The call of the muezzin in court

It is such judgements that should make us have faith in the judiciary. Not only has it upheld secularism in Constitutional terms, it has also conveyed that politicians cannot pander to communal sentiments.

Imams and muezzins are most certainly not the responsibility of the government in India. The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that it is not the business of the state government to provide funds to the Wakf Board:

"It is well settled that the state cannot patronize or favour any particular religion. Secularism is part of the basic structure of our Constitution. The state, therefore, cannot identify itself with or favour any particular religion. Imams and/or muezzins are individuals of the Muslim community and attached with mosques. The decision to provide honorarium to them cannot serve the general interest of the community as a whole."

However, I do not see why the judges had to add that it had “unnecessarily created tension among different religious communities which should be avoided in a secular state”. The BJP was one of the petitioners against the Rs. 2500 and Rs. 1000 stipend to the imams and muezzins. What if the Mamata Banerjee government decided to also provide for sadhus in temples – would the bench think of this as equitable and secular because it would then favour others, too?

At the centre of the discord is “public purpose”, with the state believing it should be given the privilege. The court reiterated:

"The concept of public purpose cannot be contrary to the pronounced constitutional value of secularism. If today the government is allowed to spend out of the public exchequer by granting honorarium to the religious leaders of a particular religious community to the exclusion of similar treatment to other religious communities, such a governmental action being unconstitutional, cannot be said to be for public purpose."

While I completely agree that those attached to mosques should be given an honorarium only by the authorities running such institutions and the government owes it nothing – in fact, the community should shun such gestures by the political establishment – I do believe the judges were trying to be politically-correct.

This ought not to become a precedent against minorities and scheduled castes and tribes where ‘secularism’ will be brought in to argue against certain kinds of reservations that have to do with right to opportunity that has been often denied to many.

Let us not forget that Mamata Banerjee is no friend of tribals or even some minorities. Recall the villages that were thrown open for corporate ventures. It is important for the leaders of communities to be alert. Most politicians will only pander to what are explicitly religious places, because they want the sops to be visible from miles away. The ordinary Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Dalit does not know, or care about, who runs the show.

It is this ordinary daily wage earner who needs such ‘gestures’ the most. Secularism must not come in the way of that. For, as we know only too well, money is the most secular, and it is in the hands of a few who probably spend more time building places of worship or donating to it. Some even work as backroom boys to prop up political parties with a religious agenda.

©Farzana Versey

Oxygen to fire: Kolkata

The most telling picture of Friday’s fire in a Kolkata hospital is not burnt bodies, patients being rescued with rope ladders, relatives crying. It is this: Hospital staff dragging an oxygen cylinder. This looks like a scene from some isolated township not a big city, and most certainly not a private hospital.

89 people died when a fire broke out in the basement of the Advanced Medicare & Research Institute (AMRI) hospital in Dhakuria. Most of the patients were in the intensive care units. I cannot even imagine those who are too ill and fragile in a position to even save themselves. Did they try pulling out the drips, the pipes, the wires linking them to machines when the smoke reached them and there was panic? Or were they asleep, rather sedated, at 1.30 am and died strapped to their beds?

There were some who pressed their faces on the windows and seemed to shout for help. Combustible material was placed in the basement. The fire brigade took time to arrive, ambulances took time to arrive…it was the nearby slumdwellers who rushed to assist in the rescue operations, but the guard refused to open the gate.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived later in the morning, holding a mike and a megaphone leading the way, to assure people, to convince them. I do not wish to be cynical here. She was there at the other hospital where the injured were shifted and stayed there until late evening, apparently without food. Not many people in her position would do so. While I do not like the idea of politicians and their entourage disrupting real work, there are times when such gestures help assuage those who are suffering loss. I only hope that this is not a political angle.

In some ways it has become one. The government holds 1.99 per cent stake in the hospital. What about the 98.01 per cent that is privately-owned?

I also do not understand why they are now talking about the slums as a hindrance to the movement of rescue vehicles. They arrived late. It was those living in the slums who were physically present, and for years ambulances have been reaching the hospital.

It is good that six people have been arrested, but it needs more. Many of our hospitals, and not just government ones, are run in the most careless manner. Doctors go on strike, nurses go on strike, machines do not function, and cleanliness is not top priority, however many bottles of sanitiser liquids you see. Only some months ago a woman was singed and her newborn died because instead of antiseptic acid was used to clean them up. In another instance, stray dogs were roaming near the canteen and ICU areas of a municipal hospital. I have seen such dogs even in the premises of a private hospital.

What is the use then of thick glass panes that even firemen cannot break easily, as happened at AMRI?

Club me tender...

Calcutta Club

I have failed to understand why people object to dress codes in elite institutions. If they are elite, they will have certain rules. If you don’t like them, just don’t go there.

A recent news item mentions that Calcutta Club refused entry to painter Suvaprasanna who had been invited there. The reason was that he wore kurta-pyjama.

There were protests outside the gate. I can imagine the bhadralok sitting with their pipes, reading Chomsky or Sarat Chandra or the Guardian or even the Economic and Political Weekly, going tchah-tchah as they sipped their gin-tonic. Do clubs owe people explanations?

It doesn’t make any sense for you to continue with this colonial rule even as a wind of change is blowing in our state. Do away with this dress code, said a letter to the club that was signed by writer Mahasweta Devi, painter Jogen Chowdhury and Sameer Aich among others.

Isn’t it precious? The Left ruled West Bengal all these years and the clubby atmosphere remained; now a non-Commie government is here and people are talking about winds of change to do away with a ‘colonial rule’. There is nothing colonial about wearing trousers and shirt with shoes as much as you are permitted to wear a formal national dress.

Dress codes have a certain charm. Do people attend celebratory functions in bummy clothes? Do they wear shorts in places of worship? And don’t our army personnel follow these same codes in dress, form of address and how to carry themselves? They are much-respected for it.

Of course, club members are not serving the country but clubs are not public places. The members know the rules. I have visited a couple of Kolkata clubs and they are not much different from those in other cities, except perhaps Delhi Gymkhana where people run to sit by the fireside during winters to “catch a nice place”!

The Great Indian Wedding Turf

A Vijay Mallya could get away with an orange jacket at the Turf Club races but then it is also where lavish weddings with kitschy maharajah type decor is almost mandatory even if the tulips and the cheese are imported. This is also part of the Mumbai reverse snobbery.

In Madras, no one makes a song and dance about what anyone is wearing because everyone knows the rules and loves following them. Yes, these are elite institutions, but the liquor and food is cheaper than in fancy restaurants or even mid-range ones. Also, the winds of change are such that even the most hallowed clubs are now not considered posh, and serve as places for a quiet snooze or a swim. The real action has shifted to the plush lounge bars, especially in Mumbai.

Contrary to belief, clubs are not all about gentility. I have witnessed from a vantage position a general body meeting where people were shouting one another down. Management committee elections are big events where people are bribed with gifts and huge parties are held to make one’s presence felt and votes are bought with promises of some sort of barter. Why would then such gentlemen and a few ladies have the time for kurta-pyjamas? It is simple: product placement. You have the best golf courses, great views, a fairly upper crust membership. These are not important within the confines of the club but for further enhancement outside.

The antique collectors, the ones with land, the ones with private jets and helipads, the ones with arm candies and dandies all have that little ticket. It is pretty much the old order or those who are not in the rat race who are regulars at the clubs – reading in the library, snacking on Welsh rarebit and waffles in the verandah, the sofas upholstered with pale flower prints, watching the crows swinging on the netting that prevents them from entering.

Ah, the dress code of the crows does not work too even though it is a nice black coat.

- - -

Interestingly, I was invited for dinner at a small club in Dubai. On our way out, I could hear the sound of thumping music. It was the nightclub. I wanted to take a quick look. The bouncer refused because "no national dress allowed". I was wearing a salwaar kameez. How that qualified as national dress in an Arab country beat me. Much later I had a brainwave: I should have just thrown off my dupatta or wrapped it like a scarf.

PS: My friend's bomber jacket was acceptable at the club and the nightclub