It's a caaarrrrr: Why did Pakistan over-react to wheels on water?

What made Pakistan react so vociferously to a water car? I find it interesting that despite it there was almost no talk of how they had been embarrassed before the world, quite unlike our media did when we had a major power grid failure.

It is a nation that thrives on a healthy dose of superstition, although how an engineering experiment, whatever be its merits, can qualify as superstition beats me. Most discoveries have taken place with only hypothesis. Now that we do have some knowledge, does it mean the denial of other probabilities? If science can land on the moon, in a deliciously ironical reversal it is the religious who think this is bunkum. No different from ‘rational’ superstition. And now we are getting to Mars.

Agha Waqar Ahmad believes he can make a car run on water. 

Barely had the chatter started and TV channels were discussing it than there was an outcry against it. Let us assume that this car just cannot work and it only made for some interesting TV, probably brought tears to the eyes of a few, how did it shake up the scientific community? Did people line up to try it out? Were the petrol stations and diesel pumps rendered redundant by any group of people? This was not even a bathtub moment. Yet, a respected physicist like Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy held forth in an Op-ed piece titled, ‘The Water Car Fraud’. A scientist responding to a fraud is like a cordon bleu chef dissing street food.

Here is what he wrote:

“At first, it sounded like a joke: a self-styled engineer, trained in Khairpur’s polytechnic institute, claims to have invented a ‘water kit’ enabling any car to run on water alone. It didn’t matter that the rest of world couldn’t extract energy from water; he had done it. He promised a new Pakistan with limitless energy, no need for petrol or gas, and no more loadshedding. For an energy starved nation, it is a vision of paradise.”

Why can Pakistan not do what the rest of the world cannot? Mr Agha Waqar had made no promises. There was some jubilation, and typically Hoodbhoy pointed out names of some religious figures and a few ministers.

Someone rightly pointed out that there was a case in India about a man who had made similar claims about herbs. I know that a couple of respected business houses had run some elementary tests and there was even talk of a patent. It fell through because of lack of sustainability and, obviously, commercial viability.

I do not know anything about thermodynamics, and have no interest in water cars, but Prof. Hoodbhoy overstates:

“Scientific frauds exist in other countries, but what explains their spectacular success in Pakistan? Answer: our leaders are lost in the dark, fumbling desperately for a miracle; our media is chasing spectacle, not truth; and our great scientists care more about being important than about evidence. It is easy for them all to get away with this.”

How many scientific frauds have succeeded in Pakistan? It is true that politicians will make merry, but not because they believe in the experiment but it helps divert a nation’s attention. This is done the world over – some do it by conquering other nations, or by creating paranoia. The media has given more than enough space to respected people like him as well as satirists who would fail to deliver a line without such inspiration. As for the great scientists, one assumes their greatness has been verified in a laboratory. How have all of them got away with it? What will they get from it?

And just for argument's sake, is it not possible that some big lobby does not want small players? 

And how many Pakistanis have access to regular water, forget own cars? If a case is being made for such ‘issues’, then opposing something fake makes no sense at all.

The mind boggles at how a little water can cause a storm.

- - -

I posted a comment on the piece, half in jest; it landed up on the letters page:

This is an insult to your nation. I do not mean this lovely little dream machine, but an Op-ed to say that you cannot dream. It isn't as though people were tanking up with baltis and piping it in their cars. One man with a sense of drama does not mean that the Hondas would die a slow death.

The media, at least this time, sold a harmless story and did not sponge on some blood.

Water is an important symbol. In India, we have many such 'miracles' - water spouting from deities/shrines. People worship at water sources that are polluted. If only we had someone with a wet dream too, we'd save on petrol to visit these miracle sites!

Someone read it and sent a reply to me here. I reproduce it in full because it reveals just what people choose to pick on:

madam,

I just read your comment on express tribune about water car fraud.

You have your opinion about that issue, but dragging others religion aka Hinduism in to the issue and making fun of it in a Pakistani website shows how perverted your mind is..

The water fraud issue is a matter of science and the religion is a matter of faith. Its their faith that tells them to take a dip in a holy river even though it is polluted. You may not agree with their faith but do not insult them.

As a matter of faith, Islam also has many un-natural and unbelievable beliefs that mention about 72 virgins,caliphate... blah blah.... . Should i also need to act as a flag marcher on blogs and websites and insult it? Answer is Absolutely no...

Our country is based on secular principles that tells us to respect other faiths even though u do not believe others faith. That's how our country survived for the last 65 years and still continue even though it consists of people from different ethnicity, religions, castes.. etc.

So please refrain from insulting other faiths of the country. If you do not agree with me you have various countries ( i hope u know those countries) to live and propagate ur views where those views are encouraged officially.

Sorry if am being harsh to you but truth hurts...

To call this truth should hurt more.

A CounterPuncher Forever...

 
“Alexander Cockburn no more” would sound like a terrible headline. The reality of it is as biting as his prose. To think that I just got to know about his death early today shook me up a little more. I crumble easily and almost did. The ‘almost’ worked because every word of his obit on Christopher Hitchens still haunts. To many it was either blasphemous or an excoriating take on a man on a self-indulgent pulpit. I saw it as Alex’s honesty towards his ideas. The subject’s demise would not alter that.

I have gone through a few memorial pieces in respected mainstream publications. "Radical", "iconoclast" are the running themes. It is true he took no prisoners. It is true, and I say this from my experience, that he welcomed whatever skirted the beaten path. One day, about five years ago, when I came in from miles away and got accepted, he and Jeffrey St. Clair made me realise that CounterPunchers was a community.

There are several reasons to respect him for his hard-hitting work, but he was also aware of limits in certain areas. He did not carry one article I sent. He owed me no explanation, but he did. It was about sensitivities. I was surprised, even shocked. The good thing is it was not to coddle up to some commercial enterprise.

There was another piece he carried – an account by his nephew about his battle with schizophrenia. It appeared in the weekend edition and in his diary Alex introduced it. This, to me, is as honest as taking on the system and speaking of truths that are sought to be hidden away.

While he was open to different thoughts, he was human enough to have his own biases. How could we not expect it of one with such strong opinions?

He called his readers a “communicative lot”, forwarded emails that complained to him about publishing me, but expressed genuine happiness when some pieces “got around”. The people who have corresponded with me have been from varied fields based on the different subjects I wrote on – from scientists to academics, from fanatics to the faithful to atheists, from purists to adventurers, from the prurient to sexual libertarians (and, yes, some who wooed). They do not need an open forum.

That is the reason CP is not a journal. It is a movement. I differ with those who talk about it being non-mainstream. This is what the mainstream should be like. I’ve written for a whole range of publications and websites, and know the difference.

“Please ask your web team to fix it,” I had said in one of my emails about a broken link.

“Le ‘Web Team’, c'est Jeffrey. There's just the two of us. Best A,” was the reply.

So shall it always be…the two of them. And a bunch of writers and readers bound by questioning minds.

- - -

I do not know what world I occupy to be so unaware. Here is Jeffrey's piece:  Farewell, Alex, my friend

Character Assassination

Due to the untimely demise of one of my characters, I was in mourning and could therefore not submit the story on time.

This is a real note I sent years ago. A colleague had entered my name for a short story competition by the British Council. I was not terribly enthusiastic about such events, but since it required imagining, it was par for the course. I thought nothing about it and since I was not accustomed to writing for a reason, I wove the words at a leisurely pace.

A tap on my shoulder and a thick envelope served as reminders that I paid no attention to. The date of submission was gone. I folded the sheets of paper and put them in the envelope – the address and stamps were ready. My friends were still enthusiastic. I quickly grabbed a page from my diary and wrote down the note:

“Due to the untimely demise of one of my characters I was in mourning and could therefore not submit the story on time.”

What else could I say? I am not good with formal letters. Besides, it was succinct and happened to be the truth. The cat in the story had died. Obviously, I had killed it. Yet, its death was a departure, a turning point.

Recently, an Indian media house gave an award to a novel and the jury used a curious phrase for its choice: one of the reasons was “for its non-judgmental attitude to the characters”. How does a writer not judge a character when s/he has created it? This is not immaculate conception. You sweat over it, love it and get suffused in it, for however brief a time. The judgement lies in the nature of the relationship. The writer is the initiator and woos the character. It is possible that the character might mirror the writer. Introspection is also judgement. You are pronouncing a verdict on your thoughts and feelings.

Any objectivity would be forced. The character is because you are.

Back to my old story, I had written it for myself. In those days, there was no audience I was seeking or speaking to.

A few days later, rather uncharacteristically, I got a note from the British Council. It said, and I will rely on memory and promise not to exaggerate, that indeed I had missed the date of submission and rules would not permit my work for consideration. However, my accompanying note was rather interesting and caused much amusement and they could not but let me know that although the story would not be included in the competition, it was noticed.

I wondered whether dead cats could lick the cream.

The morning after...

Rain-drenched flags. A PM who speaks about the same old things. Why should we live up to the dreams of our freedom fighters? Are we not entitled to our own dreams? Why talk about the sacrifices of our soldiers and farmers, when both are pushed into it - one due to skirmishes with outside forces (or to contain the anger that spills over within our own borders) and the other because they are forced to commit suicide. Yet he talks about a Green Revolution; he talks about security. 

And, of course, the economy. The world looks to us, at us...

Those scam-stained blokes who are in jail will be dealt with. Indeed. 

I think these Independence Day speeches should move to a new venue. Maybe Davos or somewhere. 

- - -

I was hoping to be disturbed by loud music. The road beyond my lane has another lane. It is where slumdwellers set up a music system and disco lights. I anticipated the usual Mahendra Kapoor and Lata Mangeshkar songs with a sudden burst of "Dhinka Chikka".  There was silence. Until, lazily at around 10 AM or so, a whimper was heard: "Mere desh ki dharti sona ugley..."

I checked the bullion rate. It had hit Rs. 26,000 or so. 

The next speech of the PM should be from the gold souk or something. 

- - -

One gets the usual greetings. This time, not much. What I received instead was a response to my post Cameron's "culture of fear" from my Hindutva party contact. It makes for interesting reading and, naturally, I will share my reply. 

Note

Dear Farzanaji,
Pranam,

I am not sure if Cameron has linked the present riots to the multi-cultural programme. He has, however, said that multi-culturalism has failed much before the riots, and he was talking in the sense of the non-integration of the Muslims community with the mainstream society. This lament has been expressed by other European leaders with respect to
their own countries.

On multi-culturalism my thoughts are as follows.

The primary problem is that the term culture is not properly defined. In common parlance it would be a secular term, and would normally have a geographical connotation. Thus we can have an Iraqi culture, or an Iranian culture, or an Indoensian culture, or an Egyptian culture. But to lump all of them in a common term of Islamic culture would be wrong. I am sure that no Indonesian would accept that in culture and civilisational terms he has anything common with a Turk.

Similarly, on the Christian side, I do not think that a French would accept that he has the same culture as the English, or a German with an Italian. Nor would a Welshman agree that he has the same culture as an Englishman. In Germany, the Bavarians really think they should be a separate country. As do the Basques in case of Spain.

However, if one were to see that the participants in the programme are those that represent the religion of Islam and Christianity, but you will not see one who represents Somalia. Nor do you see anyone who represents the Welsh, for example.

Hence, you see that the programme should be rightly called multi-religion and not multi-culture. Because of the confusion of the
definition, the programme is not going anywhere to come to even close to solving the problems that the society is encountering. And if the problem of a follower of Islam not being able to fit into a secular society is broght, it is brushed aside since the position taken is that the programme deals with culture and not religion. On the other hand, those who are invited to participate are not those who can talk about their culture.

My Reply

Dear X-ji:

Thank you for the response. Cameron has not said the riots were a part of multiculturalism. He cannot possibly do so. But, given the nature of the reaction, it was obvious that the government was unconcerned. When does a government show such slackness? When it knows that the indigenous populations are safe.

Therefore, the multiculturalism bogey is anti-immigrant. That is the reason my piece took off from the example of South Asian victims and Cameron's special words for them. It was a shrewd move. They want our best talent. That's it.

Where Islam is concerned - and since many people are concerned about Islam to the exclusion of all else! - it is really a part of this mixed bag that has appeared on their shores. The reaction is extreme because the current situation internationally is geared towards fighting a 'war on terror'. Due to the obvious jihadi groups, it becomes convenient. I am speaking here purely from the multi-culti perspective.

A lot has been said about the difference in reaction of Norway's leader and what could possibly be the US position following the attacks by Breivik. The insistence of the media to not brand him a terrorist is part of the multiculturalist ethos.

I understand your differentiating between religion and culture. However, the issue is about the 'other' here. It could be geographical, cultural or religious.

Think about anti-immigrant stand of some people in Mumbai. It was based on outsiders. So, it was geographical but with it comes language, and sometimes religion. Will we not also club them as 'culture'?

Culture has a larger connotation and includes various aspects of living. The London riots are being seen as economic protests, which is one part of the story. Race is another and then within that there are the chosen few as opposed to the not acceptable.

A bit like good Taliban, bad Taliban that transformed into good Muslim and bad Muslim. Ironically the good Muslim in political terms is one who is not toeing a religious line.

I am not sure what mainstream means because there is no single British idea (think Ireland) and most certainly no single Indian one. So what stream is the main one? Even politically, which means how the country is run, there are several disparate ideas.

Yet, for an outsider, there is something called Indian culture. It is based solely on India as a nation and what they see of it. It could be the Taj Mahal or the ghats in Varanasi or the churches or Ayurveda.

This is the real mainstream. All else is manufactured to belong, like a newly-wed bride in her new home.

Happy Independence Day.

- - -

The media had fun. Every few minutes, TV actors would pipe up with the national anthem. The saffron, white and green was splashed around.

Kaun Banega Crorepati started rather tepidly. Amitabh Bachchan, usually well-dressed, wore some band-gala type jacket, which did not have a band-gala but a purple scarf tucked into the neck. Whatever it was, it was ill-fitting and creased unbecomingly at the chest.

The first contestant had a dream. If he won he'd go to Malaysia and get all possible massages by beautiful women. He did a good job for Malaysia tourism, though little for the Indian economic utopia we are marketing.

- - -

I told you, August 15 came and went, and I woke up to a picture that says more about India than a lot of speeches and writeups.

See this:

Its title was, "Yahoo opens new window". Huh? It shows a film actress on her way to the Banganga crematorium for Shammi Kapoor's last rites. We do know that in the song from the film Junglee he utters a loud "Yahoo!" but how does it open a new window now?  Anyhow, I give up on these careless smarts.

There are people clicking pictures of celebrities at the funeral. Nothing dies because it is business as usual. I won't judge these camera-happy folks. They don't get to see the famous often. And the fact that they have mobile phones that they know how to use well is part of our consumerist society. Every ad tells us this - the poor can reach out.

There are the urban poor and the rest. Cellphones can only take you so far. What is it that people can connect to? A soldier video conferences with his lady love and enquires about a spot on her beautiful face; the villager hollers at someone back home; the young and old have instruments in their hands. Do they have power?

Do they even have dreams? 

Mickey Mouse, Modi and Muslims

The 'joke' and the joker's twitter page

If anyone should be objecting to the Islamised cartoon of Mickey and Minnie mouse, it should be the Disney group. It completely mauls their loved characters. The main job of the guy responsible for this is to make money through the mobile company he owns in a Muslim country. As a report states:

An Egyptian Christian telecom mogul has angered Islamic hard-liners by posting an online cartoon of Mickey Mouse with a beard and Minnie in a face veil. The ultraconservative Islamists, known as Salafis, called the cartoon posted by Naguib Sawiris on Twitter a mockery of Islam.

Naturally, everyone who is not part of the campaign or understands it has been going haha at his joke, although he has since apologised because the shares of his company fell after a call for boycott. Some people have asked, and rightly so, what happens if he had made Mickey and Minnie wear a priest and nun clothes or those of Jewish rabbis? Would it not be considered anti-Christian or anti-Semitic?

This guy lives in Egypt and runs a successful business. So, what makes him find humour in this sort of thing? I mean, it isn’t even worth a titter, unless you are seriously retarded and laugh at people who slip over banana peels. To be honest, when I read a small item, I smiled. I like Mickey and Minnie and thought there would be a cute beard and a nice sexy naqab. Muslims do not have proprietorial rights over beards – some famous names have them. And most of the Hollywood women cover their faces with outsize shades that work just as well as veils. Besides, Egyptians do not dress like that. Haven’t we seen enough of them at Tahrir Square?

But when I saw the cartoon, it does not look like a joke. Mr. Sawiris is no different from the rest of the hate-speechers I discussed following the Geert model. One is unclear about the motives except to push a faith into a corner without taking into account the varied kinds within it. Is Christianity to blame for what some priests do in their chambers? Are all Jews to blame for the Zionist expansionism? Do Hindus stand for the saffron parties? Then why must every Muslim be looked on as a potential cartoon or someone who needs to be poked to elicit anger and show the ‘ugly face of Islam’?

I feel sorry for such tickled imaginations.

- - -

On another note, I got this in the mail. I should hope the ‘accidental reader’ is revisiting the site of accident, for I prefer responding here since there was no reference to the context in the note. I hope s/he understands. Thanks, anyway.


The note

I came across your blog by accident, and it made for delightful reading.

Would you feel safe in India if Narendra Modi were to become the PM by some tyrannical twist of fate?

My response

I assume you are asking this question because of the faith I was born in. Therefore, it means that the general perception is that Mr. Modi is against Muslims and could pose a threat to the community. As chief minister he has to be house-proud and showcase Gujarat as such, which is the reason many local Muslims of a certain class have become part of the economic development. As Prime Minister, he will have to delegate responsibility and not be the sole arbiter. That tendency, however tendentious, ended with Indira Gandhi.

If the BJP/NDA were to prop him up, I am not quite sure he would be ready for it. He is aware of his reputation and he is most certainly not a team person, unless having police officers at his beck and call can be termed a team. On a larger platform, he might have to soften his stand considerably, and since he has pushed the economic agenda he will have to live up to it. The RSS will be at hand to raise the communal bogey and he would not be able to shirk from being a loyal soldier of the cause of ancient heritage. The problem is there is no Babri Masjid to demolish now, so large-scale violence across the whole country would not be easy. Besides, he cannot take the mickey out of the mice who have already scraped the niche market.

The resurgence of the Hindu rashtra idea has pushed the Indian Muslim into backward mode to a large extent in terms of social attitude. This has been the worst legacy of the Hindutvawadis.

The survival of the Modis and Advanis, not to forget the whole saffron brigade, rests not on reclaiming culture but on opposing what they see as another culture. Take that away and they will be left twiddling their thumbs.

So, to answer the question: I would feel safe if Modi became the PM, but sorry – for him and his fractured ideas.

Anti-anti-anti

Yes. So? I don’t plead guilty to it. I am not guilty about it. The accusations have been piling up for many months now: I do not feel victimised and I am not looking for a shoulder to hold on to. This post is about me, so if you are not into me, you may skip it. But this is also about you. Betrayal was about you, the ones whose silences seek to coagulate in my bloodstream.

Before we get anywhere with this, let me tell you why I can take a stand.

There were emails, calls. It was an invitation to speak on a subject I have written about often. This wasn’t the first time. I don’t feel the need to flash it, especially since I mostly stay away, anyway. But today I will tell you because I am honestly fed up. I will tell you because those who want debates fall silent when it matters. I will tell you because when I talk about co-opting it means from anyone anywhere and the term itself can be broadly classified.

So when those emails came quite recently to be one of the speakers, and from people who are deeply involved and extremely respected, I paused. It did not surprise me, but unlike many people who would be glad to make the journey to another city in an all-paid-for trip, my instant reaction was: Why?

I called up a friend who is in, let us just say a security agency, but does not toe any line. “What would you do?” I asked him.

“Of course, I’d go and you should.”

“Where do they get the money from?”

“All NGOs are given some funds from government sources and then they have their well-wishers.”

“Who are the well-wishers?”

“They could be people who believe in this.”

“They already have speakers, so why call me the distance, and how will it add to anything?”

“I think your voice needs to be heard…”

“I write.”

“That is not enough. You need to understand that such visibility is important. It will be reported in the papers, and such things matter.”

Do they? How do my ‘ivory tower’ scribbles transform into an agent of change by just bellowing into a microphone? Although I believe strongly in the subject, I found it difficult to identify with the linearity of the proposed discussion, although this was the only way to highlight the issue.

I did not go.

I have too many questions. Where are the answers?

I share with you portions of email exchanges with two people; they encapsulate what has been said a good many times. The first is specific to a recent subject; the other is more general. I am omitting the praise that was in both of them.

From X

Note 1 (On the latest Binayak Sen piece):

Should we always be anti-establishment ? It makes one's job simpler, isn't it? You don't take any responsibility, you only criticise. I do not mean anybody in particular. I know you have taken sides, rationally, in just the previous article about Rahul Gandhi and Mayavati. But sometimes, when you are in the actor's seat.... What happens then ? (I am rather fond of that Hamlet character!)

What is wrong with Binayak accepting an advisory position with Planning Commission? I know that he is not guilty of the charges framed against him and I know how apathetic the system can be.

I know the various routes of co-option and allure of an easy life. Certainly I see the dangers ahead of this appointment. And I wholeheartedly endorse your view that there are innumerable tribals etc. who will not have access to such fame and international support. What should we do about them?

My reply:

I do not know Binayak Sen or anyone close to him to be able to comment. (The person is acquainted with people.)

I wonder if you have read my pieces in support of Binayak Sen, arguing the loopholes in the case. I still believe in that. However, one day his wife Ilina talks about seeking asylum in a "more liberal country". Next, she says nothing of the kind, they will stay here. She did not mention that she was misquoted. It was a change of stance, just like that. This bothers me.

I wish my current critique were read holistically. It is surprising that you say it is easy to be anti-establishment. Had the situation been different, we'd not have thought so. I keep talking about the anti-establishmentarian cliques that form their own System, with heroes in place.

Even though I dislike Modi, when there were murmurs about how the activist lobby tutored witnesses, I did want them to come clean. These standards apply to everyone. So, what does this mean…I am anti-anti-anti?

Meanwhile, the governments use such opportunities and we have people conveniently change their stands.

This is what is frightening. I do not think many people would have signed petitions had they known that a political party would jump in. And how many people are going to talk about this, anyway?

An actor is also a character. I like Hamlet, too, but where would he be without the ghosts?

Thank you for an engaging dialogue even if we disagree.

Note 2 (I am withholding personal references about people):

I know, Farzana. My response to your post was knee-jerk, and more on emotion than logic. Of course you are right (as usual!).

I was also bothered by Ilina's statements, contradicting her earlier stance.

Hamlet will be forever haunted by his ghosts, it seems.

Regards and best wishes,

P.S. I am sorry about that responsibility bit. Of course, for some of us action is synonymous with writing, exposing or highlighting issues we consider important. (Remember "Plebians rehearse the uprising" by Gunter Grass ?)

My reply:

Perhaps I am not right and just centred, even self-centred in the metaphysical sense?

It is curious but after I had written about the Anna Hazare campaign, a friend said, “This is the first time I have seen you so establishment!” What does one say to that? He understood what I was conveying, and here’s an important detail – he is part of the establishment, quite literally.

I am beginning to think that Hamlet is beyond ghosts and more about altered graveyards.

Incidentally, I do not resent intellectual engagement with the Sen case; it is the one-dimensional nature of it that makes me wonder about how crusty any counter position can get.

Talking of Gunter Grass, he also said, “Art is accusation, expression, passion. Art is a fight to the finish between black charcoal and white paper.”

What we get, alas, is black on black and white on white.

* * *

From Y:

Note:

I dont think I really understand half of what you write (and then I despair) but I love the way you write it. What you write FEELS right. My one, small, humble "criticism" (observation is a better word) is that...you're always protesting something...you come off as being very unsatisfied with everything around you. If that is your motivation to write thats fine...I just wish the dissatisfaction wasn't so...relentless? I would love to read your analysis on something that pleases you. I hope I havent offended you or made myself sound like a fool.

My reply:

Shukriya...even if some of it is a bit dense, it is mainly about feeling, whether right or wrong.

Yes, the latter is an important aspect of right, in my opinion. I am not offended by your remarks because I hear them often. I'd say I am not complacent. It does not mean those who do not come across this way are, but I take it to the next level. And, if I may say so, I have seen most of what I write at close quarters for long. My opinions are formed with this background and not as a 'seminarist'.

It always feels good to get feedback, so isn't this positivity?

* * *

Beyond notes:

So what is this negativity? Are not the things I write about/against negative, to begin with – anti-civility, anti-poor, anti-caste, anti-good sense? My motivation to write is not limited to expressing dissatisfaction; if that were the only reason I wrote, then why the poems, the musings, the sex, the other BS? I don’t even have a motive to write. I express and articulate and never claim to speak on behalf of anyone. It pleases me when I have written something that I feel about, that resonates within me.

There are dark corners, and I go there. It includes the dark corners of my own mind. If I go into a coal mine, it need not be to find a diamond or even coal but to look for the dried sweat of coalminers or to feel the soot in my hands, my mouth, my eyes. I am not Aesop’s Fables. Okay, even my poems are quite macabre, my doodles are just stuff I do when I am…angry? I don’t know. I am usually at peace with myself even when I am protesting. Maybe because I am not comatose. Maybe because when I shout from the mountains I am listening to the sound of the wind and not my own echo, forget other people’s echoes. Now you watch as they lie in wait for others to say something and then come out with their ‘original’ vision – a twist here, a twist there. Maybe after I have written one piece, I don’t lie back and watch the circus unfold, but follow up. Is this relentless? It is. Because every story that has more than one character is about many other stories.

I may be with one story, but what are those characters about – don’t they mean anything? Shall I just shut my senses? I have often said the real idealist is the cynic. If I am holding a thorn, it means I am darned well acquainted with flowers. Not the bottled essences and paper memories, but the ones that were still seeds and could well be nipped as buds.

“I shall speak of how melancholy and utopia preclude one another. How they fertilize one another... of the revulsion that follows one insight and precedes the next... of superabundance and surfeit. Of stasis in progress. And of myself, for whom melancholy and utopia are heads and tails of the same coin.”

- Gunter Grass

What I would do to a rapist...

• Castrate him? Spit in his face? Report him to the police? Would I have the courage and the presence of mind to do any of these when he has trampled on my body and my self-worth?

I am regurgitating these questions because they must be, especially if you read the letter I got in response (reproduced at the end). No one will sit in at Jantar Mantar for an 18-year-old who was raped in Delhi and then when she cried for help was again raped by those helping her. Our Home Minister was concerned about Delhi culture before the Commonwealth Games and roads and potholes. Has he looked into this culture?

I have already stated how wary I am about the media reportage of rape. Some cases do gather momentum, but the TV channels use them to project themselves as ‘saviours’. That is the reason I was hesitant to watch No One Killed Jessica. The other day I watched it on television and it was not as sensational as the promos made it out to be; I do not know whether it was heavily edited, but the journalist character who initially refuses to cover a ‘soft’ crime later becomes this grand do-gooder when she shamelessly takes over the ‘story’ peppering the urgency with invective.

On an earlier occasion during a love-making session when she gets a call, the hard-nosed hack gets up to leave. The guy asks, “What happens to me?” And she says, “Fly solo.” This was considered bold. We are such an immature society that a woman talking to a man she is intimate with speaking like this is seen as bold. More importantly, what was the point: to tell us that she does manage to get laid despite being a bazooka professionally? Or was it to contrast with the rape case she was taking up to give it to the big guys?


It is always about big guys. The small people and crimes against them don’t make us sit up and think.

But can rape, an intensely personal crime, be adequately covered? That is the reason for the queries at the beginning from a piece I had written on August 20, 2004.

I can only reproduce it with the same headline to express how I feel even today:

Castrate him? Spit in his face? Report him to the police? Would I have the courage and the presence of mind to do any of these when he has trampled on my body and my self-worth?

Would I kill him? Would I want to see him killed? These are cold questions confronting me because in one week I have had to contend with two faces of such brute behaviour.


Were I a slum-woman in a small town in India, would I have lynched a rapist? This is precisely what happened in the Indian city of Nagpur on August 13. 400 women stomped into the courtroom where dacoit Akku Yadav was being tried for murder and extortion; they knew he would be let out on bail. Such was life in their locality – he would walk into houses, drag women out and rape them. This was not lust. It was an assertion of his clout.

Why did these women take ten years to get rid of him? I do not know what snapped. That day they walked into the courtroom, threw chilli-powder at him and, as he was rubbing his eyes, they stoned him and stabbed him to death. Can I see myself as part of such a group? Does bonding in a sisterhood lessen one’s personal pain? Does every woman react to rape in the same manner?

We all have emotional scars which we bear in the silence of our hearts. What we lay bare are the tombstones that pronounce the demise of a part of ourselves. A lone woman speaking out becomes a chaalu cheez. The fact that this was a group has given it a different dimension altogether. The public display will at some point ghettoise them. What will happen to the young girls who would want to go to school, find jobs, get married?


Activists have applauded these “incarnations of Durga”, the goddess of redemption. I am scared that this could set a precedent. The courts in small towns may start believing that they do not have to play a vigilant role and the women can fend for themselves. Should every woman carry chilli-powder now? After she has been overpowered and humiliated, will she have to forget about the pain and the shame, and fumble to find that mirchi? And then gather the strength to kill her molester?

I would not be able to do that. I remember this vignette from an Indian play: the intended rape victim takes out a gun from her bag and makes her tormentor cut off his penis. Then she throws some money for his taxi fare and hands him her handkerchief to staunch the blood, mocking him with a “Thank you, I liked it”. I’ve never shied from calling myself a feminist, but I just could not connect with this.


Then, do I think it appropriate for a rapist to be hanged? Dhananjoy Chatterjee, who was the first person in nearly a decade to face the death penalty in India, refused to accept his crime. As his end drew near he listened to bhajans and read religious texts.

People are saying that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, and as if to prove this, there has been a spurt of reported rape cases. Far worse, re-enactment of the hanging episode has become a new pastime; in one such case, a 12-year-old girl died while playing with a noose round her neck. So, has the punishment served its purpose or has it become some kind of melodrama that will spawn dialogue- baazi and amateur mimicry?

If I were the mother of Hetal, Chatterjee’s 16 year-old victim, I would have wanted the creep to live and suffer. Instead, today in his village he is seen as a martyr. Before he was taken to the gallows his family had threatened to commit mass suicide and had to be provided with police protection.


There are many such potential “heroes” roaming the streets. I was once at a beach resort in South India and a group of very young men kept passing crude comments. I got up from my deck chair and went up to the worst of the lot and tried to lecture him a bit; he started blowing cigarette smoke in my direction. That is when I lost my cool and punched him in the face. The rings on my fingers left red blotches on his cheek. But he held on to his ciggy, his machismo. Although I did leave some money, in case he needed first aid, I returned to my hotel room and cried. For a few months I even gave up wearing those rings. All I felt was remorse and guilt; at no point did I feel elated.

And that was, in comparison with the enormity of rape, a minor incident. We tolerate many such little offences in our subcontinental bazaars – elbows nudging breasts, bottoms being pinched. I begin to wonder whether our bodies are really our own. And just as I feel desperately low, I hear news of a young Muslim woman living near Kolkata being forced to marry her rapist, when the judge made that the condition of his release.

What would I do to a rapist?

(Farzana Versey)

- - -


This is the letter I had received in response. It sucks...

"Dear Versey:

This is in regard to your article you wrote. You were raped!!! whoa! and the rapist is about to be released. At the end you wrote that "What would i do to a rapist?". So i sujest that you should try to get over it and don't get confused. If you really like that guy you can always marry him. One of my friends married her rapist 17 years back. Now she has 3 kids and so she is living a happy married life now apart from the routine quarrels of husband and wife."

I find it strange that people cannot understand even the most straightforward writing. Worse, this guy had the audacity to expect a reply to let him know if I found his letter pathetic.

I have an opinion, so what's your problem?

“Have you been there?” “How well do you know about the place, the person, the idea…?”

These queries have beset me and, I am certain, several others in the writing and more specifically the journalistic field. It is a valid query if one is reporting from the ground. It goes without saying that when you are at the scene, then you would gather some basics by the mere fact of being there. Is this sufficient?

Often the questions are not arising out of curiosity, but to pin you down, to challenge not your knowledge but your opinion. When I had written about the Indian army, among the several responses there was one that assumed that I had never met an armyman in my life. I had, rather cockily, said that I had not met god and yet wrote about religion. In further areas I have been put on the mat for different reasons.

I would like to put myself through self-scrutiny. I do not write on subjects, even opinion pieces, of which I have no knowledge or very little. The financial area is one; technology is another; science is fascinating, so I try and understand some nuances. But, it is not possible to have first-hand knowledge about everything one opines about.

So, how does one form opinions? There are strong opinions and reasonable ones. There are opinions that are reactions or come from a strong belief. The responses to them are also opinions. We consider a viewpoint reasonable when it confirms our beliefs or when it ostensibly looks balanced.

I am mortified of balanced opinions; you can give two sides of a story but it is as you see it, not as it necessarily is. Therefore, the balance lies in sitting on the fence and watching both sides and it includes the experience of sitting on the fence and the sore-ass it causes.

A logical opinion is one where the person tries to string together the threads of disparate thought processes; it is essentially seeking to make sense of the noises in the head, but you’d never be able to tell! While we use the term loosely, ‘personal opinion’ is tautology. All opinions are personal, unless you are sponging on someone else’s views or relying on research even to form an opinion, which is the last refuge of the scrounger.

Now, there are some opinions that are considered kneejerk. As the recipient of this honorific often, I must say that such rashness is possible when you know you are entering where angels fear to tread. It is akin to a satanic rite of passage, perhaps the predecessor of the more honourable devil’s advocate that I love playing. There are certain subjects that one has internalised or understood or discussed before and what comes forth is impulsive and spontaneous, but it is also a reaction. To assume that a reaction put in words has no merit makes little sense; it springs from a strong feeling. Are feelings opinions? Indeed, they are. Belief or disbelief without emotion is mercenary. The expression of it need not be emotive, though.

So, how does one form opinions? I think conditioning plays a very minor part if you are highly individualistic. The environment is crucial not because it influences you, but it makes you respond to it for what it is and how it ought to be. In this ‘ought to be’ aspect lies one’s ability to chart a mental course. It could be a tried-and-tested formula or out-of-the-box thinking. Some people change their opinions according to what is convenient. These are chattels to the available material. However, if the alteration in perspective arises due to deep thought or disillusionment with an ideology, then it is not turn-coat behaviour.

This long but necessary preamble brings us to the queries posed to opinion-makers. There is much scientific endeavour expended on finding things from little tubes. Here, hypothesis is an opinion that is sought to be proved. An artist’s painting on canvas is an opinion of an event or an abstraction; s/he may have not been there in the first instance and it is not possible to do so in the other. A writer of fiction is expressing an opinion through the characters.

If you were to ask anyone what they think about a political event, party, figure or a film, film star or celebrities or even the person in the street, they will have something to say. 

Why then is the person writing in the newspapers made answerable? I have not been to Bihar, just as Manmohan Singh has never contested an election. One has to have some basic knowledge, some facts, some ideas formulated in the past to reach certain conclusions. We know about poverty, about the caste system, about crimes, about feudalism, about lack of basic facilities, about the economic elitist idea, about politicians…there is a process of transposition and an understanding that conjecture is based on some edifice or precedent. We can be on different sides but the basic facts remain. How we see those facts – whether we take them at face value or bore holes into them or hang them from a pole are opinions.

One may question opinions but not the existence of them. It is like wondering about dreams, but no one can deny the existence of sleep. Of course, it is possible to argue that daydreams are more potent. But that is just my personal opinion.

And, yes, if some people think I am opinionated as hell then they must thank me for giving a sneak preview of what they too have no clue about!

Jamaatis vs. Peroxide Blondes

Not a huge fan of a ‘balanced picture’ nor of teetering on the side of achingly forced ‘logic’, quite by default I have ended up rubbing the jamaati proponents and the peroxide blonde supporters the wrong way. This would make me balanced.

I don’t see it this way. There are areas that need to be explored beyond what is available to us.

Reproduced here is an excerpt from a letter…I have withheld certain details for the individual may not wish to make known his profession or location and has not posted at the website:

I am referring your article Untouchable Aafia

It is excellent. But I am surprised about your comment ‘The Jamaatis who would want their women in purdah and left uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and most certainly not in the lab’, I don’t know is it because of ignorance or bias?

We worked in a flood relief mission of a Jamaat e Islami affiliated body. It has a women wing as well with well educated medical professionals including Medical College professors. They work in flood affected areas where secular NGOs are largely absent.

We are surprised to see their professionalism as well as commitment. Their affiliated bodies have opened large number of girls schools in rural areas.

I am a keen observer of Pakistani English press. Unfortunately large number of its columnist write to satisfy their ego rather than deal with facts. They talk to themselves and their colleagues. I see a difference in your writing, but partially.

May be you are ignorant of what really Jamaatis are.

I cannot claim expert knowledge and I am aware of their work during the earthquake and floods, but where an individual case is concerned I am wary about religious groups getting into the picture and furthering a stereotype, however faulty it be. Why religious, I would say the same about certain vested interest activist groups.

I have already mentioned in my reply to Yvonne Ridley at the site my intention:

As one who has written about the Jamia Hafsa women as legitimate protestors, I would not tar any organisation with one brush. It is important for me to reiterate that I was positing two extreme stereotypes to drive home a point.

You are right about the ‘peroxide blondes’ earlier enthusiasm; Aafia is their discomfort zone right now. I am afraid that the half-hearted liberal support is full of ‘ifs and buts’. The JI may be in the forefront, but as I stated, I think they will force or be pinned to the Islamophobia tag, which helps no one.

This brings us to the completely weird support of the peroxide blondes. I wish there was some understanding of the deliberate ‘characterisation’ I was indulging in.

Here is one example posted at the site:

These peroxide blondes (your disgust and bias is obvious) have just come off the movement of restoring of judiciary expressing on everyone of us to respect judiciary. How can they now go against it and tell us not to respect decision of judiciary? You expect double standard from them? Damned if they do damned if they don’t.

Wow! Forget my bias, this is precious. They restored the judiciary? And what is the chief justice’s standing as of now? What is the Pakistani judicial system doing, really? And these people are going to sit and respect a decision when they are not one bit affected and we are expected to see them as holding a stable stand on the matter? Please. This is sheer bunkum. Respecting the judiciary does not mean blindly accepting any and every verdict, but understanding that the victim has recourse to legal aid and justice.

The onus is not on the victim to prove she is innocent but on the courts to prove she is guilty. And guilty in clear terms of the guilt and not the possibility of guilt. That is what courts are for. And then these people want facts of innocence.

Someone even wants to know why I wrote in Aafia’s favour despite knowing about her guilt. Did I? Where did I state it? Of course, the person has an analysis, and it makes for some chuckles as to my motives for writing this column:

There could be two possible reasons. 1. to collect few extra claps from Mullahs and Mullies who are a obvious majority in Pakistan. 2. the usual infection the Muslims are prone to; the rediscovery. In males the symptoms are instant growth of beard and in females, the sudden or gradual disappearance of a woman beneath the burqa.

I am discarding the second possibility as I don’t see your fresh photograph wrapped in scarf with this article. If the first reason is true then that would be outrageous. As you are well aware of the fact that a few brave men and women in Pakistan are busy waging war against loony mullahs and their wretched self exploding followers.

You may call these brave people peroxide blonds, but they are the only hope left for Pakistan. They are the ones who are fighting to keep the sanity alive in the land of the nuts. It take a lot of courage to challenge herds of lunatics while living amidst them. Even people of great stature such as Mr. Kamran Shafi are not spared.

Instead of extending a moral support, you ended up handing over more ammo to the Jihadis by writing this foolish article.

Since the Jamaatis have questioned me, the first option too is out. What I find amusing is that many of these people have never been to Pakistan, do not know any real Pakistanis outside of the internet world and the media, and suddenly they see these neo-concerned women and their bravery captured on TV channels. They have no clue about the real work being done by real people – men and women – for years before these people tried to bring ‘sanity’. Their sanity is a specific limited version that helps them keep their lawns mowed and in fine fettle. They have not had to battle the government and its policies on the ground, they have not been hounded, and they are most certainly not the only hope. If they are the hope that the outside world sees, then it is much like the India Shining flag that flies full mast way above the poverty line, which is more than half our population.

Pakistan has its own problems and its hope lies among different sections of people doing different things. There are women in the villages, women in the NWFP. There cannot be one group taking over and being the media mouthpieces.

These people will take up a case only when it suits them at a given time. I don’t have the time or the inclination to extend them moral support. Especially, not anything moral, which really gets them to do a little gig because it imbues them with a halo.

3 Readers in Search of a Writer

X, Y, Z belong to three nationalities and do not live in their homelands. We first ‘met’ on the page and the monitor screen. I was a byline. There was communication beyond that, but I remained a Person Who Wrote (PWW).

One day I met them in person. It was not the first time I was meeting readers, but the first time I was meeting such disparate people within a span of days in one city.

X and I had the longest correspondence and talks and he knew quite a bit about me; he also knew what was not there. In effect, I came away feeling like a curiosity that had been satiated. I was still the writer, the metaphor for a person. I was familiar but that sense of familiarity was black on white. I never became grey or blue or red or pink…and if I did it was as a ‘colourful’ character. The writer became a character. If my blood had been drunk it would have only congealed into ink.

Y is a new recruit! We exchanged only two notes; the first time he was ticking me off because I had written something about his area of expertise and he felt I was wrong. I said I was right about my right to be wrong, and he agreed. So, we were okay. Then, we met. It was nearing sunset and I was dying to look at the sky in all its flaming brilliance. I sipped iced tea; he stuck to Earl Grey. It was an amazing chat, completely metaphysical, and he did what I often do – drew various patterns with his hands on the table: pyramids, squares, other shapes to highlight a point. I don’t know when exactly, but he mentioned a personal incident from my life in passing. I immediately reacted, “How do you know?” He laughed, “You wrote about it!” I did not expect that as someone new he would have read this. More importantly, those pyramids and squares, so meaningful in our debate, now became me. I was also an atom, a molecule, something you brought to the table. I was a PWW.

Z knew me from my book, primarily. He had written a few times, and had got fairly acquainted with my work. He invited me home and I would have met his wife and child, but it was too short a notice. So it was dinner at a club without them. Fun insights about his life, about the diaspora. He asked little. Towards the end of the meeting, he said, “The moment I saw you, I said this is F. Frankly, if you were not what I had imagined, I would have been devastated.” Again, I was the writer, except that he had imbued me with the flesh and blood of his imagination. Yet, the imagination was about what I wrote. During the conversation he had said, “I see you as completely liberated…” I paused. I knew what he meant. As an Indian woman writing on certain subjects I am seen as a bit of a rarity, especially the language I use. In fact, I am told it has little to do with my nationality. I am bold and far too upfront even by normal western standards. Z was, like many others, projecting that onto me as a person.
The parting shot, just before I left, was most amusing and interesting. “But, you can also be quite frightening. There is a divinity about you that seems to go contrary to that other image.”

I chortled. I began to think of a halo around me, but again it was either as a writer or as an imagined person going a bit against that which he said he had also thought about.

It has made me contemplate about whether I want to be seen as just that. Recently, I did not write for a while. One of the reasons was, as I mentioned in Who moved my bubble?, to unwrite myself.

From being a curiosity, a pattern made on the table, an imagined entity, a bagful of words seeping out on the sand, leaving small little imprints and occasionally metamorphosing into crabs clinging to what will be washed away.

Even more importantly, in this supposed bonfire of the vanities I was in fact trying to reclaim my person. I realised only later that although I knew all along that these three people are hugely accomplished in their fields, have interesting experiences – professional and personal – by seeing them see me as only a writer, was I not seeing them only as readers? The difference is that I know them from what they say or do; they know me from what I write.

What sort of synergy is possible in such sharing? It also makes me wonder whether there can be any equitable understanding. Different perceptions aside, does the reader not have the upper hand? S/he can see you as you are, as you could be, as you may not be, as they think you are, as they want you to be, as they hear you are. There is no room for factual analysis at all. Strangely, the subjective makes you into an object.

I used to crave the company of people who had not read me. One friend would boast that she had met me without having read a word and wanted to stay away from my writing as much as possible to see the real me.

As the friendship evolved, she often remarked, “You are so transparent. I can read you like a book.”

"Youre a hateful writer"

I do occasionally put up feedback received and my replies, if any, here. Many of them are those that disagree. This is not to say there have been no positive responses; it is just that these give a glimpse into a more varied mindset. Positive and negative are anyway relative terms.

The following did not deserve a personal response and came from someone trying to sound like an organisation.

On the fatwa piece

Youre a hateful writer. I was so disappointed to read your disturbing diatribe against muslims and their community leaders. so hateful, so drirty. Shame on you. Who pay you to produce this kind of text?

Damn. If only I knew where to get the monies from…Well, all I know is that Swami Ramdev will get lots of business from the Muslim fraternity for learning how to blow their noses.

As for the “community leaders”, here is a report from today’s papers:

Six days after the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind passed a resolution asking Muslims not to sing Vande Mataram on the grounds that it was “un-Islamic’’, the community’s clerics have reportedly softened their stand. The change of heart came after spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar visited Deoband on November 8 and met Jamiat leaders.

After the meet, the ulema said they did not have any objection to the national song and had left it to the conscience of Muslims who could decide for themselves whether they wanted to sing the song or not.

So ask these hypocrites, Mr. Letter Writer, who is paying them.

- - -

Sometimes, correspondence is really worth it and makes one feel that what one is doing isn’t so bad. Not for me, at least!

The next was unexpected, although I have indeed corresponded with quite a few academicians. It is from someone who knows Structuralism enough to hate it. We have had a bit of an exchange and here it is without naming the name.

On The Savage Mind

Farzana, you are much too kind to Levi-Strauss's incomprehensible fog.

Marvin Harris was a scientific anthropologist & Levi-Strauss's greatest critic.

Harris takes the Gallic charlatan's know nothing structuralism to the woodshed for a thorough thrashing in Cultural Materialism (chap. 7).

There are thousands of academics still pretentiously spouting the rancid bullshit of structuralism.

Reply:

I am kind and do believe that all fog does not denote winter, so one must meander through the mist.

There are anti-Structuralists as there anti Freudians or anti anything, and there ought to be. I was, in my own little non-academic way, trying to question some theories...it was part tongue-in-cheek.

- - -

Structuralism turns anthropology into a delight for literary poseurs.
Try Marvin Haris's expose.

Reply:

I delight in exposes. According to your theory, anything construed as a delight is anathema, or logically ought to be from your perspective on poseurs. Whether it is Levi-Strauss or Harris, they are taking a position which might be deemed as a posture for one critiquing it, which would in turn be seen as posturing. It is a clique of charmed intellectuals, and for an outsider, whose primary interest lies in the human as animal, social creature and sublime wannabe, anthropological analysis can come from the toenail of an ape and I’d be happy. Or, delighted?

I only wish you had noticed that I used the Structuralists paradigm to explore the mundane. Not too many academicians are interested in it, but it might surprise you to know that many of us live it.

Having said this, I appreciate your position and almost proselytising fervour. Harris is a lucky god!

Mine is more like Margaret Mead’s:

“Anthropology demands the open-mindedness with which one must look and listen, record in astonishment and wonder that which one would not have been able to guess.”

~F

Gubernatorially Yours

It really seemed as much of a big deal as any sort of feedback. Or as small as any pesky spam.

So, when one fine day I got an email from the ambassador of a certain country my first reaction was 'troll'. He had talked about an exchange of ideas, had given his personal email address and phone number.

I did what protocol demands and wrote back to say thank you and blah. But, remember, ideas had to be exchanged? I waited it out. What was the worst that could happen if I called? Someone would have a good laugh? I'd like that. For anyone to go to such trouble just for a little laughter would tell me a lot about the state of that mind. But I digress.

I dialled the number and it was a foreign accent. I relaxed a bit. Caution did not leave, though.

"Who am I speaking to?" I asked uncharacteristically and impolitely.

"Er...who would you like to speak to?"

"Ok. It's like this. I got a letter from someone saying he wants an exchange of ideas. "

"Oh..." (How was he to remember that?)

"So, do you?"

"One moment. Who do you wish to speak to?"

"My name is FV. Are you...hmm...excellen..." Damn. I was supposed to say "Your" but the PA who had sent the attached note had said "His". So, my tongue was in this conflict zone between His and Yours and how can he be your?

"Yes," he said simply. "My name is X. Now I recall."

"Yes. But you know how it is. I thought you were some crank," I said with a straight face he could not see.

"I perfectly understand. Even in our profession we have to be careful. "

"I was not worried, just wanted to be sure. What ideas do you want to exchange?"

"I read you but want to understand the mind. We must open all channels. I have worked in Y country and know it is important."

"Let me be honest. I write only what I want to. But I can exchange ideas. "

"Exactly. You tell me when."

"Yes. Your Excel..."

"Excellent!"

(The initials used here are fictitious and any resemblance to characters with similar initials is purely fictitious.)

Oops, I did it, did I?

Sometimes, one gets the weirdest feedback. This one does not deserve to be reproduced, but I feel like a bit of pop psychology.

"Sheesh! Just three words can describe you completely---'obsessed with sex'."

I was also called a pseudo intellectual, and I don't know whether it is due to my obsession with sex.

I don't know when it started, but the term pseudo intellectual has gained more currency than the euro.

People who are called pseudo intellectuals...Pop proponents, classical divas, liberals, secularists, mavericks, communists, old hippies, new punks, protestors, abdicators, sitting-on-their-ass-and smoking-hashers...

Funny thing is, almost all these categories of people do not give a damn about labels. And to fake intellectualism is like so duh...especially if you rock as just what you are.

This brings me to the three words that are supposed to describe me: Obsessed with sex. What I find intriguing is that someone says "sheesh" to that. It means that the person is...

a. Averse to sex
b. Thinks a lot about it
c. Guilty about thinking a lot
d. Does a lot of it and projects shame on others
e. Is obsessive about other things
f. Is afraid of women who speak their minds
g. Is afraid of women and their needs
h. Is afraid of not being able to meet those needs
i. Is afraid of himself, and so calls her names

More importantly, the person does not know me and has not read enough of my work.

Perhaps, the person just had to say something that would make me feel horrible. Sorry, I feel nothing of the kind. To me the human body and intimacy are Nature's gift to make me going...And I love gifts!

80 per cent of what I have written here or elsewhere would constitute sex, religion and politics. Even what I write about the sky or eyes or balloons would boil down to sexing them up or they can become a political statement in the larger context.

And why is only sex seen as such a huge thing to be 'open' about. Hey, religion is a bigger turn-on for many and politics, my gott, the kiss of Kissinger got that right about its power...the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Taking it on the chin

There are some articles that get people to respond either very sharply or emotionally, as the case may be. There are far too many and I had said I would put them up but realised most of those people may not be genuine even about the abuses!

It is a set pattern if the issue is Indo-Pak. In one pithy sentence: Pakistani saying, "Why write on Pakistan?"; Indian saying, "Why write on Pakistan?"; I thinking...at least they are reading. I get good idea from all this.

I have merely emphasised some points in the excerpts below that made me smile or laugh aloud or well...

Do not forget to scroll down for the finale…the only one I replied to from this lot because the person is a known number.

Views from Pakistan

Farzana, don’t comment basing on your fantasies. There is more filth in your country try to clean that first. I know this is no argument but what you see in Pakistan is mostly projected and propagation. You ask me any thing and I can reply that regarding society here. Now edit and read yourself whatever I could write. There are mistakes but I have to do other jobs as well.

Out side America the UE is not satisfied even. You have watched the flogging and not the way they humiliate women in their society. They don't spare sick idea to materialize practically.`
I know Britni and Miley and Jolie very well but would not like our society to go after there foot print as we would need a good stock of morning afters!.

- - -
Why don't you give Pakistanis the real face of India and write about that in the news papers?

Killing of Muslims everyday, Muslims are not allowed to go to mosques, poverty, farmer suicides, filthy cites, army raping Kashmiri girls and mothers and castrating Kashmiri men? You could write about it and break up India into small pieces which we will then conquer by jihad.


View from India

Missus,
I am thinking that your articles is too much pessimistic. Elections are the good things that we are having and the rest are not having. You are telling the communal forces are not destroyed that is for you sad. But that is the true it will never be. You are the expecting that every one problem must be solved otherwise it is not good, and you must to thinking that one by one all the problem it will be solved. I am to much happy that the winning is Congress because the future will be good. I am thinking that to many our people they are not understan the english and they cannot getting job or business.
I am liking your writing also that kagazkalam is to much clever. Are you having the children?
- - -
Hi Farzana,

I read your article on Manmohan singh and all that he could 'not do' and how he showed it as achievement, for things that were not really achievement.

However, why do you feel that PM has to be some one who has won an election.

Mother teresa was not married to father of children she adopted, and she is still a mother.

With due respect for your expereince of journalism, I would have appreicated if you could have taken more holistic view. At the end of day you create perceptions in the minds of reader, but then there are some like me hard to convince.

But some where you are also fighting with the perception of elegibility for a person to be PM, rather than what he should do.

He is lot better than many, isnt he?
IF he listens to all, doesnt it means he is all encompassing. If he listen to sonia doesnt that he mean, he knows his limitations.

Farzana its dynamic democracy, where 2+2 = 4 will not be case always.

Regards,

- - -

The final one here in response to Imagining the Taliban:

Hi Farzana,

Having read your article three times over, I STILL have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at - tum kehna kya chahti ho? It seems to me you're a muslim who can't reconcile to being an Indian (or vice versa) - either way, you seem to carrry HUGE chips on your shoulders, which make you attack the Bollywood Khans, Azim Premji and even the venerable Dr Abdul Kalam for no particular reason, and with no particular logic. Your statement that the Bombayites were not angry, but only `mildly irritated' at the 26/11 carnage was pure poppycock, to say the least.

Anyway, this is not about your identity crisis, but your other references...

As a muslim, if you feel the Taliban doesn't need to be stopped, then we are on different pages altogether, and there's no point in having this exchange at all..

As an `incidental' Hindu, I am terribly proud of the pluralism of India (I prefer the word to secularism), and take great comfort in the fact that the saffron brigade is peripheral to the concept of INDIA - fringe elements that pose no threat to this great nation and what it stands for..

Regards,
X

My reply:

Assalamalaikum:

I should hope this form of greeting fits in with a certain stereotype you seem to harbour, never mind the fact that I am an “accidental Muslim”, as opposed to your “incidental Hindu”.

It is rare for anyone to read my article these many times, though I do wonder why you, or anyone for that matter, respond to something so obtuse. Thank you for dignifying my “not particular reason”, “no particular logic”. You are very kind.

You ask, “tum kehna kya chahti ho?” Jo aap theek samje, kyonki aap samajh hi nahin rahe hain.

You bring in the old thing about Muslim vs. Indian and the Premji brigade. My “poppycock” has turned out to be almost like a prophecy. I hope you do not blame this on my ashubh (inauspicious) Muslim blood.

And why should I respond to the Taliban only as a Muslim? Then, may I ask if you are responding as a Hindu?

Regarding the pluralism of India, that cannot go away as long as some of us live it, rather than live with it. I do not wish to flaunt anything, but my upbringing and my family are examples of it. To reiterate it everytime I write anything that goes against the tide would be to reduce myself. I refuse to do so even after the continual questioning of my nationality (forget nationalism).

However, it is interesting that you see the saffron brigade that has caused havoc several times in our own country as “fringe elements” but the Taliban as a threat. What more can I say?

I do hope the light tone has not offended you. I did not want this to be one more exercise where you waste your time trying to figure out what I am saying. Thanks for writing in, anyway.

Khuda Hafiz before I run out of Muslim phrases…

Regards,
F

Election sidelights: Milind Deora's two daddies, Rahul Gandhi's poor babies, and some more...

But you love me daddies…

Milind Deora, pulling strings?

Milind Deora may be a badey baap ka beta, but he does not have only one dad’s support. Murli Deora who virtually ruled the roost as BRCC head and was stuck to the seat with adhesive as facilitator and lobbyist has definitely played a role in his son’s rise. Now we have don Arun Gawli openly supporting him.

Arun Gawli, daddy cool

This man is in jail for murder under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). His daughter, Geeta Gawli, a municipal corporator, said:

“Although there was huge public demand for him to contest, he has decided to opt out in favour of Deora. The ABS will now support the Congress in Mumbai South.”

Almost in an Adi Godrej-like language, she calls him a “secular and dynamic youth leader”! If Dagdi Chawl’s ‘Daddy’ could contest, he would not be considered secular or a youth.

However, what surprises me (why do I still manage to get surprised?) is that Milind Deora has not issued a statement strongly disassociating himself with this gangster. I can understand if some regular roughneck was a candidate and one of the ganglords supported him. Remember Dawood Ibrahim’s brother’s ambitions? Or how Varadarajan blessed a lot of candidates?

What will all those SoBo (that is South Bombayites – nah, they won’t call it Mumbai) club types think? It is not like diamond merchant Bharat Shah, also a jail regular, giving him the thumbs up. What makes Milind not tell the Gawlis to shut up and stay away from messing around with his name? Or, is no one bothered anymore? These are the same people who are going to vote against the “sab chalta hai” attitude. What is this if not chalta hai?

Karan Johar has written a long article in today’s TOI telling the readers about what all Milind has managed to do. No one needs paid advertisements anymore? Or is it all about ‘kind’ now? After all, this paper charges you to get featured in some of its privileged sections.

Here are some of Karan’s bon mots:

“So what if he is the son of a cabinet minister? I am the son of a producer, does that make any of my films any less relevant? In our country, a lot of newsprint is focused on dynasties — film, political or otherwise — but what most forget is that ultimately, being born with a silver spoon doesn’t guarantee a platinum-lined future.”

He clearly cannot tell the difference between reality and make-believe. The country is not a film and the fate of millions is not the same as a show at multiplexes. The point is not about being born with a silver spoon; there have been cases of individuals from notable families who have contributed substantially. But his words are a dead give-away when he talks about a “platinum-lined future”. It only means that it is about individual aspirations.

And the concerns these people have are clear when he writes:

“On 26/11, my city changed. Irrevocably. As we all watched glued to our television sets for the next 72 hours, it seemed almost surreal that our beloved home was burning — a city that had always held the promise of fulfilling dreams was suddenly everyone’s worst nightmare.”

Your beloved home has burned several times, but many kilometres away from where you and Milind live, so obviously you did not notice. Also, it was not covered with such intensity for you to be glued to your television sets.

Had these attacks not taken place, let me assure you all these corporate waalas and waalis would not have cared. The city has not changed. These people have. The dabbawallas, cabbies, domestic helps, drivers do not find the city has changed “irrevocably”.

“The last few years, the focus on India has been tremendous, Mumbai has been called the new New York, Shanghai, London — and the city and country has gone from strength to strength.”

Then, honey, why don’t you shoot your films here? Create employment, help with the infrastructure.

“Our usually press-friendly, vociferous leaders were suddenly shy, it seemed, hiding in their ivory towers with their Z security. The only political face Mumbai saw in those abysmal days was that of the quiet, unobtrusive Milind Deora.”

Well, Milind is not exactly muddying his hands, unless it is rubble from the Taj/Hilton. And he will be answerable to the same people with Z security. Incidentally, that night he was returning from a social engagement and he has been quoted as saying that when he heard some gunshots being fired and a car being chased he thought they were headed towards his vehicle!

Those 72 hours created many wannabe martyrs.

For those who haven;t read it, here is my take again: 1992 vs. 2008: Mumbai’s Charge of the Lightweight Brigade

Amar, Azam and SP

Amar Singh says he will quit the Samajwadi Party and ditch his ‘brother’ Mulayam Singh Yadav. I would have been happier to see him change his bungalow’s name again from Aishwariya to whatever it was called originally. He is sulking because of his differences with Azam Khan of the same party. Yadav has said he will help resolve this feud.

I suspect there is no such feud. Everyone in the SP knows that Amar Singh brings in the shor-sharaaba (yeah, you can delete the ‘a’ at the end too). This looks like a neatly planned division. With Mayawati going for the upper castes, they want the Amar Singh faction to play that role, while Azam Khan woos the Imambara types on the side. See, politics too is becoming like modern medicine – too much specialisation.

Laloo-Rabri talk the baulk

Laloo-Rabri during the Chhat puja

They are insisting that Laloo Prasad Yadav should be arrested under the National Securities Act for his hate speech against Varun Gandhi.

What did Laloo say?

"Had I been the country's home minister, I would have crushed Varun Gandhi under a roller and destroyed him without caring for the consequences for his hate speech against Muslims.”

This would amount to attempted homicide, and depending on whether he was driving a BMW or a tractor he would be meted out a sentence accordingly.

His wife and RJD chief took on rival Nitish Kumar:

"Nitish is sitting in the lap of L K Advani, who was directly involved in pulling down the Babri mosque, but his dream will never come true."

Which dream won’t come true? The mosque has been demolished and he seems to be already sitting in the dream lap…maybe it is the dream to get somewhere. Like godi ke baad gaddi (Throne after the lap)?

Rahul’s new slogan: ‘Garibi bachao’

Rahul Gandhi with his 'pride'

One fine day Rahul Gandhi invited a British minister to a village in his constituency to show him the spirit of the poor. What is so difficult to digest about that? Wouldn’t a British MP invite one of our ministers for a spot of fox hunting or to watch the changing of guards or the spirited jugglers at Covent Garden?

Rahul had to justify himself:

“I don’t believe in hiding things I am proud of and I don’t believe in hiding the spirit of the poor. The difference between the Congress party and opponents… We are proud of the poor people of India. We believe in the poor people of India and they are ashamed of the poor in India.”

I honestly think this guy must be sent for some urgent classes. How can he be proud of the poor? Has he created them? Or their poverty? Or even their spirit?

If the Congress believes in the spirit of the poor, then does it follow that they plan to let them remain like this - “as they faced difficulties with a smile and they believe in this country”? It is called survival. Stop romanticising all this.

Neither the Congress nor the Opposition can be proud or ashamed of the poor. They have to jolly well do something for them. Unfortunately, our largest majority, the poor, cannot do a thing.

If anyone is interested

Mallika Sarabhai has responded to the post on her and I have replied. Both are here

Charge of the blinkered brigade

December 5. My article 1992 vs. 2008: Mumbai's charge of the lightweight brigade appears in Counterpunch, a US-based publication/portal. I am inundated with emails - reasoned responses.

December 12. The same article is reproduced in The News (Jang group) Pakistan. How do I get to know? When I open my mail and see a burst of abuses. "You have written for a Pakistani newspaper! Go there, live there!!" Nothing new. When words fail you, use exclamation marks...the more the merrier. And hello? What are they doing reading Pakistani newspapers at all hours of the day and night?

People who wear blinkers are not expected to read; they scroll; they see a byline. A name they think is suitable for target practice. They miss it by miles. If I had patience, I'd weep for them. They don't have eyes to scroll to the bottom where it clearly mentions the source where it was originally published.

I was not asked. But then this article would have been picked up by anyone, anywhere. And I stand by every word I have written and will write. Anywhere I want.

- - -

This brings me to the naive belief some people have that these attacks have united India. Which India? A bunch of politicians who got together and declaimed in parliament that they will fight terror? What were they doing all these years?

Groups formulating petitions? Who are they and where will they be a few weeks down the line?

The Mumbai of Malabar Hill or Mankhurd? When did you see them together?

I am not wearing blinkers simply because I am not a horse running somebody else's race.

Nice try, folks, but you will have to work harder to still my voice. I am sure in the din you create you cannot even hear it, to begin with.

Thanks for promoting this blog and getting a peek into my multi-talented personality. Yes, I can write poetry and paint as well...no enough is enough for me.

Have a good weekend. The weather in my city is getting better...wish you were here...and hope it was good for you...