India’s Tryst with Godmen Criminals

Charlatan godman Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan, head of the Dera Sacha Sauda, has been sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape of two of his devotees. To prepare for this court pronouncement, the army had to conduct a flag march, the police was on high alert, some areas were placed under curfew. One might have imagined that a terrorist was on the loose. 

In India when a godman is arrested on rape or murder charges, his followers can and will take to the streets to avenge a court order. This happened on Friday, August 26 as a Central Bureau of Investigation court convicted Singh. The country was shocked that 200,000 of his band of followers had congregated well before the verdict precisely as a strategy to create mayhem — they stoned building windows, torched buses and cars, including television broadcast vans; 30 people were killed and over 250 injured. What the country does not get shocked over is the existence of such fake gurus and the respect they command among those who matter and their constant presence in the media. 

Gurmeet Singh has been sentenced for a crime he committed 15 years ago; the sexual assault on the two young women continued over three years. It was Ram Chander Chhatrapati, a journalist from a small local Hindi newspaper called Poora Sach (the full truth), who had exposed the sins of the saint. A few months after he carried the letter of a victim, he was shot dead outside his house. The murder case is still pending. 

The letter was addressed to the then prime minister, BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The young woman had given a detailed account of her trauma. She was not the only one. Her turn to be used came once every month. When she was sent for the first time, Singh was sprawled in his bed watching porn, a remote in his hand, a revolver by his side. Her parents who were followers had insisted that she join the sect. She was stunned by what she saw. She is educated and asked questions. He silenced her protests with threat, flashing her parents’ devotion as well as his clout.

And then he used his spiritual hold over her: “He told me that at the time of becoming his disciple, I had dedicated my wealth, body and soul to him and he had accepted my offering. By this logic, your body is mine now.”

In fact, many female disciples were asked to go into his private chambers for ‘maafi’, forgiveness. He sold sexual assault as penitence although there was nothing they had to repent for. “We appear like devis (pious women), but our situation is that of prostitutes.”

If women were sexually exploited, men were rendered sexually incapable. There are reports of castration of at least 400 men. They were drugged and their testes were surgically removed.

Singh seems to have wanted to play the role of an ancient king with a harem and a retinue of eunuchs. Clearly, it appears his masculinity felt threatened.

***

Singh’s Dera Sacha Sauda empire is spread across 700 acres in Sirsa, Haryana. It is a fort-like establishment that ran along the lines of a philanthropic corporation even as the guru produced kitschy films on social consciousness where he essentially promoted his ego. Not only was he cocking a snook at the famed Indian austerity and belief in abjuring, he was also challenging the white and saffron robed hypocrisy of the prevalent uniform of godmen.

His seeming lack of hypocrisy should have been a red rag. Instead, he was feted as a guru reaching out to the new masses with chutzpah. Where other gurus had bhajans (religious hymns) playing in the background, he brandished a guitar and belted out off-key pop music. News channels that began trending him as “RapistRamRahim” and inviting responses to increase their viewership were promoting him a few months ago as a movie messiah, a multi-talented maverick. The mainstream media that is today taking a moral high ground did not bother about following up on the cases against him or even boycotting him until the verdict had been pronounced. He added to the entertainment quotient as “bling baba”. Were they not alerted by his lifestyle to question his credentials?

When they now flash the photograph of Chhatrapati with the “lest we forget” hashtag it is ironical, for they had forgotten. They were woken up with a jolt only because their vans and their reporters became the targets. And much of their ire was against the followers.

Singh has around 60 million followers, and most would not be aware of what happened inside the gufaa, his cavelike residence. The Dera Sacha Sauda, like other deras, isn't a cult started on the whims of a guru. It is a group of sects that believes in the scriptures but does not owe sole allegiance to it. Their tagline is “confluence of religions”. The guru’s name itself reflects that confluence. Everybody uses ‘Insan’ (human being) as their last name.

***

Following Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan’s sentencing, there has been discussion on what drew so many people to him. One of the reasons put forth was that he catered to the lower castes that were left out of the upper caste hold on the faith and the economy. It is a plausible argument. However, this assumes that the poor kept his image alive, which is not true. Indeed, those who are denied comfort and luxury do look up to pomp and pageantry, as can be witnessed in loud and garish celebration of festivals in the streets. But that cannot be sustained over such a long period. Besides, how would they identify with his “love charger” blatancy, that too in English? 

Like most gurus, he offered welfare. The Dera ran a hospital, had medical camps. It is unlikely that this is what the devotees came for and stayed back with, although it might have helped them at some point. The operative term is slavish obeisance. Whether through drugs, hypnosis, guilt, threat or fear, followers can be held hostage. 

Political leaders genuflect before these godmen in full public view, often consulting them on matters of state and law, making a mockery of the Constitution. Singh had helped the BJP win seats in the Punjab and Haryana regions. The Congress Party too had earlier enjoyed his goodies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised his efforts for his government’s cleanliness drive. Two days after the godman’s men went on a rampage, the PM in his radio address to the nation said, “No one has the right to take the law into one’s own hands in the name of one’s beliefs.” It is easy to pick on a mass of unknown faces and names with pop pleas. He made no reference to the charlatan or his crime or to the verdict. Because there are many such gurus who owe their existence and provide patronage to politicians. 

And one reason Indians even on the right are celebrating this conviction is because Gurmeet Singh is a Sikh who took potshots at Sikhism and Hinduism. He was grudgingly accepted for facilitating new money and votes, unlike the glowing accolades reserved for the levitating elevated gurus of mainstream godliness.

***

Rather shockingly, a day after the protests in support of Gurmeet Singh The Indian Express carried a piece by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev (who is often invited by media think tanks for their seminars) in which he wrote: “All the embodiments of the divine you worship — Rama, Krishna, Shiva — cannot call be called morally correct figures. They are not. Because it never occurred to them to be that way. But they are the peak of human consciousness.”

This echoes Singh’s stance. When he boasted that he was god to the sadhvi he planned to rape, she had asked him whether god did such things. He replied: “Sri Krishna too was God and he had 360 gopis (milkmaids) with whom he staged Prem Lila (love drama). Even then people regarded him as God. This is not a new thing.” Asaram Bapu, another godman and rape convict, had said: "Lord Buddha, too, had faced such kind of allegations and I am also facing the same. But the truth will come out…I am willing to go to jail with a smiling face. And I think I want to spend some time in Tihar jail. I consider jail as my Vaikunth (heaven)."

But Indians live in denial. Each time a person who owes allegiance to a god comes under the scanner, the knee-jerk reaction in the 140-character and 4-minute read op-ed world is, “Stop calling him a godman.” The fact is that they become the powerhouses they are because they project themselves as men of god and are accepted as such not only by the masses, but by the elite too. India is a country of gods and in this crowded environment there are bound to be middlemen who make devotion accessible and human, even if not humane.

In 2005, the Communist Party of India had exposed Baba Ramdev for using human and animal bones and flesh in his ayurvedic concoctions; he runs a thriving empire today. Yogi Adityanath is the chief minister of the largest state in India. MPs attend Parliament wearing saffron robes. A monk even addressed the Haryana assembly naked.

Indians love to idolise, whether it is godmen or judges. The judge who sentenced Gurmeet Singh is being lauded for his bravery. It does not strike anybody that this is what the law says and the judge was doing his job. 

The CBI took 15 years. This, when the victim had stated categorically in her letter: “If a probe is conducted by the press or some government agency, 40 to 45 girls — living in utmost fear at the Dera — if they are convinced, are willing to tell the truth.

There are many more victims of many more such godmen who represent neither religion nor culture. Their ashrams are dens of vice preying upon gullible minds to further their spiritual corporate empires.

--
Published in CounterPunch

Show me the money

For over ten days now, all of India is talking about money. A nation where over 32 per cent people live below the poverty line, and where some have not even seen big denomination currency notes, this itself seems like dark comedy. Dark comedy becomes a reality when the demonetisation move ostensibly introduced to get rid of black money mocks itself with a bureaucrat seeking and getting a bribe in the new currency notes.

On November 8, Prime Minister Modi decided that all ₹500 and ₹1000 notes were not to be legal tender from midnight onwards. This pushed even those who did not have black money to rush and offload these stacks.

A lot has been said and discussed on the subject, and it is rather obvious that the PM's populist move, and the false premise of how such money is used for terror funding, is not going to work this time.

What the overnight tamasha has done, though, is to challenge the social dynamics of class. Suddenly, anybody not categorised as poor is assumed to be rich.

I did not suffer because I did not have too many old notes with me. Just ₹15,000. The just is deliberate when you consider that four people in India would survive on this much for one month. As though this is not humbling enough, there have been stories of deaths, violence, illness, quarrels, hunger, of marriages postponed, of empty markets, half-stocked stores...people are affected.

I thought I was the affected, too. On the first day, I landed up at the bank. This was most unusual for me. I suspect I wanted to experience the moment. A friend I bumped into said, "Why do you need money? I thought you lived on ideas."

"Yes. But what if right now that idea is money?"

In the queue I did not see any poverty. In keeping with its international reputation, the bank was plying us with tea and coffee. We, the few people ahead and behind, were jokey and relaxed. We were more concerned about Americans under Donald Trump. But live jokes can't be played in a loop. After an hour and a bit, I gave up.

My banking is these days restricted to using the ATM. One is in control there and not waiting before a teller who will scrutinise your cheque to authenticate whether your money is indeed yours.

***

The doctor did not have a credit card swiping machine. His secretary pointed at a bundle of notes that were used to return as change. I didn't have the cash and I had got this appointment after a month. "You stay quite nearby, don't you? Then you can issue a cheque."

"Oh, that would be nice. I'll be back soon."

"We have that much trust in you."

I wondered why I was trusted. This was my first visit, we did not know each other. Trust in social situations is based on class factors - I wore a fragrance, was reasonable dressed, seems educated, and spoke in English. Would this courtesy have been extended to a person who would speak in Hindi or Marathi, who would be shabbily dressed?

We, all of us, judge people on superficial aspects. It isn't always wrong to do so, but is it a foolproof yardstick?

***

Eight days later when I managed to get the new notes, I had my first encounter with the streets. At a small store where I made some purchases, I told the seller that I had the ₹2000 notes and he would have to get me the change and, no, I would not accept the old currency. In the next ten minutes he had tapped people around his store and brought me the change, some in ₹10 denomination. 

He was accepting old money because he had no choice. "I wait in the bank for 4 hours to exchange and then come here. Can't afford to lose clients."

"But there is a limit to the amount changed..."

"We try all sources...different banks, different people."

***

At the signal, a eunuch approached me. "Dus, bees rupaiyya de do, sab achcha hoga..."

For 10-20 bucks I was being promised utopia. I had no change and said so.

"To phir 500 de do, saree khareed loongi aur tumko yaad karoongi..."

For 500 bucks, I'd be remembered by a eunuch. 

This was an unusual barter, especially since I have an inbuilt need to be forgotten. 

***

Any such upheaval brings forth genuine sympathy, and then there is a segment that will ride on it. On public fora, such displays reek of opportunism where this becomes one more chance to build up a samaritan profile. 

How Social Media Dishonoured Qandeel Baloch

Qandeel Baloch sometimes looked like Amy Winehouse; her death was as tragic as Amy's. Both were on drugs. Winehouse was on the hard stuff; Baloch on the harder one.

Addiction to social media is narcotic. I do not mean the persistent need to check the walls and timelines or click on likes, or even to voice an opinion or an inanity, but the recreating of life online — to be completely subsumed by the persona one has birthed as well as the perceptions. In fact, Baloch was no more her own creation. She was an opinion. As she had said, "Love me or hate me both are in my favour. If you love me I Will always be in your heart, if you hate me I'll always be in your mind."

In the real world, she was killed by her brother — sedated and then strangulated, as her parents slept in the other room, sedated too. This murder falls into the honour-killing category. And immediately, we hear of the yawn-producing argument that these murders should be called dishonour-killings because, they ask, where's the honour.

Such ridiculous assertions forget that by doing so they suggest the victim would have brought dishonor as much as the perpetrator has, when we are in fact talking about misplaced ideas of honour, prevalent in almost all societies.

In Pakistan, the victim's family can forgive the man. Baloch's father has refused. He wants to wreak vengeance upon the son. One article even quoted the parent calling out, "Qandeel, Qandeel!" Strange, because that was not the name she was given at birth. She was Fouzia Azeem. Qandeel Baloch was the pseudonym she chose for herself. To escape, among other things, memories of being forcibly married off by her parents when she was a teen.

It was her new life that took care of them. Baloch was the only earning member. Her brother says he killed her because of the stuff she posted. But it could also be because his male ego could not handle being dependent on a sister, that too one who was unapologetic about her self-portrayal.

The latest news is that her mother says the brother was taunted by his friends regarding his sister's shenanigans, somehow softening the opinion against him. Nobody seems to want to take responsibility for judging her. She is now, as she was then, just a daughter, a sister, a trigger for the self-righteous.

Qandeel Baloch was not as unusual a phenomenon as is made out. The pretty provocative at 26 is often what rebellions are made of. I watched an interview in which she referred to herself as a social media sensation. That was her identity.

It is no different from the social media celebrities around who primarily feed their followers minutiae of their lives — the animals they rear, the food they eat, the places they visit, the clothes they wear. They flash these as a badge of frankness, when what such trivia does is to act as a camouflage for their opinions and feelings or, more likely, lack of them.

They feed on events and trolls. The more trolls they get for a stray comment the more they begin to market their boldness. Being in-your-face is projected as honesty. The cliques to which they belong — and they sure as hell wouldn't survive without them — ensure that their machinery is well-lubricated with their fan-like leech behaviour.

The Qandeel supporters were different. They might have enjoyed her exhibitionism, but they could not possibly invest in her emotionally because they felt they were not equal. As long as she could be patronised, it was okay. In some cases, she reminded them of their own struggles. But, yet again, there was a kid glove treatment.

I watched The Ali Saleem Late Night Show where she appeared alongside Pakistani comic actor Rauf Lala. The latter had the audacity to leer at her and make it seem like doing so was a part of his acceptance of her. He resorted to the typical subcontinental trope of, "You are like my sister." She shot back, "Can't you say daughter?" He agreed, in the same leering manner, "Ok, ok, like a child I've rocked in my lap."

If you think this was just another character from the entertainment industry, then you are wrong. I've witnessed much sniggering by Pakistani liberals online. Upon her death, they might have surely spoken some shit about how horrible honour killing is and how she was merely a misguided youngster. Short of calling her a floozy, because they are so desperate to be politically correct, they meant just that.

Qandeel, obviously, had a different opinion of herself and her agenda. In a Facebook post a day before her death, she had written:

"I believe I am a modern day feminist. I believe in equality. I need not to choose what type of women should be. I don't think there is any need to label ourselves just for sake of society. I am just a women with free thoughts free mindset and I LOVE THE WAY I AM."

But this love for herself was the result of going regularly viral due to the 'love' of others. Did the liberal society ever grant her the status of feminist? Even Mathira, a model and actress known for her item numbers, had mentioned in an earlier interview about her drawing the line somewhere as opposed to Qandeel, who apparently knew of no such line.

Qandeel did a bad version of twerking, she wore transparent clothes and seduced the camera. The viewers were added bonus. And she sang. That's what she wanted to do. That's what nobody was interested in. Unless she sang wearing night clothes in bed just before signing off in a video she shot to share with strangers.

Did anybody notice her voice? Clearly not. Even in that 'understanding' interview with Ali Saleem, the host made her run on a treadmill and sing. To be fair, he made the other guest do so too, but Rauf Lala had no singing ambitions. Qandeel did.

But she was just time-pass for those on social media who even as they while away the hours in their echo chambers look down on people like Qandeel who do the same.

They refuse to accept her not only on her terms, but even on theirs, should she have made it. She had to be kept in her place, even as they pretended not to show her her place.

In the end, the social media voyeurs were witnesses to the murder of Qandeel Baloch.

---

An earlier one on Amy Winehouse

The lion and the vultures

How different are the two pictures really? In one the man poses with his kill; in the other the industry caters to consumerist bloodthirst that feasts on the same kill.

I'll be honest. I found the moral high ground on the Cecil the lion story hyperbolic, and in many ways a pretence. And it had nothing to do with it overturning the fairytale where the ogre is the beast. There was just too much of reductionism going on — of race, of bestiality, of the hunter as sinner.

The American man who killed a lion in Zimbabwe became a villain everywhere; to boot, a white with a whiter smile. One news report even spoke about how it was discovered that the killer of Cecil "turned out to be" an American dentist. How was this a discovery or of any consequence?

Hollywood's avande garde voice and general conscience-keeper was so riled that she even posted the address of Dr. Walter Palmer's clinic. It became just another, what we Indians call, jungle raj.

It is important to question such trophy killing. We need to forget one ism to favour another in some cases, so not all animals are equal and indeed we would need to understand that animals in the wild play a different role. However, if we are going to talk about sensitivity, then why is it that we don't ever evince any such sensitivity when we see stray dogs rounded up in municipal trucks?

Now, there are Cecil memorabilia. It is not an environmental consciousness initiative but a commercial enterprise. Is Cecil the first one one to be ever killed? How did the "local favourite" become the pop favourite globally? Can people really tell one lion apart from another?

Instead of buying mugs and other paraphernalia with a lion face, perhaps we should all just stop visiting zoos, which is where the animals are slowly reduced in stature and where we learn how to recognise that what's behind a cage should be naturally game outside of it. 

Divided, and ruling

Kamal Haasan recently played martyr. It is fairly common for the arrogant and liars to play martyr. It is the prime ticket to a clean slate when you have moved on and reached closure, whatever the terms mean, for true closure should not result in constant bickering about that particular part of the past.

Kamal Haasan is an accomplished actor and filmmaker. He also has interesting insights into cinema, and social issues. Irrespective of how one views the choices he makes and has made, he has struck out. But that is not the issue here.

In a joint interview with his daughter Shruti, he chose to discuss his personal life and that is where he came across as arrogant and wanting. He rants about his first marriage:

"Just around the time she (Shruti) was born, I had lost all my money due to the various alimony settlements with Vani that I had to pay and had to restart with a zero bank balance...I was living suddenly in a rented house, which I was not used to, but fortunately my career was in great shape. Life was suddenly a wake-up call for me, but at that time to make a decision in my career to not be enamoured by money was a strange thing that happened to me."

I do not know the details of their arrangement, but I do know that his ex-wife Vani Ganapathy was and is an accomplished classical dancer. I also know that around the same time he was living in with Sarika, the woman he married after their two daughters were born. These are personal decisions, but there is no need to use any of them to score.

The feisty Vani has not kept quiet. She called up the newspaper and this is what she said and I reproduce in full:

“I was very hurt after I read a recent interview of Kamal's. He has said that because of our divorce, he went bankrupt due to the alimony that was paid to me. I would really like to know, firstly, which divorce in India has led to bankruptcy of any kind. And if he claims he went bankrupt, then I ought to have been living in comfort. Instead, why would I have had to buy a home on an LIC loan on the outskirts of Bengaluru 28 years back? All that I have today is because of my dance and my own hard work. Kamal also says that he moved into a rented house because of this bankruptcy. How can he say that when we only stayed in rented houses during the time we were married. The only house that Kamal bought during that time was used as his office. So where is the question of having to move into a rented house because of him running into bankruptcy due to our divorce?“

What has happened is not uncommon. Patriarchal societies believe that the male is the provider and assume that the woman he once promised to take care of will always be under his guardianship or at least supported by him. This may not be true at all, but people will buy the lies or anything that fits into their own narrow perceptions.

Relationships are anyway fragile, so why point out the pieces when they break? Why the tall claims? Was Kamal Haasan trying to appeal to his daughter, now a grownup woman who may have many unanswered questions?

Again, he strikes me as presumptuous. Talking about how he tackled the revelations of his breakup with her mother Sarika to her, he said:

"Also she wasn't sure as the facts were not given to her fully by either (he and Sarika). I didn't explain too much as explaining myself would have tilted her balance, which I didn't want to do. If I was a villain in her piece at that time, it's okay as I knew it's not a permanent piece as it wasn't going to be etched on rock. And it's good that I waited."

Was this necessary? Why would it have tilted the balance — the girls lived with their mother. Such emotional machismo is no different from the physical variant. The villain turned into a hero is so enchanting, especially when it comes to later explaining more digressions:

Let me talk in a very male tone. If you are talking about scores, mine is the lowest amongst my peers. Numbers don't matter to me, it's always about commitment for me. I have never had one-night stands ever. It can't work for me and that way I am like a woman as they too are troubled with that.

This is so problematic. Comparing his score with that of his peers he seems to suggest that they might lack commitment because of a higher 'score'. And one-night stands would bother those who are bothered, irrespective of gender. To imply that women are "troubled" only invokes that they better be while ostensibly conveying a sensibility that cares.

Even while talking about losing it all for his alimony, he is trying to show his concern for his other family. In the presence of his daughter, he is expressing to her the sacrifices he made for them. Such one-upmanship may work for the self-esteem of the insecure and to an extent to keep a superficial peace, but it only eclipses the halo.

The corpse carriers: Parsi untouchability

A news story on untouchability among the Parsis may seem like an anachronism, but this is how the pallbearers in the community are treated.

They are now protesting, not against the untouchability but their pay scales. These khandias have to work at odd hours, live amongst corpses till they decompose completely, and it takes a long time for there are no birds of prey these days at the Doongerwadi Tower of Silence at Malabar Hill. The solar panels leave the bodies "soggy". As one khandia was quoted as saying, “When we go to drag the body, a hand or a leg comes off."

These men are treated with contempt, as the report conveys so well. They can't live in the Parsi baugs, there is separate drinking water, they need to purify themselves before entering a fire temple, and when they are given money they have to open a pouch so that the donors do not get contaminated.

The contamination bit bothers me, and it is not restricted to Parsis and is rampant in all communities. The pallbearers are carrying and cleaning people who were once loved and lived amongst us. How does this defile them? Is it only considerations of infections that might pass? I think not. If that were the case, then long after they have washed and aired themselves, they would not still be ostracised for being who they are.

What is the point of funeral rites and memorials if we cannot respect those who ensure that the deceased have a dignified last image?

There are always exceptions to the rule, but that only emphasises how entrenched these non-scripture, non-legal rules are and also how social norms and prejudices have a greater say than them. It is appalling that we continue to be trapped in fears of contamination.

Some years ago, there was a demand for some purification ritual because actor Arjun Rampal (who is married to a Parsi) had said he had sneaked into a fire temple — as a kid. I had written Parsi Controversies then.

We do pull up Hindus for their practice of untouchability, and rightly so. But Muslims, Christians, and Parsis are offenders too. Muslims have a higher caste of Syeds, and many sects look down on others — including not having water in the house of one or treating another's rituals with contempt. Even if a religion talks about the differences, should we not move with the times? Ages ago, there were probably reasons of survival of the fittest and assertion of territory to be factored in. Today, social mobility makes these redundant.

The hypocrisy makes things worse when there is talk of dignity of labour in public and scant consideration privately for those performing such tasks. Why is it that a person with a degree doing a menial job is seen as honourable but one 'born' into it not so? These prejudices are not ingrained but learned. And such learning is also about some form of intellectual superiority, and therefore slavery.

If we must shun, then shunning these double-faced consciences should be considered good untouchability. 

Undrawing the Line: R.K.Laxman

He was the only public intellectual in India who could make sense of the nonsense. The good thing is that he would baulk at being referred to as an intellectual. R.K. Laxman is dead.

Those who think a cartoonist cannot be an intellectual just need to trace his work. He could pare down the tonnes of bibliography and tomes to one box. He distilled them and came up with a trenchant take.

While some of it made us smile, he was certainly not a comic. His work was political and social commentary at its best. And he exposed it without moral pretensions. You instinctively knew that he was not scoring any points or patting himself on the back, something that latter-day cartoonists in India seem to revel in.

He did not appear to be friends with politicians, but he was no enemy either. That imbued him with a practicality and it reached the reader as an objective and concerned voice.

His caricatures were precise, taking one sharp feature to delineate the personality. You knew Indira Gandhi would follow the moment you saw the nose line. I thought he captured her hauteur perfectly. There are many more of other leaders and I would urge you to look for them.

However, his creation of the common man surpassed everything else, so much so that the dhoti-clad, checked raggedy jacket, half bald caricature has become to represent the aam aadmi. No political caps claiming the common man will ever be able to take the place of the Laxman one, because it came from a penetrating eye and a deep sense of anguish that did not disappear to get political mileage.

His common man is an observer occasionally forced to be a participant. But he does not lose himself. And when the need arises he even contributes with his commonness to become rather special. This gesture is not covered with tinsel as a celebration, but rather subtly it gives us a peek into what equality really means.

R.K.Laxman does not need a photograph to be recognised. His lines are intimations of, pardon the hyperbole, immortality.

Sunday ka Funda

You go out for a meal and take a picture and post it. What are you really telling the world? You drive and capture the streets, the clouds, sunsets. Are any of these new to those who see them? You meet friends and one of the most important takeaways from this "wonderful evening" is to pose for a selfie, after taking picture of tea and snacks and of the interesting tree in the compound.

I can't say all of this is a recent phenomenon. I have done much of this, although I believe that taking a photograph of a meal you share with somebody is an intrusion into their space as much as yours. The same is true of wanting to capture any and every meeting.

This is not a judgment, for I am aware that I'd be guilty at some point in time of all of these. It points out to the utter isolation, so much so that even real interactions seem legitimate only when they are virtualised.

Like this very normal view of the balcony and from it. It is a wry comment on what we have become, the bareness of the room only highlighting disengagement with reality:

Communalising a Rape: Meerut

Rape should be treated as a crime not only against women but society, only then will it be seen as more than a ‘zenana’ issue cloistered in a female-restricted enclave.

However, can we trust society if it uses such a crime to further create fissures? Take the example of what happened in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, on Sunday:

A 20-year-old BA student, a former part-time teacher at a madrasa in Meerut’s Sarawa village, has alleged that she was abducted from her residence, forcibly converted to Islam, and gangraped in another madrasa in Hapur. She has also alleged that she was held captive in a madrasa in Mustafa colony, Muzaffarnagar, for over three days, where she was again reportedly raped, abused and forced to eat fish. The woman claimed she managed to escape on August 3 and reached Meerut, after which she reported the matter to the police. The woman also claimed that she met other women at the madrasa in Muzaffarnagar, who were being held captive before being sent to Dubai.

What ought to be the most condemnable crime here? Rape. Is this how society will see it? Unlikely. It is a delicate matter not because of who the criminal is, but how the main crime is sidelined. The police registered a case of kidnapping, gangrape, outraging religious feelings of any class and criminal intimidation against the accused.

The Indian Express has referred to her as an “alleged victim”. Their reporter has met her father. Following the Muzaffarnagar riots where it was established that both the Samajwadi Party and the BJP were not beyond using any means to gain political mileage, any news coming from UP is seen as at least partly a political ploy. This is worrying because a victim would be doubted when it is the leadership that must be.

Also of concern is the demand that mainstream media has given it little attention. A crime is not rendered important enough unless it is on TV, it would seem. The media will have to shoulder the blame, for it has laid the foundation for prime-time bombast and letting demons hover over studios. Therefore, if it chooses to ignore a story of this nature it does draw attention. Unfortunately, while blaming the ‘secular media’, the accused targets are those the media is seen to protect. In this case, it would be deemed as kid-glove treatment for Muslims. That a community is berated for what some criminals do and is expected to speak out is itself an example of how rape and assault will be viewed. Muslim groups have not asked the media to go slow on the criminals who follow their faith; the media uses and abuses them just when it suits their agenda at a given time.

To return to the case, why is Hindustan Times that was the first to break the news using terms like “alleged forced conversion” and “as claimed” even in its follow-up report? Because some details have not been confirmed – she did not record her statement, she says she was wearing a veil so could not name the hospital where she was taken for surgery following bleeding, her medical tests are incomplete, she could not identify the rapists, and in a raid on a madrasa where she said others were confined the police did not find any girls.

It is impossible to jump the gun only to satiate the blood lust of a few, and I do believe that such issues get sensationalised, whoever is at the firing line.

What should be done in rape cases is for the victim to be provided with trauma care, and not be pushed into a communal cauldron. The cops were given the name of the madrasa, the cleric, and a few important details. It is their job to follow up. They have arrested three of the four persons.

Meanwhile, the Rapid Action Force has been called in. Would this have happened were it a rape case? It is to deal with the situation about the conversion angle. There was stone pelting. Some BJP leaders have issued threats. Is this not unusual? When it is a police case, who are they threatening and why? I would understand if they use pugnacious language against clerics, but the general threatening tone seems to suggest that they can thrive only in an atmosphere of strife. And what makes the party assume it is the spokesperson for Hindus? Is this its only plank to topple the state government and govern?

If there were a human trafficking racket, then would it escape the eyes of the authorities? Some clerics trying to convert people is very much possible, though. Let there be an inquiry and arrest them. Chances are this will be used as a ruse to shut down madrasas. If anything, the fact that this young woman taught Hindi and English at one at least proves that these are also general schools.

I would like to add that there are a few secularists who capitalise on religion as much as the fundamentalists. There is no need to state after every crime a Muslim commits things like, “This is against Islam.” It serves to feed those who wish to communalise crimes. They get away with the halo that comes with being seen to be non-partisan, but it is other kinds of partisanship that gets them this far.

With everybody trying to be better, the victim is the loser. In order of priority, her rapists should be first tried. The conversion and trafficking angle probe should continue, for according to the complaint it is not confined to her.

It would help if onlookers did not fall for every communal bait politicians throw their way.

--

Update:

Reports continue to bring in other aspects to the case. I would rather not comment because a young woman is involved. Read for yourself here.

--

© Farzana Versey

--
Image: The house of the girl's relatives in Meerut, Indian Express

Sunday ka Funda

“What do you think an artist is? ...he is a political being, constantly aware of the heart breaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image. Painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war.”

― Pablo Picasso

There is destruction everywhere. And I thought about Guernica. As those who visit here often know, I am opposed to posting violence porn, especially if the images have children. I explained my stance earlier.

Guernica is not just art; it is deliberate defacement. That becomes its message along with the motive and the inspiration. The realism lies in the unreal.

How would it be if that painting came alive not as faces behind the 'masks', but as masks? Here is one interpretation. In the robotic sinew one can feel the cracking of bones.

When will we kill patriarchy for our honour?

I detest the term 'honour killing'. It assumes that somebody's honour is at stake and therefore the murder has social sanctity.

Farzana Parveen was attacked by her family for "marrying the man she loved". She was pregnant. This happened in a big city, Lahore, Pakistan. It was in the day, at a place where there is always a crowd — right outside the high court. People stood and watched as her family members, including father and brothers, hit her with bricks and batons.

She was appearing in a case filed against her husband Mohammad Iqbal for kidnapping her. Her family had come prepared with guns and first fired shots in the air. It would seem the intent was to take her away. When this did not work, they picked up bricks and started pelting her. Her husband managed to escape. I find this disturbing. While it would be impossible to shield her against 20 people, he could have stayed there.

What was the crowd doing? Even if they did not want to get involved, they could have called for help. This is sickening. A report says:

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a private group, said in a report last month that some 869 women were murdered in 'honour killings' in 2013.

These are cases that get reported. Most are not. According to Pakistani law, if the victim's family pardons the criminal, it is acceptable with a few conditions. Many of such families are poor and settle for monetary compensation. In this case, the family is also the criminal. Although technically her husband will have to take a call, her parents would be permitted to do so. With the lackadaisical attitude of the cops, it is likely that nothing will happen. They all escaped. The father who did not handed himself to the police. He is not one bit repentant:

"I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it."

This qualifies as 'honour'? It is true that in many societies such relationship decisions are still taken by the family. It is often explained as the need to protect the woman (and men too). However, the scales are clearly tipped against the woman, as in this case. How did she bring disrepute to the family, and how does their blatant act of bludgeoning her not do so?

Some people have taken to replacing the word 'honour' with 'dishonour', which is much the same. The onus continues to be on the victim. She is supposed to bring dishonour. Terminology reveals a lot about how cultures evolve, or rather regress. There is a tacit acceptance that a reputation has been compromised, which is why it is so wrong.

Did those onlookers know what honour was involved here? Yet, they kept quiet. Partly because it is understood that something must be wrong about the woman's character or behaviour that prompted such rage. It looked as though they were participating in some ritual where they did not need to comprehend the language, yet believe in its significance. This is not about an unacceptable love story, for folklore has plenty of them. It is about how patriarchy sustains itself.

We hear about gang-rapes "to teach women a lesson". The message being that if a woman chooses to be with someone other than what is deemed right for her she has become the property of a 'rival' and is therefore territory to be reclaimed, or just claimed if the criminals are not known.

Added to cultural conditioning is the class structure. It is often the ones higher in the hierarchy who commit such acts against the poor or those belonging to a 'backward caste'. In india, the latter is common, and almost every other day we hear about women sexually abused or killed because they went against the norms. Their partners are not spared if they belong to a lower caste.

It means that patriarchy itself has its own hierarchy. A bit like racism.

In Houston, Aaron Aranza beat up his 15-year-old daughter with a belt for choosing a Black man as her dance partner. It was for a traditional 15th birthday celebration, and he discovered her choice during the rehearsals.

Here too, he might explain it as 'honour'. A young woman in a supposedly progressive western environment cannot make a choice that goes against stratified ideas of what is acceptable. She was quite obviously unencumbered by divisive colour palettes in her personal interactions. That is the reason she probably did not think of her partner in black or white terms.

Some reports have specifically highlighted that her father is Hispanic, which says a great deal about how the media adds to the pecking order, that is no order at all.

The father's rage is about assertion of not just the superiority of colour, but of himself as owner of his daughter.

The centuries' old attitude has never gone away. There can be no freedom if women are treated as property and crimes against them are deemed to be about protection of resources, and these resources are women themselves. They aren't allowed to own their minds or their bodies.

Those who do so are seen as a blot. Isn't it time for such 'blots' to expose the stains on the male mindset? When will we kill patriarchy for our honour?

Update, June 2, 12.30 am IST:

What do the new angles mean?

Farzana Parveen's husband admitted that he killed his first wife to marry her.

There was no honour involved in that.

The latest news is her sister insisting that when they came out of the court, she wanted to go to her waiting family but Iqbal and Iqbal's accomplices beat her up with bricks.

Whatever be the truth, a few points:

Why did the father admit to the murder, then?
Why did the family not stop the husband, if he was the one attacking?
Why did he not stop them, if they were attacking?
Why did the onlookers do nothing?
What about the cops?

Irrespective of who did what, she was brutally killed. We should stop pigeonholing such murders as 'honour killings' because, besides the points mentioned earlier, they impede justice.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also: Is this honour rape?

The price of a home

Mukesh Ambani's home at Mumbai's Altamount Road still appears to me to be under-construction. There is something incomplete about it. Or, like a wedding cake that's been haphazardly sliced through. At night, it transforms into a lit-up bauble for Brobdingnagians.

It comes at a price and now it has topped the list, according to Forbes:

The title of the most outrageously expensive property in the world still belongs to Mukesh Ambani’s Antilia in Mumbai, India. The 27-story, 400,000-square-foot skyscraper home–which is named after a mythical island in the Atlantic–includes six stories of underground parking, three helicopter pads, and reportedly requires a staff of 600 to keep it running. Construction costs for Antilia have been reported at a range of $1 billion to $2 billion. To put that into perspective, 7 World Trade Center, the 52-story tower that stands just north of Ground Zero in Manhattan with 1.7 million square feet of office space, cost a reported $2 billion to build.

A rich person is most certainly entitled to spend wealth as s/he desires. There are wannabes who aspire to things the rich want. However, when it is a home in a city with a huge disparity in wealth among its citizens, then it ceases to be a question merely of personal riches.

Reminds me of wellknown architect Charles Correa, who and said:

“When I visited Australia I realised that save for a few homes most of the people in the cities live on similar-sized plots. Australia, I thought is locked into equality while in India we are locked into inequality. Mukesh Ambani has proved it. ‘This is the amount of urban space I control,’ he is telling us by building that home. At the same time you have to be impressed. What a huge ivory tower!”

Poverty bothers us, whether it is due to sympathy or because its presence is considered a nuisance, an intrusion into our space. We drive past, eyes averted. We walk past, waiting to get out and inhale. We are uncomfortable; this is not about us.

Why don't we feel the same way about the ostentatious although that too is not about us? We drive past and look with awe. We walk past, slow our steps until a guard looks with suspicion. This makes us uncomfortable because poor guy has access to super rich.

In that, we too live in ivory towers sponging on other people's make-believe.

© Farzana Versey

There's a Frenchman in the Pakistani Soup

Fine dining, by definition, is exclusive. Can a foreigner bar Pakistanis from his restaurant in Pakistan, their country?

The obvious reaction would be, no. It is racist any way you look at it. However, let us see the other side.

La Maison, run by Frenchman Philippe Lafforgue, in a part of his house at an upscale area of the capital Islamabad, has been forced to shut down after there was an outcry against this discriminatory policy. There was no board outside saying so; it was a discreet decision by the management.

As the owner stated:

“It’s not a discrimination thing. It’s a culturally sensitive thing. How can I serve pork and booze to Pakistanis without getting into trouble? So I have a rule: no locals getting in...I can’t open it up to the Pakistani people because I serve alcohol. If I start serving locals, which is obviously profitable, I will have to bribe the police…which I want to avoid.”

This last bit is important and has been ignored by the commentators. There are many in Pakistan who can afford it, and do patronise fancy restaurants. However, there is much hypocrisy regarding alcohol. Many of the elite like to show off their bars and collection of wines, but do not raise their voice against government policies over their eating and drinking habits. Their laws might discriminate against minorities, but they are quite willing to tap this segment for their quota of booze. Non-Muslims and those in the diplomatic services are their sources for tipple, although they can manage to arrange it through powerful local contacts.

Therefore, the owner is not entirely wrong when he talks about having to bribe the cops.

Is there a cultural issue that he is truly concerned about? Let us just say that the Pakistanis who might enjoy their drink at home or at private parties might put on a publicly moralistic mask. This is not a blanket judgment, but it certainly does apply to a few. Sometimes, it is pragmatism. A friend who has never hidden his lifestyle has had to hear the police knock on his door quite often.

Then, there is the sensitive issue of whether an outsider can prevent citizens of the host country from entering. Most reports have gone back in time to refer to the "Dogs and Indians not allowed" policy of British establishments during colonial rule.

There are clubs in India where certain people are not permitted even today. Depending on the portfolio of the club, politicians and film stars too have been debarred by the intellectuals and corporate sections. There is also a dress code policy; the famous artist M.F.Husain was prevented from entering the British era Willingdon Sports Club because of his footwear.

I am afraid, but I do believe that private establishments do have the luxury and right to choose their entry policies. Try dressing up scruffily and getting into the Karachi Club, or even a posh eatery in Zamzama. The hierarchy is well in place.

For that matter, at an exclusive do in Karachi, my host said he would not introduce me as an Indian because it was a cadets party. Although uncomfortable about it, I did understand his position, and was in fact grateful that he let me have a glimpse of something I would never have had.

Why would the French restaurant assume that all Pakistanis are uptight? I have been to an Italian restaurant not too far from this place and we were the only 'locals' there, if we don't consider my Indian identity.

What is particularly glaring about how this discrimination thing has worked out is that the main issue has been obfuscated. The assistant superintendent of the Islamabad Police decided to do a personal recce after getting complaints (a social media campaign, naturally). These are his words:

“So I personally called in to make a reservation, and was rejected when I said I was a Pakistani. The next step was obviously to check the place out. We found over 300 bottles of non-licensed alcohol and even a casino table.”

Lafforgue was charged with "unlicensed alcohol," a crime. Where does all talk of racism disappear? As an homily, the cop added:

“How can you live on our soil and treat us like this. No rules allow such behavior. This is not the nineteenth century.”

Part of the problem is the need to look up to foreigners. It is ingrained in the DNA of the subcontinent. The protests do not emanate from the ground, but from niche ideas of access. This too is privilege.

There is a flip side as well. Local Pakistanis, mainly young women, seek out invitations to parties at the diplomatic clubs, even though they are primarily meant for embassy staff and their families. It is another matter that they are often welcomed because they add exotica and are not inhibited.

The police have shut down the restaurant for now. It would have made sense if the registered crime was not illegal bottles of alcohol but discrimination. Unfortunately, that would be a difficult proposition. For, there is a huge mirror and it shows what Pakistanis do not wish to see.

Touché?

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: Philippe Lafforgue at his restaurant, NBC

The Pontiff's Closet

What do you think about Pope Francis being chosen Best Dressed Man of 2013 by Esquire? When the magazine says, "Pope Francis's sartorial decisions have subtly signaled a new era (and for many, renewed hope) for the Catholic Church", it is jumping the gun. As religious head, he has certainly proven to be immensely likeable. He is discussed for his symbolic gestures, and they might not alter perceptions but do send out signals about a modernistic way of looking at social mores.

However, I believe that a best dressed tag does not quite reward these gestures, much less comprehend the nuances that might get lost and possibly lose track of what is being symbolised.

Mark-Evan Blackman, assistant professor of menswear design at FIT, has been quoted as saying:

"His mode of dressing really does reflect the mindset behind it. I remember when John Paul II was buried in those opulent bright red shoes. When the current pope was elected and chose not to wear the red shoes I thought that was very reflective of his approach to being a person functioning in a role."

Every position comes with a set role, and the only dissonance possible is in terms of interpretation. That does not alter the inherent nature of the role. For true believers, the red shoes were not an impediment to their faith, just as the discarding of them will not be.

Ann Pellegrini, Associate Professor of Performance Studies & Religious Studies at New York University, goes over-the-top:

"The humility of his garments offers a way to visibly display his theological and material concerns for the poor. This Holy Roman emperor really does have new clothes."

While it is true that the Pope has been "approachable" and "humble" — though such a station is supposed to be about humility and subservience to god, is it not? — a reality check is needed here.

I am not a Catholic, or a practising believer in any organised faith system, but being surrounded by several streams of theological thought it is obvious to me that devotees, especially those unfortunate enough to be poor and homeless, do look up to pomp and splendour. It is their means of escapism. And, dare I say, hope.

Unlike the well-heeled and the educated, they do not marvel at church spires and stained glass windows, nor do they appreciate the fine filigree work of the Islamic architecture in mosques, nor the fine motifs in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist temples. But, the sheen of the altar, the sanctum, the idols does affect them. The brighter these are, the more dewy-eyed they get. This is not about materialism, but to experience what they do not possess. It is an egalitarian moment for them, for it renews their faith due to its obviousness. They seek no evidence of the power of an aura beyond what is evident, even as some of us might rationalise.

In fact, Esquire is doing just that. Yet, quite ironically, it is performing papal sort of duties by anointing the Pope with a grand gesture that contradicts the purported purpose of rewarding him: austerity.

© Farzana Versey

The rape 'excuse'

Why has everything become about rape? The US ambassador to India, Nancy Powell, was asked why Americans did not come to India for studies. This was during her visit to an institute in Ranchi. She replied:

"The concern for personal security and perceived increased danger to women as a result of the rape cases was perhaps a factor in US students' decision regarding study in India."

First let us get this out of the way. How many Americans would want to study in India? The obvious answer is, few, if at all. And these few would opt for an off-beat course, not any mainstream field of study.

India is a good education option for young people from Africa and the Middle East. One does not see European, American or Australian students here, unless their parents belong to the diplomatic corps or have jobs in the many multinational companies that have set up offices. They have a choice in the American School or the more elite institutions run by business houses.

The latter are doing a good job, in fact, of preparing Indian students to qualify for further studies in the West. Many of them will probably stay on, unless they have big daddies at home who will keep the swivel chair ready for them.

Chances are that nobody will bother to ask them about the dangers of living in any of the countries overseas due to fear of racist attacks, of gun culture, of teen pregnancies, of date rape, or of any of the problems that the young citizens of those countries face.

Certainly, it is disturbing that women's security is treated with such disdain in India. There is relentless harassment of female western tourists at some places and there have been cases of sexual crimes against them.

But, Ms. Powell is being unfair in using rape as the reason for students staying away. Or she is just feeding on the relentless media blitz following the Delhi gangrape and the articles that have kept up the momentum?

I have stated this often that we are indulging in the worst possible form of reductionism by making rape into an exhibit and repeating every detail, thereby objectifying the victim.

Instead of grabbing every news item and airing it, giving the cops their 15 minutes of fame, the media could be more proactive. It is not only about how the world perceives us, but how this sort of coverage impacts on minds. I am repeating myself, but this is creating ghettos where women are told to be afraid at every step.

The implication here is as bad as 'she brought it upon herself'. Women are told that if they venture into certain places, they could be raped. What does this mean? Would it not make sense to ensure that those places are well-secured if we know about the danger there?

And it would really help if all those Indians writing stories for the western media would not try and replace the old exotica with this backward society narrative. For, it is only one part of the truth. Those who capitalise on it constitute the rest of the this truth. They are the progressive regressors who use rape as an adjective without even realising how demeaning that is.

© Farzana Versey

---

This post is not to ignore the problems faced by women from outside, as you will see in this earlier piece: Can Indian men handle foreign women?

---
Image (only for representation): Latitude News

Ornamental messages: The Tanishq ad

A measure of how 'backward' a society is to see how it portrays progressiveness. If you need to pat someone for what is considered normal, then it only means you do not view it as quite normal.

The new Tanishq ad for its wedding collection shows what is being touted as a dusky woman, and a mother, getting married. This is supposed to be about breaking of taboos regarding colour and remarriage. In reality it is so bloody self-conscious, besides of course being elitist.

All those who look down upon television soaps should know that these aspects have been handled in them, and quite sensitively at that. There was one recent serial 'Na Bole Tum Na Maine Kuchch Kaha' where a mother of two remarries, and if it means anything she was dusky too. And at no point was it alluded to.

This commercial is about jewellery, and therefore the message too is ornamental. To posit the woman's duskiness we have a fair groom, which amounts to seeking the acceptance of the acceptable. When her daughter says she wants to go 'round and round' the fire when the marriage vows are being taken, it is the man who carries her, his role as knight and proactive partner consolidated.

Don't bother to see this in the light of some great reformist movement. Corporate India that deals with so-called modern sensibilities has played safe by using a religious ceremony, the male as being 'fair' to society, and of course the possibility of such progressive thinking being the prerogative of a few who can afford luxury and by default the luxury of ostensibly going against the norm.

Once again, the 'revolt' has been appropriated.

Bare lies

Would you expect a biology teacher who also takes a geography class to explain mountains and oceans in biology terminology? Or a writer of horror stories to pen a children's novel using the same language? Why then expect an adult film actress to necessarily go topless for a film of a different genre?

As the report states:

Ironic as it may sound, actress Sunny Leone, who is known for her porn films in the US, recently refused to go topless for a scene in her upcoming horror flick.

Why is it ironic? What she does, or did, in a related field was the demands of her work. She has joined Bollywood with different dreams, or else she would have continued in her old job. I have never heard her run down or give a sob story about her past profession, but it is only fair to let her make her choices.

There are other mainstream actors who do agree because of the 'demands of the script' and then go around sounding conservative or, worse, as victims of the industry. However, male actors like John Abraham or Ranbir Kapoor who have flashed their butt can go around citing this as their USP.

Sunny sees the cinema she is doing now differently, as she has every right to do. We are such hypocrites. Many will watch her adult stuff, but run her down and expect her to perform as per type. She finally gave that shot in a bikini.

However, a source has been quoted as saying:

"Though she was allowed to shoot wearing a top, it was later removed using computer graphics. Her breasts were then digitally superimposed from one of her earlier films."

I do not know how she has reacted, but it is a sneaky and unethical thing to do.

It is okay:

If she did not want to physically perform the scene, but has no issues with the portrayal.

It is not okay:

If this was done without her consent and defeats the purpose of her not wanting to even be seen bared.

In very old films, actresses wore flesh-coloured body clothes beneath their flounces and feathers. This included those who made short appearances in cabaret numbers. In some cases body doubles have been used for intimate scenes. They were aware that the audience would be unaware of the 'deceit' and would perceive it as their skin, so why did they do so? Simply because of the discomfort of performing such scenes with a crowd of lightmen, spotboys and others around.

In Sunny's case, the filmmakers think this is her territory anyway, so why the chariness? I have one question for these directors: they shoot such scenes often — are they expected to only direct such scenes and nothing else? And do they identify with these in their personal lives?

© Farzana Versey

---

Also: Of porn and pawns

---

Image: Sunny Leone with Naseerudding Shah and Sachin Joshi in the forthcoming 'Jackpot'