliban, the cheerleaders have expressed cursory concern for the “other Malalas”; the sidelight is brought out only as a nervous tic. Malala too made a nodding mention of her friends, now forgotten by everyone. They were also shot at, but not as grievously. Where are they? Are they protected? Any school named after them? No one seems to notice that despite her environment, she managed to learn, to seek peace, and to take on the militants.

The omission of any inspiring contemporary figure in her speech was startling. Yet, she managed to please the activists when she spoke about “hundreds of human rights activists and social workers who are not only speaking for their rights, but who are struggling to achieve their goal of peace, education and equality”. 

Students in Mingora (Pic: Pak Magazine)

It would have been politically incorrect for her to add that her sponsors and their allies not only kill civilians in the regions they occupy, but also employ child soldiers. In an earlier piece, I had raised these points: Is this courage or just canny marketing by consumerist consciences? Do we even pause to think about the consequences of creating or supporting such vulnerable ‘revolutionaries’? …Just think of the kids the US forces fought in Iraq and then took them captive to Abu Ghraib. Think about them in the Maoist Army in Nepal, as human shields in India’s Naxal groups, of them in Israel, of stone-pelting Palestinians now holding guns. These are representatives of their countries, not fringe groups.

Malala even sent out a message of forgiveness for the Taliban using time-tested figures: 

“I want education for the sons and daughters of the Taliban and all the terrorists and extremists. I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there was a gun in my hand and he was standing in front of me, I would not shoot him. This is the compassion I have learned from Mohamed, the prophet of mercy, Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha. This is the legacy of change I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. This is the philosophy of nonviolence that I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa.”

This is what Barack Obama says. This is exactly what the West, specifically the US, has done with its neat division of good Talib, bad Talib. Besides, as America is due to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, it will have to deal with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Whoever drafted Malala’s speech was taking no chances, even carefully omitting Hinduism, aware that it is a touchy issue in Pakistan where the infidel is associated with the idol-worshipping faith more than any other.

Besides, what change did Jinnah bring about? His major contribution was before the Partition and in helping to formulate the idea of Pakistan. He did not live to watch it veer away from the avowed secularism he hoped for. Malala recalling Mandela and Gandhi seems like a staple politician-beauty pageant fortune cookie moment, but Bacha Khan? He did not want to be with Pakistan and had specified that he should be buried in Afghanistan, to retain the purity of his Pashtun dream. Violence of thought is not something to be shrugged off.

Who is educating whom?

Like the caricature of the Taliban frightened of a girl with a book is simplistic, the catchphrase at the UN that day –‘Education First’ – is restrictive, especially when you consider the number of school dropouts in the West. But American kids willingly emptied their kitties for a charity that turned out to not only misuse the funds, but also mislead. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who wrote the bestselling ‘Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace ... One School at a Time’ set up the Central Asia Institute charity that funds schools in the Balti region. President Obama made a handsome donation, and the book compulsory reading for the forces in Af-Pak.

However, the greater crime, as I wrote in the Counterpunch article Fabricated Philanthropy was “one by default – of whitewashing the image of the US administration, even if to a small degree. It has come to light that he was not kidnapped by the Taliban. In one of the photographs of 1996, his so-called kidnapper turns out to be Mansur Khan Mahsud, a research director of the FATA Research Center.”

Those who oppose religious factionalism that the Taliban propagates have been using religious arguments against militancy. Certain clerics had issued a fatwa against those who targeted the girls; the liberals did not know how to negotiate this similarity. Pakistanis have lived with their Islamic laws, so they cannot ignore the mullahs.

Such lounge activists do not take on the Taliban or the government. They merely participate in the usual candlelight vigils and sex up the debate with their passive-aggressive act. Quite reminiscent of what Madonna did soon after Malala became a talking point. At a concert in Los Angeles, the singer had said, “This made me cry. The 14-year-old schoolgirl who wrote a blog about going to school. The Taliban stopped her bus and shot her. Do you realize how sick that is?” As reported: “Later in the show, Madonna performed a striptease, during which she turned her back to the audience to reveal the name ‘Malala’ stenciled across it.”

When Malala mentioned the problem of child labour, it did not strike her that she is now even more a victim of it, albeit in the sanitised environs of an acceptable intellectual striptease.  

© Farzana Versey

---

Do read Our Guns, Children's Shoulders

Where are the sparrows?

It is easy to run down television, but aren't we overdoing its impact on children?

Does it convey a dumbing down if children between three and four can recall names of brands and TV channels, but do not recognise a sparrow?

TOI reporting on the survey conducted by Podar Institute across a few schools in Mumbai started with this statement:

“Parents often pride themselves on their children’s skills but a recent survey might leave many embarrassed."

Many parents these days push their children on TV reality shows. One might question some of them, and even the intent to be in the public eye, but it is essentially to showcase the talent they think their kids possess.

Before such shows, children invariably were asked to perform before visitors - “Beta, recite that poem...show aunty that dance...tell uncle how you will save your sister with karate chops..." (How many children are asked to show skills in mathematics or history?) TV shows have given a wider platform to these same performances. While I do get pretty disgusted watching people so young make adult moves, tell off-colour jokes, is it not a fact that in real life this would be seen as 'older than her/his age'?

The survey sample was 2000 — 500 each from the 3/4 year and fe/male gender bracket. It also concentrated on a fairly uniform socio-economic background. The director of the institute observed:

“Children learn many things from watching television, especially commercials. Brands are not something parents or schools teach, but kids automatically absorb the information because it comes from a very colourful medium.”

I would extend the argument to iconic people and events as brands. The images of Gandhi are 'colourful' — his clothes, glasses, spinning wheel, and his quick gait. I recall a cousin dressing up as Tagore for a fancy dress competition and another as Indira Gandhi, much as one sees them on some reality shows. What, then, makes the latter bad? Some kids talk about events, and although I vehemently oppose children being used to make a point about religion or terrorism, one may surmise that they are not unaware of things around them.

The absorption is based on observation. If 85 per cent could name brands of chocolate, is it only due to the onslaught of televised images? There is no doubt that a story related to the product makes it easy to remember, but what child of an earlier generation would not tell you about the same, and even of other products? Perhaps, if a survey was conducted in those days, the results may not have been too different. I clearly recall Kiss Me toffees and Cadbury's.

90% could identity fast-food joints and names of powdered energy drinks. Is it because of the electronic media or more access? More families are eating out and the family dinner is about where to eat as much as what to eat. Energy drinks on TV work in tandem with how parents force them down kids. Again, Bournvita, Horlick's and Ovaltine have always been used to lure children to have milk.

The input has a lot to do with availability. Tigers are exotic, so everyone was aware about them. The reason probably only 20% could recognise sparrows is because they are not as visible as they used to be. This is borne out by the fact that crows scored better with 70%.

This same principal applies to fruits. Kiwis, bananas, pears, pineapples were known; only 12% could spot chikoos.

There is too much concern about the influence of consumerism. Children do not think about that. If they’d see butterflies, they’d still chase them. If we want to give the butterfly a brand name and they recall that, it does not denude the wonder they feel for it.

© Farzana Versey

What Makes Premji a ‘Muslim tycoon’? Can we see his philanthropy without religious blinkers?

Right said, Premji? Pic: The Telegraph

Azim Premji is the right type of man. India deserves every bit of him and his contribution, both as entreprenueur and philanthropist.

Therefore, when he announced recently to give more, it sounded just right:

“I strongly believe that those of us who are privileged to have wealth should contribute significantly to try and create a better world for the millions who are far less privileged.”

No one can have a problem with this. However, it raises two issues.

• Did he have to sign up with the ‘Giving Pledge’ group, co-founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? I have discussed my reservations about this sort of philanthropy earlier. It is his money, his country, his concerns. Globalising it obscures intent, if not action. He is right that education is the way forward. Unfortunately, there appears to be an increasing move for ‘quality’ education, ignoring the massive illiterate ‘market’.   

• Is it necessary to make him into a showpiece of a community? There is a difference between keeping a low profile and not being proactive. It is indeed commendable that he does not flash his faith (a luxury he has, incidentally, because money has no religion), but what about the desperation by others to thrust it on him, and for him to do the proper secular thing?

I will have to reproduce in entirety the piece I wrote in 2007 in Counterpunch as a response to the execrable interview in Wall Street Journal. Azim Premji may be “The Bill Gates of India” (which tells us more about our foreign obsession than globalisation), but even the international media will sell his story tagged with religion:

Is Azim Premji really the world’s richest Muslim entrepreneur? Is there a list which mentions the richest Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Christian, Scientologist, atheist, Rastafarian?

Unlikely. At least nothing that would make the Wall Street Journal want to give it front page legitimacy. Talking of legitimacy, surely we are talking about legitimate enterprise, for the underworld and the mafia, Muslim or otherwise, are flush with money. In all likelihood, they are investors in the big companies.

Mr. Premji heads Wipro, India's third-largest IT exporter. Its fortune rests at $17 billion. I like rich people. But this gentleman is not just rich; he has been saddled with baggage. And the newspaper goes out of its way to prise it open by saying that he defies all conventional wisdom about Islamic tycoons - he does not hail from the Persian Gulf and does not wear his faith on his sleeve.

Where did the term ‘Islamic tycoon’ come from? What is unconventional about not wearing your faith on your sleeve? Is it even important to discuss?

Of course, it is. Imagine the world we are living in. Azim Premji has to be displayed as the nice guy – no beard, well-fitted suit, an amiable demeanor, likeable. He might have been a crass bore with filthy lucre, the Tom Cruise type who had to jump on an Oprah Winfrey sofa to declare his love for a Kate to become interesting. Mr. Premji has been given a moment quite unlike that cheesy one. He has been profiled (and do pardon the pun) in an article titled, “How a Muslim Billionaire Thrives in Hindu India”.

I am an Indian and have always lived in the country of my birth. It is not a Hindu nation. It may have a majority of Hindus, but then it has a majority of illiterates. Why wasn’t the report called, “How a literate billionaire thrives in illiterate India”? There are many such potential headlines I may offer, but I should hope the point has been made.

This ‘Muslim billionaire’ has thrived because he had a family business to start with. He had money to get a decent education and he had the spirit of enterprise. Hindu India did not contribute to these, neither did Muslims. It is an individual achievement.

It is unfortunate that Muslims are being made accountable for aspects of life that would under normal circumstances not identity them with religion.

Yaroslav Trofimov, the writer of the article, says, “Yet, to many in India's Muslim community, Mr. Premji's enormous wealth, far from being inspiring, shows that success comes at a price the truly faithful cannot accept. They resent that Mr. Premji plays down his religious roots and declines to embrace Muslim causes – in a nation where people are pegged by their religion and where Hindus freely flaunt theirs.”

What price has Mr. Premji had to pay? He has quietly gone and made a success of his business. There is no resentment against his hesitation to talk about his Muslim identity, and no Muslim social organisations are dependent on his largesse.

What is resented is the fact that in a country where most of the 150 million people of the community are ghettoized, the likes of Premji are touted as examples of Hindu tolerance. This just does not wash. It is most patronizing, and a huge insult to those who do make a decent living but are tagged in ways that are negative simply because they lack the visibility of a high-profile profession. On any given day there will be a handful of Muslims taken out of the celebrity closet to reveal the mothballed magnanimity of the majority community.

No one wants Premji to stand up and be counted. But there is no reason for him to play along with this secular sham, and he has been doing so for a while. He said in an interview to the paper, “We have always seen ourselves as Indian. We've never seen ourselves as Hindus, or Muslims, or Christians or Buddhists.”

The report further states, “Mr. Premji has mentioned his Muslim background so rarely in public that many Indian Muslims don't even know he shares their heritage. None of Wipro's senior managers aside from Mr. Premji himself are Muslims. The company maintains normal working hours on Islamic high holidays.”

This does not sound like a report in a respected newspaper but something straight out of a pamphlet. What heritage are we talking about? Is there one Muslim heritage? His last name could well be Hindu as his roots are in Gujarat. What is so heart-warming and significant about not working on Islamic holidays? Does it become news when many Hindu-owned companies celebrate religious festivals with a puja (prayer) and in fact during Diwali (that is an unabashed ode to the goddess of wealth) people even offer prayers to account books? Is it news that this includes Muslim entrepreneurs? What is the purpose behind such a statement? And why is it surprising considering that most of the 70,000 employees of Premji’s company are non-Muslim?

These are devious little tricks. No one mentions good old Adnan Khashoggi and his cruise liners in which the international high and mighty had fun vacations.

Isn’t there a mean between riding the Islamophobia and secular waves? The latter is as ridiculous as Mohamed al Fayed screaming about being discriminated against by British society because of his religion.

Azim Premji is a thriving businessman in the globalized world he keeps talking about. A globalized world that is unwilling to dignify him as just another wealthy guy and has to mention his religion not just in passing but as the very crux of his defiance – a defiance that is as imaginary as other stereotypes.

He says with what appears to be an element of arrogance, “All our hiring staff are trained to interview in English. They're trained to look for Westernized segments because we deal with global customers.”

Indeed. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians are doing rather well for themselves, and they don’t go around kowtowing to some colonial mentality that talks about English in such a fashion. He mentions that most Muslims are educated in Urdu. Perhaps he might like to check the statistics that say Urdu is a dying language. Perhaps he might like to sponsor some schools for Muslim children; he can do so incognito so that his secular credentials are safe. Perhaps he might like to know that even madrassas these days use his computers, so it is entirely possible they are cracking codes on them. Perhaps he might like to not even entertain questions about his Muslim identity. He is rich enough to afford to say, “No comments”. That is true liberation.

However, being called a Muslim tycoon is like being addressed as a hot Eskimo. And who doesn’t like a touch of oxymoron?

Are we grown up enough to accept him without strings attached and our baggage of expectations and stereotypes? Why does he or anyone need to do something specifically, and self-consciously, secular to prove their nationalistic stripes?

---
Update Query: Wonder why I forgot to add here that among all the industrialists who sang paeans and promised and were promised a rose garden during Narendra Modi's 'Vibrant Gujarat Summit', Azim Premji was not around. He is or Gujarati origin and interested in development. What made him stay away? A point that needs to be noted. 

The rotten state of IITs

This news comes from the director of IIT Guwahati. Well, not quite rotten, but if you are not literal you will get the gist of the apparition, not to speak of the continuum of illusion. For all the so-called brilliance of those entering the institute, we have a thriving coaching class business that makes them ‘ready’. In a candid disclosure, Gautam Barua says:

On entering the IITs after undergoing excessive coaching, the students are almost burnt-out and mentally fatigued. Then the IITs for them become a place to relax. Coaching is the primary reason that affects the performance of students. A mindset has been created that if they (students) do not opt for coaching, they may not have the chance to get admission to the IITs.

And do these students wish to go to into engineering at all? Remember the film 3 Idiots where the maverick protagonist calls the fiancé of the woman who he will fall in love with a “gadha” (donkey) because, after all the admission to the prime institute, he ended up in a swivel chair? For him everything had a price tag. Mr. Barua’s views express similar sentiments:

IIT has a brand value. Parents and students want to enter IIT without thinking what they will do. So after they graduate from the IITs, many of them don’t go for engineering jobs; they rather go for the finance sector, management or do jobs which have no connection with engineering. We have seen that about half of the students from IITs are really not interested in engineering.

The IITs are creating a brahmanical bubble of being the superior race and the chosen ones. The fact that some of them are grabbed for a few crore rupees’ salary makes news; the rest become certified purple-robed job seekers. Or, they just have that brand on them and think they can do anything and be certain that with the campus story to back them they are worth a good deal.

People who join medicine have to shell out capitation fees and are made to feel responsible about how that seat is so important. Do the IITs give that sense of accountability to the students? Obviously not. So, why are they such prized mice in the rat race in other fields? Ah, why is the lady carrying the Ferragamo bag with nothing else to show given a better welcome or the man who alights from a Mercedes offered a stiffer salaam? It is the tag.

We are living in times when this is all that seems to count.

In a rather tragic-comic comment, Mr. Barua states:

It is time for the government to create IIT-like institutions in the field of humanities. Let there be IIT-like institutions in economics, philosophy and other fields of humanities, with IIT-like campuses and branding. Then it will no longer be necessary for students to get admitted to IITs and later join non-engineering jobs.

I really do not think we need this sort of tagged legitimacy to move around like dogs with collars. Many universities in any case have ‘names’ and cater to some sort of elitism, whether monetary or intellectual, the latter an iffy word because the purity of such intellectualism is largely diminished if they make puppy eyes about being Stephanians or leave scruffy ideological paw marks about JNU. Where is the individualism?

There was a time when we worried about students being spoonfed. Now, with technology and the availability of information within seconds, the term has taken on different connotations. The IIT person is assumed to be prepared for anything. A bit strange that one who might have been a cordon bleu chef chooses to stand at the buffet table. The only difference is that someone is there to carry the plate.

- - -

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (From Hamlet. Marcellus to Horatio, after Hamlet follows his father's ghost)

'Faming' Arindam Chaudhuri

Anybody writing a book on Arindam Chaudhuri ought to be sued – for writing it at all. I mean, he runs some fancy management coaching classes. Are there books about Aggarwal classes or Ghate’s? Now, Chaudhuri has gone and filed a defamation suit against Penguin, Google and The Caravan magazine, the latter two for spreading the bad word and using an extract from the book. He has valued his tarnished image at Rs. 50 crore.

Since only bits are available it is not possible to decide on the defamatory nature except that the title is so long-winded it could qualify as defamatory to language and further to the middle class, success and all sweet smells. Here it is in its full monty form: Sweet Smell of Success: How Arindam Chaudhuri Made a Fortune Off the Aspirations - and Insecurities - of India's Middle Classes.

This sort of reminds one of how AB Corp was accused of taking token signing amounts for their projects from people and then Amitabh Bachchan shrugged and said he had hired the wrong managers. In this case, Arindam is the owner-manager-management guru-dean of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) and he is also a film producer. A sort of Baba Ramdev of the faux elite. It is only natural for people to be upset by what is written about them. Does that make them right? If there is evidence against him or even a discussion about how the management bubble bursts then stuff of this nature can be written. He is a public figure; he markets himself as the institute.

Chaudhuri dotting his 'i'?

A bit of digression here: Call it coincidence or whatever, but last month when I saw this picture of Chaudhari I could not take my eyes off it. I downloaded it and marvelled at the blatancy. What? The first lines that flashed through my mind were how linearity is limiting but what about symmetry? Don’t we look for some order, a pattern to fall into place? Indeed. Then, why does the symmetry of what Mr. Chaudhuri is wearing so off?

I am no fashion police, yet it was beyond amusing. This is the man who is about creating an impression and the impression one gets is that he is trying too hard to fit in (his ponytail is not rebelliousness but being ‘with it’). The blue jacket in a shiny fabric is tight and everything is co-ordinated in the linear fashion. Striped trousers and polka-dot tie and kerchief in pocket? The flap pockets and lapel have white piping while the shirt collar and button front have blue piping. The rims of his shades are white; I am surprised the lenses are not blue. The shoes are not visible, but I’d be damned if they were white or blue.

This is symmetry gone bad. And it is also a metaphor for thinking. This is not revolutionary management that pushes the envelope and thinks on its feet, but a straitjacket.

Part of the problem of any public discourse these days is linearity. Good is all good. Bad is all bad. The context is missing.

3 Idiots: IIT, IIM and the Minister

A distorted image of a scene from the Hindi film 3 Idiots

Since when have IITs and IIMs become shrines that everyone has to bow before them and whatever comes out of those hallowed corridors is to be considered some holy benediction?

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and the hurt alumni and faculty of the institutes are both narrow-minded. Here is what the minister had said:

“There is hardly any worthwhile research from our IITs. The faculty in the IIT is not world class. It is the students in IITs who are world class. So the IITs and IIMs are excellent because of the quality of students not because of quality of research or faculty.”

What exactly is world-class? Don’t we have our own standards to judge? There is some pretty wimpy stuff coming out of Ivy League universities. The IITs and IIMs depend on government funding, so Mr. Ramesh has just given them an opportunity to crib about how they are short of money and shackled by government interference.

It is no wonder that reports mention the kneejerk response that this one statement has received. Typically, they have pulled up the minister, asking him to hold forth on the quality of politicians. Pretty lame. For not only is the minister a product of such an institute, there are many others, and quite a few of them in fact confirm what he says – not about the faculty, but about the students. The hierarchy is in place and those who get in assume they are better than the rest.

And what is so great about those students? Many take the first opportunity to go overseas and then after they have made it return with a cheque to donate to their alma mater. Those who remain here end up doing staid academic jobs; the more enterprising ones consider research to mean rehashing the minutiae of what they did at the institutes in columns, books and films and these are lapped up because our ‘youth segment’ is now interested in the techie/managerial route to success decoded in simplistic paneer wrap language.

Oh, before I forget, a little bit of mandatory failure along the way is seen as idealism. Idiots.

- - -

I had written a more detailed piece on a related subject in Understanding the Rot in Academia

Reservations, Minorityism and the UID Threat

Do not expect the UID (Unique Identity) scheme to track absconders and the corrupt. It will see to it that the backward remain where they are with a mid-day meal and an occasional trip to the local Disneyland ensured.

Reservations, Minorityism and the UID Threat
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, March 17

Who is really exploiting the reservation policy? If this is the constant fear, then there is more going on than we know. If politicians back certain groups for electoral ends, then those groups are not to be blamed. It was indeed shocking to read the Times of India editorial pick on the Gujjar and Jat communities that have demanded reservations and pass a blanket verdict:

“Today, reservation has ended up creating ‘creamy layers’ in targeted sections. The Supreme Court’s 50% ceiling on quota has been breached as well, as in Tamil Nadu. Quotas were meant to facilitate upward mobility in terms of jobs, livelihoods or status.”

What about sectors where the real 50 per cent are not considered? This has not happened because of more reservations, but due to the nature of nepotism and promoting one’s own, and it starts at the lowest level of bureaucracy to the highest power centres. On what grounds can it be stated that quotas are about upward mobility when public visibility ensures that they are recognised as the downtrodden? How many top positions have been filled with this reservation policy? How many candidates standing for elections are given this opportunity, unless it is to woo the constituency, and this is done by all sections – the Brahmins, the Rajputs, the Muslims, the Christians in their respective majority areas?

The editorial goes on to say that “six decades ago, it was thought that ostracised and marginalised groups needed reservation only as a time-bound instrument of socio-economic levelling. India has come a long way since then”. If that were the case then there would be no need for other groups to downplay their status, not in a country where recognised as heirs and designated with labels is so very important. There was much media attention paid to an over-the-top wedding of the children of two Gujjar politicians in Haryana. It does not reveal prosperity of the community as a whole, although it does make the upper castes uncomfortable to see their ostentation mimicked. It therefore acts as a convenient stick to beat the issue with:

“Clearly, if we’re to have reservation, it must be based on the economic criterion. More important, quota-based positive discrimination must make way for affirmative action in the form of efficient services delivery to the poor across the social board.”

While economically-backward people from all communities must benefit in terms of opportunity, how will such action be carried out? In the unorganised sector where daily wage is the mode of earning, there is no talk of reservation. Those are among the poorest people irrespective of their caste. Where has this great economic leap reached them? The definition of welfare does not have to be relegated only to paper.


It is pathetic to see the media playing the role of government spokespersons. The UPA gets a pat on the back for its food, health and “need” based schemes:

“Whereas quotas create social friction by building coddled niches, welfare-for-all has unifying potential, and hence can help bridge caste divides. The midday meal scheme in schools – encouraging community eating at a young age – is a case in point.”

Why is there always a problem regarding coddled niches where the SC/ST groups are concerned and not when the fat cats are? How does school children sitting and eating together result in a feeling of community? How many schools do not discriminate in matters of admission and, more importantly, attitude? What mid-day meal schemes are there in the rural areas?

These are camouflages that only serve those in power and probably let the middle-men make some money on the food-packets. Also, eating in a Dalit house does not unify anyone when we know who is eating where.

The worst part of the debate is regarding “fasttracked” development. This will work at the level of lining the roads with potted plants when a foreign dignitary visits. There is a rather vile motive and that is to promote the government’s UID scheme.

“The underprivileged have a sense of powerlessness and low self-esteem precisely because they’ve been treated as a faceless collective to be swayed by political populism, rather than as individual citizens with distinct identities and entitlements. Here’s where UID and financial inclusion come in. By giving the poor identity, financial agency and provable claim to social benefits, such projects can do more good than quotas ever could.”

Okay, so now that they have a face and a card, instead of a broom trailing behind them to clear the path for the others, will they get equal benefits? Or will their identity, stamped and marked, exclude them from certain areas while keeping up the pretence of welfare in others? Won’t their recognised identities help even small politicians trace them and use them for populist reasons, all at the click of a button? Is it not possible that were the younger lot to progress on their own and seek positions they will be tracked and prevented because those wonderful opportunities have been reserved for years for the privileged? Will not such a government-sanctioned identity, where everything from their source of food to their birth control methods are on record, not in fact work as a process of elimination quietly in the background?

Do not expect the UID (Unique Identity) scheme to track absconders and the corrupt. It will see to it that the backward remain where they are with a mid-day meal and an occasional trip to the local Disneyland ensured. India’s economic policy is a showcase, not an internal buffering system. It is about Forbes not welfare.


In this fairytale version of progress, one of the sops that has been thrown in is to give a well-settled institution like the Jamia Millia Islamia minority status. One might well ask where all the talk of welfare is now. In an article Najeeb Jung, the vice-chancellor, mentions that when it became a central university in 1988 with all the relevant faculties working, it had about 50 per cent Muslim students. In 2011, it has the same number. Unfortunately, he sees the positive aspects in what is clearly negative demarcation.

“First, over the last 90 years Muslims have had a sense of ownership and a fierce attachment with Jamia. They believe it is an institution of higher learning set up by their forefathers, to further in essence the cause of Muslim education, and declaring it a minority institution makes them secure in this feeling. Two, with the introduction of reservations for OBCs, the level of reservations in the university would go beyond 50% and therefore over time Muslim numbers will decline.”

Jamia is seen as a secular institution and promoting it as a minority one defeats the purpose. Citing the example of Christian-run colleges does not quite work because most of them have a missionary background and yet a ‘convent’ education is considered prized. The Christian community did not feel any ownership and having studied in such institutes one can say that except for the occasional superficial religious dimension, it was the elite students who felt more of a sense of belonging irrespective of their caste or religion. What the government has done is to make Jamia work as a double OBC unit, in a way.

On the subject of women’s education, Jung writes:

“Today, one of the glorious achievements of the university is that within its campus one frequently sees groups where girls in hijab mix easily with all others.” 

He is playing into a stereotype. Delhi has Muslim students in other universities who go without the hijab. Why does he assume that Muslims do not mix otherwise? The criticism that this could well be a ghetto, as much as is the UID scheme, is valid. And it is proved when he declares:

“While this is a huge affirmative action on the part of the government that the Muslim community must accept with grace and gratitude, I believe the government has put an onus on the Muslims to prove that they can look beyond common perceptions of ghettoisation, fundamentalism and so on and understand that imbedded in this initiative is the challenge to be tested at the altar of competence, professionalism and, above all, commitment to fierce nationalism and secularism that has been the bedrock of Jamia for the past 90 years.”

Technically, the Jamia is anyway entitled to 50 per cent quota for Muslims, so giving it the minority tag is a trap and it is easy to fall into it. Why should there be an onus on one community to prove not only its capability to be professionally qualified but committed to fierce nationalism, which incidentally is at the core of contemporary disparities and communalism?

The devious double dhamaka of minority certified as minority is to push a group into the corner. It is not surprising that an established institution has been chosen for this ‘honour’. It will be used as an example to throw more crumbs at lesser people, be they minorities or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, all in the name of welfare and unification. The fact is their every footprint is being marked to make certain that they can only walk thus far and no further.

(c) Farzana Versey

Travel Advisory for Darul Uloom

"Go take a walk."

And before I am branded as not Muslim enough, if at all, then let me assure you I am closely acquainted with Muslims who practise their faith religiously.

I understand that by quoting the Darul Uloom Deoband I am furthering their cause, but if newspapers continue to publish their latest fatwa, as though it is the newest trend, we will have to speak up. The seminary purports to represent the faith and the Quran; it also ends its fatwas with “Allah knows best”. Therefore, I wonder why people ask them questions at all.


Here is the query on travel:

“Is a married woman permitted to travel to another country with her female sibling?”

The Darul Uloom reply:

“She cannot travel without a ‘mehram’. It’s mentioned in the Hadees that a woman should not travel for more than 48 miles except in the company of a ‘mehram’ relative.”

A 'mehram' is an immediate relative, with whom having sex would amount to incest, or the husband.

I would like to know whether implicit in the reply is that women travel for sex or that there is always the possibility of them being sexually exploited. The latter does pose a danger, but wasn’t it the Deoband that issued a fatwa on a raped woman who was asked to marry her father-in-law, the rapist? Where was she travelling to?

There are several aspects in religion that had validity at one point in time; it is important to seek the essence and not the superficals. And I am not sure about the verity of the Deoband pronouncements. In respect of removal of hair in private parts, for example, it talks about tweezers for women. Were there tweezers in the Prophet’s time? Or depilatory creams? Anyhow, all these were for reasons of hygiene and not because it interfered with people’s belief in god.

Now back to their travel advice. Quite a few of my relatives are religious and the women travel alone and are professionally qualified. Some also wear the hijaab and drive the fastest and take holidays without their male relatives.

The Deoband's extreme position will work against itself. A woman asking the query obviously wishes to or needs to travel. She may not know how far her destination exactly is in miles or kilometres. She might need to use transport and the driver need not be a woman. Then what? Okay, she will be in full hijaab and all that. Then? What if she takes a break every 48 miles and then resumes for another 48 – will that be halal?

In the same state of Uttar Pradesh some miles away from the Deoband in Lucknow women in Varanasi are running madrassas. They have had regular education and are inculcating these values in their students. They are showing the community, the country and the world that madrassas are not only about religious teachings. It is not to justify the existence of such madrassas or to whitewash a bad image, but to fight ignorance and empower themselves.

I should hope they travel far, beyond the 48 miles, because in their minds they have already traversed way ahead of the clerics.

A Deobandi as Modi's Brand Ambassador

Before you raise your eyebrows, do see things beyond the obvious. The new Darul Uloom vice-chancellor, Maulana Ghulam Mohammed Vastanvi, has given his stamp of approval to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. Shocked? Don’t be. They both essentially perpetuate the same schema of religion as the subterranean text. Both have worked wonderfully at brainwashing people – one with the carrot of ‘Gujarati pride’, the other with the stick of fatwas that make faith into some watertight compartment.

Maulana Vastanvi is from Surat and an educated man. It has been reported that he introduced modern subjects like medicine and engineering in the local Darul-run institutions. One does not quite understand how these subjects become modern when even madrassas use technology these days. This is the superficial aspect that draws attention, quite forgetting how several religions steeped in rituals and superstitions do not permit true scientific inquiry and even resist certain medical intrusion. This includes the Darul Uloom.


Let us not forget its disgusting record of fatwas in the Imrana case or objecting to women working or the clothes people wear. The latest in the list is a fatwa issued this month that prohibits the practice of prophecy by Muslims. It cites the Shariah and warns that if a follower of the faith indulges in soothsaying, his prayers for 40 days become unacceptable.

Will the Deoband then ban all the caretakers at various shrines who after the prayers have been said, offering made and money deposited in the donation box swoosh a peacock feather over the devotee’s head and prophesise that all wishes will be fulfilled? What about the various pirs who advertise their powers to predict the future and the past? What about Islamic scholars that give their interpretations of Islam and further divide the community? What about the Deoband itself that issues these edicts? It may now say that it is only advice based on queries raised, but that is precisely what soothsayers do.

If they genuinely believe that the Quran is the last word, then they should refer the questioner to the Holy Book. Why is the Deoband permitting itself to act as a go-between?

This brings us to the modernisation by Maulana Vastanvi. It is relegated to the well-off. According to him there is “no discrimination against the minorities in the state as far as development is concerned…Development has taken place in Gujarat and we hope it will continue. I ask Muslims to study well. The government is ready to offer jobs (to them), but for that, they need good education.”

While education is always a desirable goal, why are there only government jobs on offer? Is this some autocratic system where the state decides even what employment opportunities are available to the minorities in the private sector? What is the educated population of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs? Who will fill up the Class IV government quota? I am not in any way suggesting that menial jobs should be an aspiration, but these too qualify as work. There are professions that require unskilled workers – what about those? The sword of education is made to hang on the necks of people precisely to demolish their self-esteem. Literacy does not guarantee the ability to fight for your rights. The system will not permit it.


Narendra Modi has streamlined the system so well that it is made to seem like the final destination, when education is a journey. How educated were the rioters of 2002? What degrees did the cops who went on a rampage hold? Were all the victims uneducated? In fact, some were educated rather well and had to pay the price for the possibility that they would not keep silent.

The Maulana does not see this. He is speaking the language of the elite, and an institution like the Darul Uloom is elitist, in that it lives within its cocoon and every once in a while comes out to pronounce edicts in a rather feudal manner. One does not want the Deoband or any group to take over the task of bringing a politician or a political establishment to book, but when a person takes over such an organisation he has to be responsible. Maulana Vastanvi says, instead, “The issue is almost eight years old now and we should move forward. Rioting anywhere – in Gujarat or in any other part of the world – is bad for humanity and should never happen. The Gujarat riots were a blemish for India and all culprits should be punished.”


The riots were not a blemish for India but for its bigoted politician who is the hero of this same modern India that the cleric is endorsing. He has gone to the extent of saying, “There are not as many problems in Gujarat as has been projected…As far as relief work for the riots is concerned, it has been carried out very well by the government and people of Gujarat.”

He seems oblivious to the cries of people still seeking justice…justice based on evidence. So, who is the uneducated one here?

Maulana Vastanvi and Narendra Modi may want Muslims to move on, and a few have because they could afford to. There are many who cannot. Some do not wish to because if they let their voices be muffled, then together with those few hundred bodies their souls too will get buried. One can be reasonably certain that a mall mausoleum will be built over it. Modi will flash it as one more victory for economic progress and the Maulana will flaunt a shadow puppet modern Muslim. He might like to check out what the Deoband has to say about malls, though.

- - -

Published in Countercurrents, January 19

Jewels of India

When Union human resources development minister Kapil Sibal announced plans for ‘navratna’ universities, his blueprint was not our own ancient universities like Nalanda or the brilliant minds of a Chanakya or Birbal. He looked westward:

“We are working on the concept of having navratna universities or an Indian Ivy League. We intend to nurture these select universities, like the public sector navratnas, by generous financial support, freedom in accessing external funding and total autonomy so as to free them from the shackles of government control.”

While the absence of government control in the running of such universities is gratifying, to what extent will it be so? Will it nurture an open-ended educational system where students are not trapped in outdated syllabi? Will there be freedom to explore controversial subjects and books? And will this further create a fractured society?

Recently, an elite school raised objections to students from less privileged backgrounds enrolling as per the requirements of the Right To Education (RTE) Act because they were concerned about the adjustment issues they might have; there have been instances when this hurdle has been crossed, but it is a fact even in regular schools that the social and financial status counts. The disparities are ingrained at an early stage.

Mr Sibal further stated:

“With regard to our existing navratnas —the IITs and IIMs—we are according full powers to their boards to create posts within the approved norms, top up the salaries of the directors and faculty from the funds generated by them, open centres in India and abroad, amend rules within the framework of their Memorandums of Association and Rules, acquire and dispose property and manage funds generated on their own.”

There is no doubt that some of our bright minds are nursed here and grabbed by foreign companies. By opening centres abroad, they will cater to a limited expatriate population or perhaps those from some Asian and African countries. The wealthy Indian diaspora even today chooses the American school franchises available in the countries they reside in.

As for the Ivy League inspiration, again those institutions do have a reputation, but does that translate into brilliance as a matter of course? The affordability factor is extremely important here, and the snob value. Those who are there because they got a quick ticket have no worries; for the others who are being sponsored the stress is immense.

Check the suicide rates and the culture of angst that these institutes give rise to and you will know that where the crucial human element is concerned, they may not be roughed up as in the colleges of some small town but it isn’t all glittering.

The nine jewels – navratna – must not create a parallel world of India Shining to gloss over the reality.

USA to teach Indian MPs?

You would not catch them attending a leadership programme at one of our universities or management institutes.

But twelve of our ministers will be off to Yale University to attend the fourth annual Programme for India’s Parliamentarians that was launched in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and India-US Forum of Parliamentarians.

From the fairly seasoned Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi to the young Union ministers of state Ajay Maken and Agatha Sangma, from the ruling party to the regional and religion-oriented ones it is a diverse mix.

What do these people hope to learn? What is the India-US Forum of Parliamentarians about? Is it a lobbying group? Or will it help brainwash our MPs to understand the American system better?

Besides undergoing a seven-day leadership programme at the Yale University campus beginning June 9, the MPs would travel to New York and Washington for meetings, discussions and interactions with US politicians, policy analysts and senior government officials. “The India-Yale Parliamentary Leadership Programme is pioneering in the amazing diversity of topics explored; in the outstanding, cutting edge quality of the world-renowned lecturers; in the truly bipartisan nature of the multiparty delegation,” said Singhvi.

This is not about individuals going abroad for education or even professionals attending seminars or conferences. These are our elected representatives who will shamelessly sit and listen to some American on how to be leaders in India, a country that is vastly different in every way. Mr. Singhvi is the spokesperson of the ruling party and has been holding forth on policy decisions. What are we to make of the things he has been saying? That he needs an education?

Will any of these ministers be asked to speak and address US parliamentarians?

Since FICCI is involved, there is obviously the economic angle. The angle of how to pass files for industrial houses and possibly multinationals. Who is paying for their trip?

Forget all this leadership baloney. They are being had and, worse, loving it.

Where is our self-respect?

The Right Thing?

Jairam Ramesh threw off his robes. As a minister for environment and forests, he was making no point, but by discarding the convocation robes at a function, he did send out the right message.

However, he made some wrong points:

“Why can’t we have a convocation ceremony in simple clothes? With the flowing robe and hat, it’s like being decked up like medieval vicars and popes. This practice started in 13th century Oxford. This attire can be stifling in this season...You can come to the convocation in shirts and trousers. Why the robe? The hat is worn only so that it can be thrown up in the air at the end of the ceremony. Why do you wear a hat if you have to throw it?’’

Throwing the hat is symbolic. We throw a lot of things during religious ceremonies…often as purging. This denotes some sort of freedom. As regards Oxford, we flash such credentials at every given opportunity.

“I’ve still not been able to figure out why we stick to such barbaric colonial relics.’’

Colonial it is, not barbaric. In fact, it strived for a specifically stifling dress code to portray a civilisational mode of pomp and pageantry as opposed to savage crudity. It is ceremonial attire to confer a degree, to accept an achievement into the hall of fame. While we must understand that these clothes do not seem appropriate now, there is the more crucial question about how education itself has become a downgraded and ‘barbaric’.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has announced education for all as a basic need. It is honourable in intent, but where are the questions: why do people drop out? Where are the schools in the interiors? Who sells question papers in the open market prior to exam? How has technology intervened in the cheating process?

Also, what about the farce of honorary doctorates being given to ministers and actors and celebrities?

What after discarding the robes? Some more thinking.

- - -



What is this?

The caption says:

In this handout picture released by The Press Information Bureau on March 31, 2010, Incoming Chief of Army staff General V.K. Singh (R) shakes hands with outgoing Chief General Deepak Kapoor (L) in New Delhi”.

I am surprised. I am not sure about the specifics required, but for a profession that talks about protocol and how mandatory it is, why is the Chief of Staff seated? Isn’t it expected that he should stand up? It is not as though some minion is paying respects to him.

If not as protocol perhaps courtesy?

Exhibiting Sex?

I thought we'd finally realised the importance of erotica when I read about the proposed sex museum in Mumbai.

Turns out that it will educate people about sex and sexually transmitted diseases; more importantly, about HIV and AIDS as it will have a "walk -through" to explain the new developments in the field

Some points:

* Would this qualify as a museum, since it serves no historical or aesthetic purpose? There are science museums but larger programmes being deliberated upon in them.

* Did the BMC manage to get space only in the Leprosy Hospital? This immediately puts sexuality and its resultant ailments in the category of real illnesses. I am not shunning leprosy, which needs to fight another battle for understanding. But, how are the two connected?

* What is the purpose of talking about such a museum as an attraction? Will tourists visit it to learn about the exotic Indian version of sexual diseases? Will young people truly benefit from such knowledge? Is some government organisation going to decide and will it, therefore, suffer from prudish ideas and red-tapism?

When we should be outsourcing, we don't. It would be ideal to get a business house to put up works of art, slide shows, history of sexual mores from the past to contemporary times. There could be a section on commercial sex work too since we encounter it in the street as also in cinema. It is time to face reality head-on.

It need not be salacious. This teachy preachy attitude does put people off.

The reason I mentioned private ownership is because they will display it well and there is little fear of exploitation because they are as afraid of sex mucking up their reputation. Imagine being pulled up for a sexually-loaded misintepretation!

The governmnent will anyway have the power to revoke the license.

Just let us get over this sex as education. If that is the intention, the BMC can put one of those guys selling oils and herbs to educate people about how to get rid of 'patlapan' and other weaknesses. Or they could have an astro parrot picking out cards to read out the fate of sinners.

Heck, I am making this sound interesting. No. A sex museum has got to celebrate sexuality and not make it into a malady or make a mockery of a malady that arises only partially due to sexual contact.

Show us the stuff we are made of.

There is nothing like an Indian Muslim PM

Why should anyone want to know how long it will take for India to have a Muslim prime minister? How does it matter?

Some student from Aligarh Muslim University asked this to Rahul Gandhi; he used the term ‘wazir-e-azam’ to make the Muslimness stand out. Stupid.

I am happy with the way Rahul responded:

“Merit is the only password for the top job in the country, religion is no qualification. What will clinch the issue of one’s suitability (for PM) is one’s competence. Other factors are not just secondary, but insignificant. Let me tell you that even when you do have a Muslim prime minister, he will be a prime minister because he is the most capable person.”

Absolutely. It does not matter that merit is often not the criterion; there is nepotism, there is dynasty, there are mai-baaps waiting with protégées tugging at their dhoti-sherwani-saree. Yet, it is an important statement and it is time people stopped posing such queries. What does one expect from a Muslim PM, anyway?

S/he has to follow the Constitution, has to be answerable to the party General Secretary, has to do Diwali patakhas and Eid iftaar and as a sidelight add some Christmas Santa act and Sikh stuff and whatever it is that Buddhists and Jains do. In effect, be a part-time kafir, if you follow the rule books as interpreted by some rule-book types. After all this fancy dress competition, you make the rounds of various dead people’s graves, place flowers, and look sombre. Then put on an international face and go to summits where you make India sound like a global superpower, and add some concern about the environment and terrorism; usually it is the same thing if you follow Obama and not Al (I mean Gore, not Capone).

You return home and deal with the saffron rightwing, who will say you are going green. The jamaati rightwing will expect you to be jamaat type. Then the PM will hold forth on secularism this and secularism that. The world will say, look, look, India has a Muslim PM. We will be called a real democracy, while Wazir-e-whatever has no clue about little bastis, unless it is election time and one snotty Dalit kid is placed on her/his lap. Back to the jeep, Mossie begum/saab will ask for sanitiser. Some enthusiastic bloke will whisper if it has to be halal. PM will be in a fix so someone will bring out ittar-soaked wet wipes. Everyone will applaud secular India, secular PM, secular people. When what really is happening is that it is the religions, stupid. So, cut it out.

We had a Muslim President who happily signed the Emergency edict. (Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed during Indira Gandhi’s time.) Corrupt people in power, spineless fellows will remain just that. Their faith should be relegated to the private domain. It has no place in the public sphere at all.

Therefore, thumbs up to Rahul. Although he kind of tempered it by promising “there would be 30 young Muslim faces in the political centrestage in five years”. Why? How will they suddenly spring out from the merit quota?

And why must they be referred to as Muslims at all? The day we stop adding such tags in public life, we can say we have truly grown up as a society and a polity.