An educated Archbishop

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Cantebury visited Bangalore and took par tin an inter-religious convention meant to spread harmony among the various religious groups in Bangalore (and India). After the meet, a reporter asked him what was his position on gay rights (remember, the Archbishop was a strong supporters of gay Bishops), and pat came the reply "I support gay rights in the civil domain". Now there's an educated clergyman, I thought to myself. And educated indeed he his. Dr. Rowan Williams, aka the Archbishop of Cantebury, is a professor of Theology, but unlike most theologians, isn't someone whose nose is lost between the pages of the books he reads and he seems to have his finger on the pulse of society, and on general science. Most importantly (in my view), he is AGAINST creationism. Wow! This is one cool Christian clergyman. I'm sure it would be a pleasure talking to such people. I only wish there are more of his kind to come.

True, there have been some shocking statements as well (he said England should embrace Sharia law, but since I'm not aware of the facts fully on that issue, I'll refrain from passing comment). However, the position of the top clergyman from the Church of England seems to put him in a direct confrontation with the former Nazi in the Vatican.

The verdict a nation waited for

For more than 60 years now, a quiet (but of late, very vocal) court battle was being waged between, essentially, Muslims and the Sunni Waqf board on one side, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu denomination of devotees of Hanuman, and various Hindu groups under the umbrella of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). This tripartite battle for a few acres of land in the quiet town of Ayodhya began in 1949, but could very well trace its origins to well before the 16^th century.

The issue before the court: who owns the land on which the Babri Masjid stands (in spite of an attempt to demolish it by Hindu fanatics in a wanton act of terrorism). The 3 judge panel of the Allahabad high court gave the verdict, which when viewed through the lenses of religiosity, can be said 'favours' the Hindu position. Over the past few days, we've seen and heard a plethora of opinions (that's one thing we'll never be short of in India), some pouring scorn over it, while some hailing it as statesmanly. So here's my take on the judgement, and being a non-believer, I guess I'm in a (slightly) better position to make an objective assessment on such a matter.

Demolishing arguments of the Hindu groups

Just because there existed a temple on the spot where the Babri Masjid stands, irrespective of whether or not the temple was demolished to construct a mosque, is no grounds to have a temple today. The temple, if it existed, did so in an era when the land it was in was not the India as we know it as today. It was not the republic it is today - it was a Mughal (Muslim) empire that was ruling back then and hence the discriminations against the Hindus. The India we live in today is different, and so trying to have a oneupmanship in terms of religion doesn't serve any useful purpose.

Demolishing arguments made by critics of this judgement, one by one

The first and foremost argument any rational person would make in a dispute like this is: is the court a suitable authority to pass judgement on religion and matters of pure faith? And the rational answer has to be an emphatic no. It's quite obvious that religious beliefs fall outside the purview of a court because if a court has to decide, it would need to do so based on evidence, irrefutable evidence, and so any such claim about an almighty would not stand legal scrutiny. So to begin with, both (all) parties should have appreciated that taking religious matters to a court could open a Pandora's box, and seems like that's precisely what seems to have happened.

Critics of the judgement (notably Muslims, and those trying to gain political mileage) argue that the judgement was based on faith and not evidence. Well, on the face of it, no one can find fault with that statement. However, think about it, if the court hadn't considered faith and based it's judgement on grounds of faith and practice and tradition, then what's to stop anyone from filing suits in courts across the country, basically dismissing all religious practices by people of any religion because there isn't any proof of existence of such an ALmighty? What's to stop someone from filing a suit saying tax payers money shouldn't be used to subsidise the Haj for Indian Muslims, because their faith and practices based on their religion has no proof that a God called Allah, their God, actually exists. In fact Mohammad himself never saw Allah, so what proof can be submitted to stand legal scrutiny? Non-believers like me and other civil citizens have for far too long cried ourselves hoarse that public money shouldn't be used for religious purposes in a secular democracy, so by questioning this judgement, aren't Muslims (or other religious groups) endangering the practice of Islam (or their respective religions) itself in India?

So now that I've quite easily dismissed the arguments against the 'faith-based' judgement, let's focus on the other issue most Muslims and pseudo-secularists have raised, namely, what's to stop Hindus from petitioning courts for other sites that they may claim to be disputed and having more mosques razed because "according to our beliefs, there used to be a temple here". Well, it's very easy to dismiss that argument and allay their fears. In 1991, an Act of Parliament called the Places of Worship Act was passed to specifically prevent any such thing from happening. Since the Babri Mosque land dispute was already in court, it was excluded. The act (which became law) states that "It is hereby declared that the character of a place of worship existing on the 15^th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it on that day.". So if a place was a Mosque (or any place of worship) at the time of independence, it will continue to do so and no one can change that today, or any day in the future. So hopefully this will allay the fears of all Muslims and those finding fault with the judgement.

The last of the more vociferous arguments made by the clerics is that the Islamic law doesn't allow them 'donate' or 'gift' the land or property (includes Mosques) that is under the control of the Waqf board. Well, if that be the case, and if the character of Islam is universal, can someone from the Muslim side explain the fact that the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, which was once a Church, and then later a Mosque, was finally converted into a museum by the Turkish ruler Mustafa Kemal Ataturk? The use of the premises for prayer (by any religion) is strictly prohibited (although a small portion inside the museum is now used by museum staff to pray, but both Christians and Muslims pray here). Since there are no remonstrations by Muslims anywhere, we can safely assume that in special circumstances, special measures can be taken. So the argument that Muslim Waqf board cannot enter into discussions for a settlement or compromise is also scuttled.

It seemed as though most eminent Muslims from civil society who chose to brand the judgement as 'one-sided' seem have done so in haste and not based on the evidence placed before the court. Farah Naqvi, one of the more vocal critics of the judgement, came across as someone who seemed to want the 'minority' tag to be worn proudly by Muslims and other religious minorities, much like how a large section of Hindu society seem to revel in being called 'backward' and belonging to a 'lower caste', so that they can reap benefits of social programmes of the government and other such benefits. Vitriolic barbs by such personalities conveys the wrong impression to regular folk who watch TV, who'd naturally think that since personalities as Ms. Naqvi have slammed the verdict, it couldn't be for any other reason other than the fact that the courts have been partial.

Some people have criticised the judgement for being "one that should have been taken by the politicians". I was aghast when I heard that this was being used as an argument against the verdict. Since the political class did not exhibit the required testicular fortitude to chalk out a solution, the court, given the fact that the sentiments of a large religious section (largest in India) were to be considered as it was part of the case, and that neither side could conclusively prove ownership (some claims were dismissed as being time barred), delivered a verdict that was rightly called 'statesmanly' by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, one would have expected a more hearty acceptance. I see no reason for Muslims to feel aggrieved as being truly secular would have enabled anyone to see the enormity of the issue before the courts. If Muslims (or any religion) want their religious beliefs taken seriously and be given the freedom to practice them without any objection, then how can they oppose the beliefs of a different community?

To me, the entire feeling of betrayal and subsequently blaming the court for passing a verdict based on faith and not evidence arose because it was taken to court in the first place. Matters of religion and faith need to be discussed in a domain where hard, empirical evidence isn't needed, but compassion and understanding and a mutual feeling of brotherhood and magnanimity is exhibited and reciprocated. That is the India Gandhi and Nehru dreamt of, that is the India the great book, our Constitution, envisions for India, that is what we as Indians need to work towards.

Jawohl, mein Pope!

Oh sorry, the original line goes "Jawohl, mein Fuhrer", which, of course was a salutation given to the one and only Adolf Hitler, during the heights of Nazism. I just learnt that Prof. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are consulting lawyers in England whether the Pope can be arrested during his visit to the country later this year. The charge? Crimes against humanity, of course. To be more specific, the Catholic Church's covering up of the sex scandals involving priests and the rampant sexual abuses of young children that has scarred their lives forever, so in essence, allowing sex offenders to be guarded against the course of law.

So can the Pope be arrested? For one, the Vatican put out a lousy and feeble defense by saying that he's (Pope) a head of state (The Vatican) and so cannot be arrested during a state visit. Well, Prof. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens are contesting that claim as well, and don't believe that he is an actual head of state, and given a chance, would have him branded as a tin-pot dictator of a fiefdom filled with men dressed in fancy costumes.

So what's Papa Ratzi's fault in the whole sex scandal and the raping of the young children you may ask, especially since he certainly didn't commit any of those crimes (at least, none that we know of). True, but then, as the boss, you're responsible for your subordinates, the buck stops with him, so there's the question of moral responsibility involved here. But hang, trash moral responsibility, there's direct complicity in the cover-up of these sordid affairs, and in helping with the cover up (specific letters bearing his signature and seal asking for the priests to be let off), the old man is guilty of helping criminals who raped children to go scot free. Now that, dear reader, is a crime. Old man Adolf (yes, Hitler) never really pushed into a gas chamber or shot any Jew himself (again, none that we know of), although I'm sure he'd have loved to, but he gave the orders and was the boss and didn't prosecute any of the foot soldiers who committed the crimes, ergo, guilty as hell. I know the analogy isn't 100% accurate because in the Pope's case, he didn't order the priest to rape children, or have sex with women and father their children (in some cases, the foetuses were aborted - something the Church is actually vehemently opposed to - or the women were payed hush money to keep quiet in case they had the child). But since he was directly involved in the cover-up and in helping the accused get away without any punishment, he can be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal in avoiding criminal prosecution.

So for all the fans of the Pope reading this as well as those of you who may not be a fan but don't mind if the Pope continues in his merry ways, here's some food for thought: do we send out a signal to the world that if you have a title like priest or cardinal or Pope (in this case, I've mentioned only titles associated with the Church, but you get the point), then you can get away with raping children? I wonder if, as a species, we can show some collective testicular fortitude and say 'No' to the question asked above and go ahead and prosecute the man. I guess that's what happens when you have a former Nazi running your affairs! And on a side note, I wonder if the Pope or any of those priests who are guilty would like taking it up their ass when in prison. If the answer is 'no', they should have thought about it before sticking their penises into the rectums of young children.

Another post detailing the 'crimes' of the Vatican and the former Nazi Ratzinger can be read here, from the CBC News Network.. It's got a nice title: Sex, Crimes, and the Vatican. ROTFLMAO!!!

Below is a YouTube video of Hitchens explaining the deal.

The die is caste

Last week, a court in Haryana gave the death penalty to 5 members of a family and sentenced the panchayat to life in prison. This indeed was a landmark judgment of sorts as it was the first (if I remember rightly) where honour killing was condemned where the local panchayat and the family members were involved. I'd have been happier if the panchayat were also given the death penalty as in every other walk of life, we also hold the head who gave the orders equally guilty of the crime - be it a Dawood or a Hafiz Saeed or a Raj Thackeray.

The larger point in question here is the role caste still plays in 21^st century India. Critics of this blog and closeted supporters of the caste system will point out that this case happened in a rural, backward village in Haryana (OK, when we say rural village in Haryana it's a given that it's going to be backward) and we can't equate the mindset of the people living there who continue to live in a feudalistic society, with the mindsets of those living in urban India. Well, if you're willing to buy that crap, I've got a dog that lays eggs that you might be interested in buying.

Caste is prevalent in almost every section of society and isn't exclusive only to the rural societies. Ask most of your friends and colleagues around you about marriages that happen to their relatives, and if it's arranged, then caste and horoscopes are matched and only if a 'perfect match' is found, will the parents on both sides agree to get down into discussing the nitty gritties of the marriage. I know of people here at work who actually shudder (you can see them shake) when asked if they would marry someone of a different caste, so when that kind of a mindset is prevalent even amongst the urban, English educated in our society, why is it that we only assume that the problem lies with the uneducated or the undereducated folks in the countryside? Is this an inherent hypocrisy that we've accepted as 'natural' for those living in the cities and driving cars and watching English news channels and claiming to be part of the great Indian middle class?

Now I'm not saying that just because you would want to get married to someone from the same caste makes you like the panchayat who ordered the death of the couple, but ask yourself whether the initial point of origin of the problem is the same or not in both cases. The way people choose to deal with the issue of couples marrying out of caste may vary - in some cases (very rare, but I'll go on to call them the model citizens) parents and family have absolutely no problem and the couple are allowed to be live their lives happily, but even in most urban households (usually orthodox ones), either the boy or the girl or both are threatened (physically, emotionally, or both) and/or there is outright opposition because the other person is from a different caste, and finally the orthodox rural folks who believe in the system of family honour trumping all individual rights and opt for 'taking out' the vermin from their midst. I also know of people who sugar coat the 'caste-based marriages should be the norm' argument saying that it's the only way they can ensure that there would be no conflicts after the marriage because of different traditions and practices owing to their different backgrounds. What a silly excuse that is - almost like saying that I have a bad habit and you have a bad habit, and I can't let you continue with your bad habit because, well, it's bad!

Why am I calling these 'bad habits' is probably the most obvious thing going around in your head. Simple - if whatever conflict arises from traditions because of a difference in caste (or religion), conflicts that are bad enough for people to change/choose different persons to make their spouse, means there's a problem in the thinking of one (or both) of the parties involved. So my point is, do you really want to marry someone who is of such a mentality, where he/she cannot accept someone else because that person was born to parents who belong to a different caste, a birth where they really had no say in? And if you do agree that the weird superstitions, beliefs, and practices that religion and caste bring along (I'm not talking about cultural traditions here, only the unproven beliefs and practices), then why is caste such a big deal to you? Think hard and objectively, and you may realise that deep down, it probably is ingrained into you just by the way you were brought up. And if that is true, why do you send your kids to schools where it is taught that religion and caste shouldn't matter and shouldn't be used to differentiate between folks? You might as well send your kid(s) to a madrassa or some such religious/caste-based seminary and at least save yourself from being called a hypocrite.

Three to tango - 4

Actually there were 4 things, and I had forgotten about the fourth things that irked me. Ram Jethmalani (RJ), one of the most eminent lawyers in the country, made a statement that led to the Saudi envoy walking out of a conference. RJ said that an 18th century Saudi national (back then there wasn't a country called Saudi Arabia) called Mohammad Al Wahabi, went on to create the Wahabi brand of Islam followed in Saudi today, was one of the main reasons for Islamic terrorism today, as all Islamic terrorists follow the same brand of Islam. Factually, this statement was correct. Al-Wahabi didn't like the direction Islam was going in the 18th century, and so decided it was time to tighten the screws, and so decided on going tough when it came to following the religion. The result - the archaic way the religion is practiced in modern day Suadi Arabia, where women have to walk around in 'bee-keeper suits' (quoting Bill Maher), and punishments are straight out of the Sharia - so thieves have their hands chopped off, rapists have their penis chopped off, murderers can be stoned to death, women suspected of cheating on their spouses can be stoned, or publicly lashed, etc.

Now RJ's statement was a factual one, and for the Saudi envoy to walk away in a huff seemed a little childish (for lack of a better expression), since RJ didn't go on to say "there fore all Saudi nationals are terrorists", and neither did he say anything bad about Islam. Sadly, this irked the Saudi envoy, but what's worse (in my opinion) was that our law minister had to get up and go and say that this isn't the government's view. Wait a minute. Our government is pro-Wahabi Islam? We're pro all the medieval punishments and medieval mindset espoused by the late Al-Wahabi? I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where we had a change in foreign policy, but who made this change exactly?

I wonder why the media doesn't pick up issues like these and grill the so-called secular Congress party that is leading the government. Somehow, our country's media seems to have gotten into the mindset that beating the BJP and siding with the Congress is secular. They ago all out at any given opportunity against right wing Hindu extremism (which I too am against), but go soft on other issues that could showcase the Congress in poor light. Wake up people, do a little more research into the stories, and what's more, put a little more thought into what stories you want to run with. They don't always have to be about how bad the religious extremists from the majority party are (a phenomenon that started after religious extremism from a minority community) - we already know that, and hate it (their extremism), so could you show something new now? Please?

A riposte to Barkha Dutt: Why Sarkozy is right

When Sarko came out with his statement that burqas are not allowed in France, there was a lot of hue and cry from Muslims all over the world, and not to be left behind, Muslims in India as well went riling against his comments. Now, let's take a closer look and analyse what he said and why there was nothing wrong with it.

In his speech at the Palace of Versailles, Sarkozy said "The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," and continued to say "it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic." Now let's take the statement apart, and consider the first part "The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience". Can any self-respecting woman, irrespective of religion and putting aside religious considerations, tell me that the burqa is a 'good' thing? Or that the burqa isn't descrimatory? Remember, forget what religion says, I'm saying purely on common sense and from the principle of equality, isn't the burqa a sign of subservience?

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's take the second part of his statement, "it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic". Last I checked, he was the President of France, and going by that title and the job description, he's the chap who gets to make the rules (ok, let's not get technical here, he signs the bill, etc etc etc), and since France is a sovereign country, it gets to make it's own rules, without the inputs from Muslims or anyone else from anywhere.

Now let's look at why Muslims and a lot of 'sympathysers' were up in arms. Their main bone of contention was that this was not curtailing religious freedom, and that Sarkozy had not right to comment about Islam. On both counts, they're partially right. Partially. How so would be the natural next question. For starters, wearing a burqa is not 'mandatory' for a Muslim woman to be wearing (it's never mentioned in the Quran, so please don't tell me that it is), it's an article of choice. If it were mandatory, then we'd be seeing all Muslim women all over the world donning one, and we don't, ergo, it's not mandatory. Since it isn't mandatory, making sure that no one wears one because of the country's stance (France is secular - dictionary secular, not the corrupted, contorted, distorted secular we have in India) is perfectly OK. Please note the words carefully - I said because of the country's stance, secular in this case, . I don't see how can people from one country ask another country to change their laws because these people don't want it. Even the top Muslim cleric at the biggest mosque in Paris himself has said that the burqa isn't mandatory for women, so I don't see why Muslims and mullahs elsewhere have to get so worked up.

Next, on whether Sarkozy had the right to make a comment about what is Islam and what isn't, those opposing his statement were right. He has no business telling Muslims what is Islamic and what isn't. All he needed to do was modify his statement to "the burqa is a sign of subservience" and leave out the part where he commented that it isn't a sign of religion.

Now why have I titled the post as A riposte to Barkha Dutt? It's because of an article I came across in the Hindu dated June 28th 2009 by Barkha. The first thing that shocked was her comment that she found the statement "the burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience" of Sarkozy, 'offensive', especially since she had prefixed that statement claiming to be a liberal. She said the debate on the veil is too complex to be reduced to sweeping generalisations. I agree generalisations are always bad, but how is this a generalisation? Saying something is bad, because of having an opposing stance (treating men and women equally with dignity) is not a generalisation. What Barkha refuses to admit (in her write ups and on her show) is that in India, we have got the idea of secularism wrong. It's because of a slightly twisted definition we follow here (the Indian version of secularism seems more romantic) that . Knowing the correct definition of the word secular would automatically make for a change in stance.

Where the hypocrisy of many Muslims shines through is when they cry foul over what Sarko says, but stay mum on issues like the treatment of minorities in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world. For instance, religious minorities aren't allowed to worship their deities in these countries publicly, they can't have places of worship here, during the month of Ramazan, they can't be seen eating in public to name a few examples. Why don't Muslims leaders and clerics in India raise their voices against these issues? India sends a large work force to the Gulf countries, shouldn't their rights be protected as well? Here, the Muslims will tell you that "oh, but it's their country... their laws apply there... we shouldn't interfere". Need I say more about the hypocrisy?

One very important point to take note of is that a lot of Islamic countries enforce non-Muslim women to cover their heads while in public. Isn't this tantamount to interfering with a person's personal beliefs and choice? Au contrare, I'll let you know that it's more of a cultural phenomenon, something endemic to that particular land, and so if the law of the land demands that, then so be it. I can understand if the demands made are unreasonable, but certainly this isn't unreasonable. Some time ago, In the UK, Muslim women refused to have their photos taken for licenses without the burqa - if this isn't shocking to anyone then something's wrong with them. How can we, in this day and age of terrorism, accept it if people want to hide their faces for photographs?

By getting rid of the veil isn't homogenising society - Muslim women can still go to a Mosque and pray (or wherever they pray, since they pray separately from men), they can still fast during the month of Ramazan, and still continue to be dominated by men of their religion - none of that will change. It's about time someone in our country has the balls to, if not ask for an outright ban, at least get a debate started over whether this is required or not. Like they say, "it would be a cold day in hell when that happens".

Carla, you beauty

Isn't she a peach? No wonder that guy Sarkozy (yes, the same, the French President) went out of his way to get rid of his first wife and married her. Now I'm sure while there are other steamy pictures of Carla Bruni (which won't be making their way into this blog - at least for this post), I just became a big fan of the lady for her recent comments about a certain Joseph Ratzinger aka the Pope.

While it's well known that almost every person who's donned the (funny) hat of the Pope has been against the use of contraception (condoms) because it's against the Christian religion, some of them have gone out of their way with certain comments like saying that condoms ARE the cause of AIDS in Africa, and that "condoms don't work", and such tripe. Secularists and health officials have forever lamented at the Church's position on contraception, and it certainly comes as a breath of fresh air that the first lady of a western nuclear power has come out in the open and said that although she's a Catholic, she still thinks of herself as secular (the actual meaning of secular and not the twisted meaning that is taught here in India). Bless you babe, I mean, ma'am, show that ex-Nazi that we won't take everything he throws this way lying down. And don't worry Sarko, she hasn't caused anger among your conservative vote base, and if they actually did get angry at her comments, it's now for you to decide if you're going to back your wife who said the right thing, or play to the base.

We survived, in spite of the politicians

I'm writing this post well past midnight, when the terrorist attack in Mumbai enters its third day - more than 48 hours later, more than 160 dead bodies and more than 250 injured. Where have we gone wrong? Well, in fact, that in itself is a wrong question, because the real question is where haven't we gone wrong? The attack actually shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to us because there are so many holes in the existing apparatus (and mind you, I say holes, and not just loopholes). The Taj Mahal hotel still burns, but the scars that this latest attack will leave on the families will be permanent. I say only families because the rest of the hoi polloi will forget about all of this by the end of next week and we're all going to go back and forget about the necessities lacking by our men in uniform.

The media:
So, again, what did we see going wrong? Let's start from the coverage. We saw shots of the electronic media try to brush past hotel security and police of the Taj and/or Oberoi to find out who was firing inside. While the action on it's own can be seen as commendable, the fact that the security personnel were pleading, I say again, pleading, with them not to go closer was unheeded. Since when did the cops have to plead with someone to allow them to do their duty? We often blame our security personnel as being insensitive because of their lack, or the level of education they have received, but when educated TV journalists so nonchalantly try to brush past these men and women of the security, like it's some right they possess because they come with a microphone and a camera, it is absolutely disgusting.

Staying with the media, I was struck by the hypocrisy of certain eminent figures from the electronic media, who talked about the politicising of terror. What exactly is this 'politicising of terror'? As far as I know, and from what I've learnt in school, the role of an opposition party in a democracy is to raise uncomfortable questions of the government when it is found wanting. I understand that at the very moment of a crisis may not be appropriate, because the government would have it's hands full with dealing the situation at hand, but otherwise what's wrong? Tomorrow if the state of garbage disposal is in a bad shape, and the opposition raises a stink about it, will it be called politicising sanitation?

Rajdeep Sardesai, the editor-in-chief of CNN-IBN, was understandably distraught with the events in his hometown of Mumbai., and more so with the death of ATS chief Hemant Karkare. However, every time a member of the public expressed anger on his show at the government's apathy towards a better plan to improve the security of the country, he termed it as understandable anger and empathised with them, but when politicians of the opposition, whose job it is to point flaws in the governments' actions, asked the same questions at the government, he termed it as politicising terror. Why the double-standards Mr. Sardesai? If you cannot maintain the levels of levelheadedness required to remain neutral (at least pretend to remain neutral) while doing your journalistic duties, then maybe you should have allowed your colleagues to take over, and you could have taken a break at one of the smaller cafés and chilled out a little. The last thing the gullible public needed at such a time, especially in an era where most of them (the public) have outsourced their thinking to the media, were the ramblings of an obviously emotional journalist.

Let's not leave out their old adversaries, NDTV, that constantly kept giving close up face shots of the NSG commandos. Now this may not seem inappropriate to most, but ask any security expert worth his/her money, and they'd tell you that it's not desirable, especially when the face shots are taken along with the names of the commandos printed on their tunics on the right side of their chest.

Society:
Even as the NSG were engaged with the terrorists at Nariman house, where a Jewish Rabbi and his family were the targets (and sadly, they were killed even before the commandos had a chance to save them), the public outside were cluttered around like items in an untidy apartment. Just why did the public deem it necessary to be this close to the action, where a stray bullet, or shrapnel from exploding ordinances could quite easily have killed or seriously injured. What's more, the milling crowds proved to be a hindrance to the security forces, as even ambulances couldn't get through in time, and the police had to resort to a lathi-charge! Imagine that, a terrorist crisis, and the police had to resort to use the lathi against it's own people because they were a little too curious for their own good. Such things can happen only in India - and I say this with a lot of shame.


The politicos:
Blaming the political class is something we do all the time (justifiably on almost all occasions), and at this time, it would almost sound rhetorical, so I'll keep away from it (which in no way means they are innocent and don't deserve their fair-share of blame). The amount of anger and rage against the ruling political class is near boiling point, and in some cases could well have shot past the threshold limit. I am now continuing after the attacks have ended and more the 190 people are dead, and over 300 injured.

It took me a lot longer to continue after I started because at most of the times, tears had filled my eyes and I just couldn't concentrate on what to write - my mind was numb! My thoughts kept returning to the television images and I kept gravitating towards the TV set in the hope that this time when I switch it on, I would hear the news I'd been wanting to hear- all over. But it took a lot longer. I vividly remember a placard held by a citizen after the ordeal. It read:
"Mr. Politician, I'm alive in spite of you". I couldn't have said it better. Hats off to you my lad, may you live for as long as you wish.

What's more, I know everyone will ask for the resignation of the Home Minister, but I have a slightly different angle to this: the Home Minister Mr. Shivraj Patil didn't even deserve to be at that post in the first place. No, this isn't the usual rhetoric that we usually hear, the usual cynical remarks from cynics like me and others. In the assembly elections that took place in 2004, Shivraj Patil lost! That's right, Patil lost the election from his constituency of Latur, but was still made the home minister because of his seniority and closeness to Sonia Gandhi. He was later elected via the Rajya Sabha, the back-channel route often used by parties across the spectrum, if they know they've got to satisfy incompetent, slobbering, egotistical , diseased-looking bastards like Mr. Shivraj Patil who exist among their ranks. So no one in the ruling UPA can claim that it's the people who voted them in, because although their alliance may have received a majority by the people, that incompetant slob Shivraj Patil did not enjoy the peoples confidence, and hence had no place in the cabinet in the first place.

The heartburn:
My sadness was for the lives lost, my sadness was for the economic impact this would have on the city and the country indeed, but most of all, it was because the Taj Mahal hotel was targeted. This hotel is the symbol of Indian defiance against the British, an engineering structure that told the occupying British that we Indians are not just as good as you, but can be better.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the history of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, let me explain a thing or two to you.
>> Firstly, this isn't part of the Taj group of hotels, this is owned by the Tata group - yes, the same Tata group that will roll out the $2500 car called the Nano, the same Tata group that bought over Land Rover and Jaguar, headed by Mr Ratan Tata.
>> Secondly, and more importantly, the reason I said this was a symbol of defiance against the British, was because this hotel, which was built under the leadership of the late Mr. Jamshedji Tata, was built because of the racist behaviour faced by the late Mr. Tata. When he had visited the Apollo Hotel in Bombay (then run by the ruling British) to meet investors, he wasn't allowed inside because he wasn't white. So he had a bigger and grander hotel built, not just for Indians to visit, but also to cock a snook at the Poms to show them that we can build better structures than them.

And it was this very heritage structure of India that took a hit, and it was this very structures' devastation that burned many a heart, including mine. The only saving grace is that the plan to blow it up and bring it crashing like the world trade centers in New York failed, and so it can be looked like a silver lining in an otherwise very dark cloud.

The real heroes:
Our cops and the commandos. The defence forces are only remembered when we want them to sacrifice their lives to save ours, and at all other times we are too busy shopping or watching movies, never once giving a thought to the fact that we are able to indulge in these very activities because of these men in uniform. Hats off to the police, the Army commandos, the NSG, and the Naval Marine Commandos (Marcos), for their selfless actions.

The rogue elephant in the room:
It's about time we stop dilly-dallying about the reasons why such young youth would indulge in such dastardly acts of violence and destruction. Its quite obvious that the amount of brain-washing that would have gone into them can only be the results of one thing - what many sane and rational thinkers would refer to as the elephant in the room, and what I refer to as the rogue elephant in the room - religion. It's about time we, not just the government, but as a people who are secular in our thoughts, beliefs and actions, take initiatives and urge those involved in proselytising, fanaticism, religious indoctrination, monotheism, etc. to put an immediate end to it, or soon, vigilante justice would be meted out to those who are even remotely connected to this, and predictably, there would be innocents who suffer as well. It's time we woke up and took stock of the situation, and we'd better do it fast. That elephant seems to be running amok and no one seems to be noticing it.

Trump cards of - religions

I came across this post on the New Humanist's website, written by Christina Martin. It deals with trump cards for some of the popular religions around the world. An extremely crafty and wonderfully conceived idea, executed to perfection. May there be many more born like you Christina. Muah!

Reposted from New Humanist:























I'd marry this Christina Martin if she were available, and was willing to marry me. Why can't we have more creative people like her?

Secularism was lost in 1947 itself

Secular

sec·u·lar [sek-yuh-ler]
–adjective

1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion.

Secular state: A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions.

Note that the definitions clearly state that secular means no connection to religion, as opposed to the popular belief that it means all inclusive.

***

Oh how the Congress party has screwed up the meaning of the word secular, almost to a point where it seems to have been distorted on purpose. Being brought up in India, and having attended a prestigious school in Bangalore, I, like millions and millions of Indians of my generation and generations past (post independence) and present learnt and continue to learn about the Indian freedom struggle. The greatness about independent India, which elevated its status above that of the Muslim breakaway real estate called Pakistan, was its secular principles and foundations. And by secular, we were taught it meant a principle where all religions are treated equally. Maybe it's semantics, but this actually is quite misleading. For the 25 years I have existed I did not check the dictionary to see what the word secular means. Now when I did, I got a rude shock. For many, what follows may not seem important as the difference between what we were taught and what the reality is may be too subtle to fathom, but then again, I'm not writing this blog for that majority alone, but even for those for whom it may matter.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister, was the one who proposed the secular model for the Indian nation, and being an atheist, he knew the true meaning of secularism, which is, that the state shall not be influenced by any religion, and that there will be a separation of church and state (in this case, separation of church, temple, mosque, gurudwara, monastry, synangogue, etc from the state). However, the rest of the congressmen did not see the merit in this, and instead of separating the state from religion, it was agreed to include all religions. That's where the seeds were sowed and we are reaping the problematic harvest now.

If the state were detached from religion, there wouldn't have been a problem when religious nutters oppose abortion because of their religion, there wouldn't have been the problem of muslim women not being given a fair share in inherited property because in Islam, women are looked down upon and don't get a fair deal. This was amply exemplified when an immature, playboy Prime Minister, Rajeev Gandhi, did not follow the Supreme Court's direction in the Shah Bano case, for fear of upsetting the Muslims, in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in her favour and putting the doctrine of fairness and equality of the sexes above the doctrine of the religion. A truly secular verdict, followed by a purely political and insensitive action by the Congress party.

Another instance where religion continues to get the beter of secularism is when it comes to the use of contraception. The Church is into overdrive with its take on the use of contraception, in spite of the large population and the rampant spread of HIV and AIDS and other STDs. The rights of homosexuals would certainly have been protected had the country been truly secular, instead of a disgusting, awful tasting mixture of all the religions and dirty Indian politics. Instead, homosexuals are treated as diseased members of society, where the exremists demand lynching and the moderates offer 'treatment'. Education won't cure an extremist, but I strongly doubt if it can even cure the moderates. Thank goodness the religious fools who raise their ugly heads every now and then haven't excelled too far ahead in science, or they would soon be opposing stem cell research as well.

Our country is more than 60 years old, and in terms of the democracies around the world, we are very young. But what is sad is that like most youngsters, we are headed down the wrong path, and seem to be developing some very bad habits. Old habits die hard they say. You bet, as can be seen in our continued acceptance and blind following of the twisted version of a beautiful concept called secularism.

Religulous: A must watch for all those who consider themselves rational human beings

Religulous:

-noun
A word made up by Larry Charles and Bill Maher, which is a combination of religion and ridiculous, and an unscripted, uproarious comedy directed by Larry Charles and produced and starring Bill Maher.

When the movie The da Vinci Code was released world wide, there was a big hue and cry from the Jesus camp protesting against the movie, and in India, they went a step further (just to prove their lunacy) and asked for the film to be banned, even though the author of the book had stated categorically that it was a work of fiction.

Living in the world's largest democracy, I have little or no hope of watching the movie Religulous in a cinema theatre (I say this with a lot of pain) because the religious hoodlums of the monotheistic faiths will hijack the democratic process and snatch away my right to watch a perfectly legal documentary/comedy film. This isn't to say that the nutters in the Hindu religion would have allowed the screening of any film that could result in the public developing a negative perception about the religion. That's how bad the rot has set in here, that people will not be allowed to read or watch something that can get them to think a little bit, because even if the film or book is not directly offensive, what if it leads people to question some of the long held beliefs?

Religulous is one such movie, where in spite of there being no hostility or propaganda against any religion, and it just being a film where Bill Maher goes about asking people, just asking them, why they believe some of the things they believe in. He asks them if they actually think it's real, (all the fairy tales they believe in) with the intention to only show how sometimes even educated people can behave irrationally when it comes to religion, the religious right of the monotheistic religions (I say only monotheistic because Hinduism, Sikhism, etc haven't been featured in the film) will have the common man believe that this film is out to target only their religion and it's a direct attack on their faith and so needs to be banned. In the movie, Maher makes it quite clear that he isn't saying that he's certain that there is no God, he's saying "I don't know", the three most difficult words it would seem to hear from the mouth of a believer. The aim is quite clearly to let people know that there are some things that are still not understood and making up fairy tales just won't do. And yet I won't be surprised if ministers will put bounties on the heads of Bill Maher and director Larry Charles, including the revered Hyderabad MP from the right wing Islamofascist party, the MIM, Asauddin Owaisi and his cowardly relative (nephew I think) Akbaruddin, who was last seen trying to scare Taslima Nasreen and threaten her with decapitation.

It's sad that our country has to be the country where those belonging to the middle-eastern monotheistic religions have to prove themselves to their counterparts in the rest of the world that they can more religious (meaning, more insane) when it comes to showing their faith towards their religion. After all, the Muslims had very successfully managed to convince an immature prime minister Rajiv Gandhi to ban The Satanic Verses even before the Ayatollah of Iran issued a ban and a fatwa on Salman Rushdie. It's extremely unfair that people like me who are true secularists (and usually have a good laugh at the expense of these religious nutters) have to have our rights of freedom to watch what we want taken away because the crazy people in the country would be offended. I'd agree if something wrong or a bunch of lies were being propagated against a religion, but that isn't the case here, and it's quite evident that they don't want to have any discussion on religion. It's as if the topic is off limits for discussion, let alone intellectual debate. Like hell it is, and I for one will surely get hold of a copy of the movie and try to make as many people watch it. Try to stop me!

Listen up, all ye faithful

This is being written primarily in response to a statement made by a former member of the Nazi youth, who goes around nowadays using an alias called Benedict XVI and a title called Pope. That's right, Sri Joseph Ratzinger aka The Pope, recently reiterated his stand on life, and emphasized the sanctity of life "from conceptualisation to its natural end" while speaking against abortion and euthanasia. The usual stuff against abortion and how we ought to respect life was present and the Pope then warned the faithful against legitimising euthanasia "by masking it with the veil of human compassion".

Right Papa Ratzi (or paparazzi), I catch your drift there, but I have trouble understanding one thing: if you're so interested in things reaching their 'natural end', would you be interested to know that there are millions of Christians (among millions of others of other faiths) who visit hospitals to get cured of various ailments and treated for various injuries? After all, using modern medicine to treat diseases and injuries too should constitute being 'unnatural', wouldn't it? I mean when's the last time you heard of or saw a wildebeest going to the hospital to treat a torn leg which was a result of a close encounter with a jaws of a crocodile? Now that certainly would have been unnatural, but humans going in to get treated for anything and everything is fine, ignoring the fact that hospitals are man made and hence not natural. Sorry pappy, haven't understood that one yet.

I'm sure when his predecessor Pope John Paul II was shot at by a young Palestinian, and doctors were operating on him, Ratzinger was cursing under his breath, hoping the Pope was left to reach his 'natural end' so he could then assume the title of Pope and get to wear the funny hats we see him in. What say pappy, did that bring in an extra few lines on your forehead, knowing that your shot at the top post in Christianity was scuttled because of some doctors doing something unnatural? Tch tch, that's too bad. What's more, the Pope has also given us his two cents on why certain food should be banned. I'm talking about the ban on foie gras, which came into effect in 2006 in Chicago because animal rights groups thought it was supposedly "cruel". Yes, I agree force feeding an animal is indeed cruel, but listen to what old Ratz had to say as to why it needs to be banned: "If it weren’t cruel or painful, you wouldn’t have so many countries that banned it". Jawohl, mein Fuhrer! Just in case your senility made you forget, we also have countries where women are stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights, and others are stoned to death for adultery, children are beaten with paddles, all because it says so in the Old Testament and in the sharia of the koran, and yet we see no ban on this. And I'm not even counting the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's well known that in countries like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, laws are framed in strict accordance to the sharia, and so, unless the Pope thinks that these punishments aren't cruel and brutal, I'd like him to comment on it when he can find the time in the midst of preaching that using condoms leads to AIDS! You didn't know that? The Vatican has for ages been against contraception because when Moses and Jesus and Mohammad lived, they didn't have any condoms, and back then if someone got a little frisky with a woman, voila! along came a baby. This probably explains the hatred Christians have towards Mary Magdalene.

Now, whatever I questioned above doesn't hold good only for Christians, but also for Muslims, Jews, and of late, even Hindus. Gone are the days when we could look at Hinduism as one of those cool, hip, and liberal philosophies, which didn't say a word against abortion or euthanasia or same sex marriages. Sadly, it too has been overrun by a bunch of zealots influenced by the kinds we are all too familiar with from the other monotheistic religions. How can the god these people pray to, be against giving a person a decent death? What sort of a god would it be that feels angered at the prospect of mortals giving their fellow mortals a decent end, one that even this great(?) god couldn't give? And doesn't it put an obligation on those worshipping such a god to question the motives of this so called divine and holy being?

Coming to another serious question, what gives only theologians the right to comment on life and how it ought to be lived and all the 'rules' of how to live? I don't remember there being a vote on this, so how it all come about? Did everyone else just accept it and move on? Although I'm not too keen on give this exclusive right to any one group, I think there ought to at least be a more diverse group involved in deciding what is the 'right' thing to do. We need to have those romantics of life, better known as philosophers, ans we most certainly need to have those well versed with the advances of modern science.

Why should there be a law against something based on the religious teachings of one (or a few) religion(s) that prohibits those of other religions from doing? Unlike murder, rape, or robbery, where the person getting affected is someone else, in case of euthanasia, it's only the person who wants to get eauthanised who gets affected directly. How about just having a rule that allows those who want to commit suicide (assisted or otherwise) can go ahead and do so, and those who don't want to, don't worry, there's no pressure on you. I don't know about you, but I think that sometimes, the simplest solution is the best solution. So whichever mullah or imam or priest or pandit or rabbi or granthi is out there, maybe, just maybe, you guys would want to have a rethink on this one.

Parody on the miracle birth

This could be read as a prologue of sorts to the upcoming Larry Charles movie 'Religulous'. Not to offend anyone, and I say it with all sincerity, but this was a little too good to pass up.

Reposted from an article on disbelief.net.

---

---

Jesus Christ and His Magic Kingdom

Christianity began in the year 0001; coincidentally, the same year a carpenter’s wife named Mary had gotten mysteriously knocked up. Figuring that he could be worse off than taking sloppy seconds to the Creator, Joseph hung around until the birth of her baby, whom she named Jesus.

Joseph seemingly raised Jesus as his own son, mostly for the baby shower gifts that were bestowed upon the family (you should never look gift frankincense in the mouth), and tried to teach him the family trade. While Jesus never showed much of an aptitude for nailing pieces of wood together, he eventually found that he was quite good other things, like healing the sick, walking on water, and changing water into wine – all of which made for good back-up careers, and entertaining party tricks.

After hanging around at his house until he was 30 years old, Jesus struck out on his own, and his act soon gained a strong following. As his entourage grew larger, and more dependent on him to make them look cool, he decided to mix in a few lessons he picked up from his real dad. He taught them some doctrines of faith, like charity, compassion, non-violence, tolerance and love – values that the church established in his name would selectively forget about centuries later.

Jesus's big break came when he got an impressive gig baptizing John (a well-known theologian who was also up for the office of next messiah). After a big palm parade into Jerusalem featuring Jesus riding a donkey (not like in Tijuana) some jealous glory-hounds hatched a plan to gain fame by taking him down. They recruited Jesus’ right-hand man, Judas, and with a few shiny coins, convinced him to give up Jesus’ secret garden.

Once discovered, Jesus was taken and, in a cruel twist of fate, made into one of his failed carpentry projects from childhood. But Jesus had one final party trick up his sleeves – raising himself from the dead, living for 40 days and then ascending to the heavens in full view of a studio audience. It was this grand finale that cemented his place in religion’s Hall of Fame and inspired a lucrative church business, as well as a never-ending line of books, statues, velvet artwork, clothing lines, jewelry, and other gaudy souvenirs.

---

---

***
In keeping with the spirit of the movie Religulous, this article best describes what the new movie is all about. Directed by Larry Charles of Borat fame, the movie talks about the nutty things people do in the name of religion, along with the destructive as well. Watch the trailers on YouTube, or watch it below, and be sure to catch the movie when it comes out in October.

Mine is crazier than yours

I'm beginning to wonder if there is a limit to the stupidity and absurdity of religious people. Read this story.

Reposted from P Z Myers' Pharyngula.

To put it in a nutshell (in case you're in a hurry and can't/don't wanna read the whole thing): a Florida University student is being threatened by Christians (even death threats) because he did not eat the wafer given to him in church, but instead kept it in his mouth and took it outside the church. This act, according to Christians, is akin to holding Jesus Christ hostage as the wafer is supposed to represent a part of Christ. And what's more, they want the wafer back! But hang on, that's not the real shocker. No siree, the shocker was that it was compared to the kidnapping of a real person!!! Aarg, my head's gonna explode soon.

***

---

---

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity.

Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn't eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.

This isn't the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker!

Catholics worldwide became furious.

Would you believe this isn't hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese:

"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."

We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."

Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?

Well, you could have a priest compare this event to a kidnapping.

"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."

Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.

I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass. But even better…let's send Webster Cook to hell!

Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.

"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."

Get some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.

And of course, Bill Donohue is outraged (I know, Donohue is going to die of apoplexy someday when a gnat violates his oatmeal, so this isn't saying much).

For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage--regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance--is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.

Oh, beyond hate speech. Where does this fit on the Shoah scale, Bill? It shouldn't even register, but here is Wild-Eyed Bill the Offended calling for the expulsion of a student…for not swallowing a cracker.

Would you believe that the mealy-mouthed president of the university, John Hitt, is avoiding defending his student is instead playing up the importance of the Catholic church to the university? Of course you would. That's what university presidents do. Bugger the students, keep the donors and the state reps happy.

Unfortunately, Webster Cook has now returned the cracker. Why?

Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.

That's right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery.

University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can. If that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.

Got that? If you don't like what Webster Cook did, all you have to do is complain to the university, and they will do the dirty work for you of making his college experience miserable. And don't assume the university would support Cook; the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.

I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.

Just wait. Now there'll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.

***

---

---

I wonder why people go about bullying Muslims alone in this regard (when it comes to following a loony religion). Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism (technically, it's not a religion, it's a philosophy, but what the hell, it's my blog) too have a lot of absurdity that's hard-wired into a lot of it's principles.

But hey, people have the right to follow any religion, right? Even the funny ones; like all of them!

Persepolis: the best way to criticise religion?

Persepolis. The ceremonial capital of the Persian empire, Pārsa in Persian which means "city of Persians". And Persepolis, the animated movie about the life of Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian lady who lived through the Islamic revolution in the late 70s in Iran which deposed the Shah, and threw Iran into a Shi'ite theocracy. I went to watch this movie with a couple of the guys (well, they're the only two left here from the school gang) last evening.

Mostly in black and white (in an era where animated colour pixels come alive in all forms), this is a simple, yet beautifully crafted film, which sends out the message of the oppression brought about by the mullahs of the Islamic religion (the Shia sect in this case). The movie goes on to show Marjane's life being brought up in a liberal, educated, cosmopolitan Iranian family during the regime of the Shah and the atrocities committed against communists by the Shah's secret police (with the aid of the American CIA) and later, the further persecution of innocents by the mullah brigade under the dictatorial, theocratic rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

The movie shows the recent past history of Iran, and hopefully people go to watch it realising that this is not a fictional story created for laughs, but about what actually happened in Iran and it's descent into the dangerous theocracy it is now under Mahmud Ahmedinejad. It also shows how much we seem to have taken our democracy and freedom for granted, because the restrictions that crop up in the name of religion is mind boggling and numbing, tempered only by the satire that Marjane throws in to keep the smile on the faces of the audience.

A few subtle pointers were made about communism and Marxism, with one scene showing god and Karl Marx giving different pieces of advice to young Marjane. For those wondering why Marx entered the picture, that's because a lot of the Iranian youth who were opposed to the Shah took to Communism via Marxism. In fact, Marjane's uncle too had done the same, and since Communists are avowedly atheists, they (the communists) weren't in favour with the religious nuts who came into power, and many were summarily executed after the Shah's ouster.


Restrictions from religion should not be mandatory, but optional. The religious doctrines should not be viewed as rules, but as guidelines. What's the difference, some peasant minded person may ask. For one, a rule is not something that you are allowed to break, and if you do, there's a punishment attached to it. Guidelines, on the other hand, need not be strictly adhered to as it's optional to choose to follow it or not. Because at the end of the day, whoever thought up of the religious rules for how a person should lead his or her life, would have done so based on his opinion of what is good for a person and what isn't. Marjane effectively shows the hypocrisy in Islam during class: when a senior religious figure addresses the university students, he chides the women about the western trousers they wear and how it tempts men into doing bad things, and how their head scarfs need to be tied lower to cover more of their head, Marjane starts by telling him that as an art student, she has to move about in class and a long head scarf and gown wouldn't allow for free movement, and the western trousers allow them to walk about freely with tripping over. While their clothes may seem to 'tempt' men, what about the other way around: why are men allowed to wear nut-huggers when that could clearly turn a girl on? But the clincher was her question about what god really cares about: is it the fashion sense of the woman? The movie shows how the youth were conscripted into the army to fight Iraq when Saddam decided to invade Iran (with American blessings, of course), but promising them a wonderful afterlife in paradise in the company of 72 virgins (which, by the way, is a very suspicious number-why 72?). That, to me, is the lowest any religion can get: promising sex with virgins is the just downright cheap and low. And this also begs the question: what about women martyrs? Do they get to spend time in paradise in the company of 72 virgin men?

Oh, and did I forget to mention that this isn't an animated movie for children? No siree, kids wouldn't follow a thing unless they're aware of a little bit of history. But on the other hand, when I went to watch the movie, a large number of adults too, sadly, did not know even a little bit of the history of Iran and so (again, sadly), watched the movie as if it was a purely fictional work and not an autobiographical piece. Nonetheless, it's a great movie, and a fantastic way to show how religious zealots can get away with even murder in the name of religion. However, the taste of the pudding is in the eating and so whether this method of how criticism works, without going hammer and tongs at the opposition, remains to be seen.

And after the movie, we caught dinner at Transit (only place open at Forum) and first had some 99% vegetarian ice cream (which we thought was a rip off: 80 bucks for a cup smaller than the palm of my hand). We then went to the Rajdhani counter and ordered a plate of dahi vada (3 in a plate, so it was perfect) and shared a thali with, well, a lot of things in it. Good movie, good food, good conversation; awesome combo to have before you hit the sack.