Web Board Comment of the Day

Tweet

In case you ever want to boost your estimation of just how smart you are, just head over to Rediff’s comment section. Rediff’s message boards are of course well known as a centre of excellence in dumbfuckness. But, of late, I’ve noticed that the Times of India boards have come up beautifully and are giving Rediff some stiff competition (ToI would win by a mile if the articles could be bought into the fray as well, but that wouldn’t be fair, I guess).

Here’s an excellent comment by Mister Paul (yes, ‘mister’; the man has my respect) with regard to an article on a rape incident.

The first thing, of course, is the remarkably organised manner in which he discusses dismemberment. With five points listed out as possible alternatives to Plan A (public hanging), he might as well have been talking about where to have the monthly office lunch. That said, you have to give to him; he is thorough. 12 years in jail in comparison is a bloody picnic. And while most of it is logical—not having your eyes, ears, tongue and penis would be somewhat uncomfortable—the thumb suggestion, it must be said, left me a bit disappointed. Knowing Mister Paul, I would have expected him to plumb for the chopping of the hands from the elbows down or at least the wrists. But then even the best do slip up once in a while and it’s still overall a most excellent comment.

By the way, Khushwant Singh supports castration for rapists. Jokes apart, I think it’s an extremely fair punishment.

P.S: Is ‘Rediff’ pronounced ‘read-if’ or ‘red-if’?

The Sangh and the Tiranga: a Love-Hate Relationship?

Tweet

While the BJP’s tamasha of trying to forcefully hoist the tricolour at Lal Chowk turned out to be a bit of a damp squib, what is really ironic is the new found love that the Sangh’s political arm has found for the tiranga considering the sneering condescension that its ilk has had for the Indian Flag historically. Having never come to terms with the modern concept of India where the state strives to be secular, the Sangh, in a fit of juvenile rage had (and still does) at many points during its history directed its ire at the State’s most prominent symbol, the Flag.

Ramachandra Guha writes in The Hindu:

“Their allegiances (the RSS’) were sectarian rather than national — indeed, they chose to elevate their own bhagwa dhwaj above the tiranga jhanda. Shortly after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, there were widespread reports of RSS activists trampling upon the tricolour. This greatly upset the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. In a speech on February 24, 1948, Nehru spoke sorrowfully of how "at some places, members of the RSS dishonoured the National Flag. They know well that by disgracing the flag they are proving themselves as traitors ... "

Savarkar, the brightest star in the Sangh’s somewhat fanciful firmament of history, would himself have been rather bemused, even angry, by all this brouhaha over trying to plant, of all things, the Indian Flag at Lal Chowk. Reacting to the approval of the flag by India’s Constituent Assembly on July, 1947, Savarkar had reacted with this statement:

"It can never be recognised as the National Flag of Hindusthan ... the authoritative flag of Hindusthan our Motherland and Holyland, ... can be no other than the Bhagava (saffron flag)... . to deliver expressly the message of the very Being of our Race... . It mirrors the whole panorama of our Hindu History. ... Hindudom at any rate can loyally salute no other Flag but this Pan-Hindu Dhwaja, this Bhagava Flag as its national Standard."

Not be be left behind, Golwalkar, the Sangh’s ideologue-in-chief had no love lost for the tiranga either. Here’s what he had to say on the flag in his book, Bunch of Thoughts:

‘‘Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country. Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating. Ours is an ancient and great nation with a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter vacuum in our minds?’’

Interestingly, as far as I know, till this day, the RSS headquarters does not hoist the Indian Flag. Maybe after Hubli and Lal Chowk, it's time to get them raths ready for a trip to Nagpur?

Republic or Independence Day?

Tweet

At the recently concluded Jaipur Literature Festival (an absolutely amazing event by the way), M.J. Akbar, while talking about his new book, Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan, claimed that India’s independence day was not really on the 15th of August; it actually fell on what is known as Republic Day. Meant more to jolt than to edify, the statement is true in a very narrow, technical sort of way. What India became on the 15th of August, 1947 was an “independent dominion” which sort of placed India in the same status as Australia or Canada—independent in every practical way but retaining the umbilical link with Britain via “His Majesty's Representative”, the Governor-General (as a result of the close links Mountbatten had with Nehru, he was chosen to be independent India's first Governor-General). With the adoption of the Constitution, India severed that link and opted to become a republic. Interestingly, in 1999, Australia held a referendum to decide whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament. The results of the referendum were negative and the Queen is still Australia’s head of state.

However, given how sacrosanct the 15th of August is in India’s nationalistic iconography, what is a bit incongruous is that for almost twenty years prior to freedom, the Congress had treated Dominion status as a sort of consolation prize that was hardly worth the effort. Starting from the Congress’ famous Purna Swaraj resolution in 1930 (Republic Day is celebrated on the 26th of January to commemorate this resolution which was passed on the same date in Lahore), complete independence from Britain was the only prize that the Congress stated it would accept. In 1930, when Gandhi requested Nehru to wait for two years before demanding complete independence, Nehru (with support from Bose) shot him down saying that he would not be able to even wait for two minutes. In a little more than a year Gandhi was also a full convert to the cause of Purna Swaraj (he had advocated “Swaraj” earlier as well but had never defined it very well) claiming in an interview to a journalist that “we will deny our existence if we do not press for it”.

However, politics being the art of the possible, the exigencies of 1946-47 pretty much made sure that the Congress (as well as the Muslim League) accepted whatever it got.

Absolute Master Speech, Sirji

Tweet

This is a speech by Obama at the Tucson memorial commemorating the shooting which killed six people as well as severely wounding a US member of Congress. A speech that moved me--filling me with a heavy hearted, almost patriotic reverence for the hero who stopped the gunman from reloading as well as making me smile sadly as Obama recounted the dreams of 9 year old Christina-Taylor Gree who wanted to be the first woman to play on the Major League (Baseball?). This, in spite of the fact that I have no emotional investment in the Tucson Shooting whatsoever--I didn't even know how to pronounce 'Tucson' before this incident. Which just goes to show how good an orator this man is. Listen to the speech.

Right Choice, Charia

Tweet

My mother grew up in Central Calcutta; Free School Street, to be precise. It’s not called that anymore, although its new name—Mirza Ghalib street—is not very well known and is also a bit ironic since the poet envied the growing ascendancy of Calcutta over Dehlee, penning this little ditty after a trip to the city: Kalkattey kaa jo zikr keeyaa tuney hamnasheen, ek teer mere seeney pe maaraa kee haaye haaye ("the very mention of Calcutta is like a dagger through my heart", or something to that effect).

Free School Street at the time (60s/70s) was populated mostly by Sindhis, I’m told, with a fair share of Anglos and Hindustanis—a quirky Calcutta/Bong term for Hindi speakers which alludes to the historical meaning of Hindustan, a region which more or less maps to the current Hindi belt. This population mix still holds, more or less, with Bangladeshi tourists being added to the mix (which has resulted in a couple of pretty decent Bengali restaurants there). Consequently, I’ve grown up eating a fair bit of Sindhi food that my naani picked up from her neighbors which was then in turn picked up by my mother. Daal pakwaan, chanaa daal with crisp, almost brittle, puri-esque fried bread, is a personal favourite and gee’ar—basically a latticed jumbo jalebi—is nice too. And although I don’t particularly like the tangy sindhi kadhi (I think it has imli in it), a lot of people in my family do and it was the only sort of kadhi cooked in my house.

Unfortunately, the Sindhi’s best food habit—as I’ve recently learnt from Wikipedia—never made it across to my naani’s house:

Johnnie Walker Black Label is considered the sindhi alcoholic beverage of choice. Many sindhis choose to drink this with Coca-Cola or Diet Coke

Quite.

P.S.: Charia is a really popular Sindhi swear word (it was, at least, popular with the Sindhis I've known). I don't know what it means though.

The Origins of Israel, Pakistan and Blasphemers

Tweet

Uri Avnery, in a fascinating article in Outlook, argues how the “secular nationalism” of Zionism (or so he claims) was marred by the State of Israel’s “non-separation between state and religion”

“This distinction between Israelis and Jews would not have surprised any of us 50 years ago. Before the foundation of the State of Israel, none of us spoke about a “Jewish state”. In our demonstrations we chanted: “Free Immigration! Hebrew State!” In almost all media quotations from those days, there appear the two words “Hebrew state”, almost never “Jewish state”.”

.

.

.

“The source of all this evil is, of course, the original sin of the State of Israel: the non-separation between state and religion, based on the non-separation between nation and religion. Nothing but a complete separation between the two will save Israel from total domination by the religious mutation.”

Interestingly, this is eerily close to a revisionist school of South Asian History which claims that the Pakistan—which, like Israel, is a confessional state founded on a 20th century ‘idea’—might have been envisaged by its founder as a ‘Muslim’ state but never a ‘Islamic’ state. Like Israel’s ‘Jewishisation’, Pakistan’s ‘Islamisation’ is a result of the country’s politics after the establishment of the state.

This, of course, is a controversial and highly charged subject in Pakistan’s politics. And like so many other historical figures—Attenborough’s Christ-like Mahatma, for example, bears very little resemblance to Gandhi—the Quaid-e-Azam of so many Pakistanis differs starkly from the historical Jinnah. It is said, only half in jest, that a politician’s stand on the matter can be deduced from the sort of portrait of Jinnah he has up: if J’s ‘suited up’, it’s a liberal’s wall you’re looking at; if he’s wearing an achkan/sherwani, the man who owns the portrait wouldn’t take too kindly to the revisionist school.

Whatever be the source of it, though, this malaise has become quite cancerous. Recently, a woman was sentenced to death by a Pakistani court for insulting the Prophet (prophets, as we all know, are in dire need of protection by just about anybody). Like most religion-based scuffles, the origins of the case are somewhat prosaic, rooted in a row over drinking water. Currently, the case is in Lahore’s high court with moves being made by Zardari to pardon her.

P.S: Just realised what a ridiculously pompous title this post carries. Oh well...

Football Shootball Hai Rabba.

Tweet

I'm a person who knows nothing about football: I don't play the game, don't watch it and (shockingly!) don't support a club which operates 2000 miles from where I live.

For this I have been made to suffer. Grievously. A disproportionately large number of conversations I join in abruptly turn to whatever football tourney is underway, leaving me with the delicate task of showing just enough interest in the thing to not be doubted ("you're a guy and you don't watch football? ...Huh!") while also appearing disinterested enough to not be asked my opinion on the matter. Not an easy task, as you must realise.

It, therefore, gives me much pleasure to share this little write-up about how being a football club fanboy means you’re nothing more than a mindless, retarded twit who can’t separate fact from fiction:

Being a fan, particularly in the hardcore club-loyalist sense, is in many ways a matter of deliberately sustaining a set of fictions. When players let us know that they see the game as a set of skills they practice for money, rather than as a midnight war of meaning waged for the soul of the universe, or whatever the guy says in the latest Adidas commercial, it becomes harder to sustain some of those fictions, so we get mad.

But the fictions themselves are basically childish, aren’t they? I don’t mean puerile or selfish, exactly just basically congenial to the consciousness of a child. Childlike. After all, that’s the consciousness that many of us possess when we first become sports fans and that we frequently turn to sports to help us sustain.11 There’s a comparison to be made here with the way American sports have evolved a sort of secondary mythology of “getting paid”—the kid from the projects winning the max contract and buying his mom a house. That might not make it easier for fans to take a star leaving their team, but it gives the star a sort of existential defense against charges of greed. The fantasy of the game is the dream of lifting yourself up and winning incredible riches. Obviously hip-hop culture has had something to do with formalizing that narrative, which is also obviously basically a version of the American Dream. But it’s still interesting it doesn’t seem to have any real equivalent in soccer. You can call the Fever Pitch model of fandom—the OMG ARSENAL ARE THE GREATEST CLUB EVER AND I HAVE THEIR POSTERS AND I LOVE THEM model—a lot of things, some good and some bad. But in its preoccupation with heraldry and its belief that the arbitrary group you happened to join possesses uniquely redemptive qualities as compared to other arbitrary groups that are self-evidently almost identical to it, it is paradigmatically nine years old forever.

Of course, what the author doesn’t realise is that the “belief that the arbitrary group you happened to join possesses uniquely redemptive qualities as compared to other arbitrary groups that are self-evidently almost identical to it” is pretty much held by all of humanity. Not necessarily with respect to football clubs but other stuff like nations or faiths. Which sort of means were all mindless, retarded twits who can’t separate fact from fiction.

Meh.