The Little Whore House

The little whorehouse stood next to a well-known and respected family home on Ambujavilasom Road in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram, about five minutes’ walk from the main thoroughfare and the State Secretariat. It was an unassuming place with a tiled roof and a single door opening directly onto the street. The occasional drama and minor melee we witnessed as we passed by each morning and evening were all we were privy to—nothing more.

It was roughly 200 metres from where I lived, and my friend and I walked past the little whorehouse each morning to school and on our way back in the evening. I was in the fifth standard when I was told about this strange, and to me then, fascinating place in our neighbourhood. My friend, two years my senior, introduced me to its intrigues. Being eight or nine and fresh from the sheltered environment of a convent education, many things were inexplicable yet curious and amusing. The amusement was particularly strong when, on our way to or from school, we witnessed police raids at the whorehouse. A ramshackle police van would park by the door, and potbellied, fearsome-looking policemen—along with a few scrawny ones sporting only handlebar moustaches to evoke trepidation—would bundle a few women inmates and their plebeian clientele into the van. Looking back, those policemen now seem clownish, attired in odd short trousers with ample ventilation around their hairy thighs, allowing fresh air to waft up to their groins. I recall the day after a raid, when we passed by, the old woman who ran the place—a hag, perhaps in her early seventies, always with sandalwood paste and a few flower petals in her grey hair—sat at the door, forlorn and sad, having lost her clientele, women, and business to the police action.

She lived there with her daughter, a single woman, and her teenage son. I noticed no disenchantment in the daughter or son, who seemed to allow the old woman to run her cottage industry.

There were occasional arguments at the door between petulant patrons and the inmates. One day, I saw a man forcibly ejected by a few women inmates. He was agitated, quite inebriated, and shouting expletives—an unhappy and dissatisfied customer, perhaps! “Caveat Emptor,” I would now suggest to him.

Looking back, there was no evident discomfort, annoyance, or moralistic angst from the people living nearby—an impossibility in today’s phoney, voyeuristic Malayali society. The place seemed to survive on its own, ignored by the elite residents of the neighbourhood. Whether the local men frequented the whorehouse under the cover of night, I can only guess with some amusement.

The story ended abruptly with the death of the old woman. Rumours abounded that someone had poisoned her, but no one could say for certain. Her passing marked the end, perhaps, of the saga of “the little whorehouse.” The daughter and son vanished soon after, and now a multistorey office building stands on the five cents of land where, perhaps, much of Vatsyayana’s exhortations were religiously indulged, albeit at a price.

The Shooting Star

I haven’t met her, nor spoken to her; our communication was solely through text messages. She was reticent, perhaps shy and unassuming, preferring to remain unnoticed. She distanced herself from the garishness and chaos of modern life, staying far from its edges. Though a trained Mohiniyattam danseuse, immersed in the art since the age of six and having performed at temples and other venues, she downplayed her talent. Her outgoing peers had little sway over her choice to stand apart. In an era of social media, where attention-seekers vie for visibility, this captivating maiden, for reasons of her own, chose to remain unobtrusive, almost hidden.

She was virtually faceless on social media, yet maintained a quiet presence. Her pages revealed no clear image of her, but with a discerning eye, one might glimpse her among the faces in the rare group photographs she shared. Even then, it would be mere conjecture. Yet, I felt certain: the vivacious, mesmerising eyes and the grace of a danseuse shone unmistakably in one figure among those pictures. The allure of her eyes was arresting. Still, without confirmation, even the most confident guesses remain just that—guesses.

When asked why she chose this path, she replied simply that she loved it. A recluse? Certainly not. At 23 or 24, her eyes beckoned alluringly from her pages, but her perspective on life was equally striking. At such a young age, few ponder deeply about existence, yet she mused about infusing meaning into life’s inherent frivolity: “We are born without purpose, but we can create one, can’t we?” she once texted. That was some time ago, and now no trace of her remains; she simply vanished, perhaps deliberately leaving no footprints.

Her final message lingers, stirring an eerie unease, though she may have faded like a shooting star, whose wanderlust she admired. She first reached out after reading my blog post, “My Gods of Small Things,” shared on my social media, inspired by Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. The content differed, reflecting on individuals from my life, now gone, whose small acts were profoundly meaningful.

Through our extensive exchanges—spanning religion, love, morality, humanity, life’s apparent triviality, idleness, and even vintage Malayalam and Hindi film songs—I found her to be a keen listener and reader with a sharp, reasoned perspective on nearly every topic. Why, then, was she training to be a chartered accountant, a profession often marked by dullness? The answer was straightforward: her father’s wish.

Her mother, a dancer herself, had instilled in her a love for Mohiniyattam but had sacrificed her own passion under her husband’s domineering will, ensuring her daughter faced no such constraints. She occasionally spoke of her younger sister, about ten years her junior, who followed her like a devoted shadow.

“Sir,” she always addressed me, “what do you make of this clichéd notion of ‘settling down’? Why should it mean conforming to society’s or even family’s expectations? Can you tell me?”

“Indeed, why can’t settling down be about finding meaning in life’s frivolity?”

“Exactly! That’s why I believe being attractive isn’t about a chiseled body, an arrogant swagger, Rhett Butler whiskers, or high cheekbones.” (She added a smiley emoji.) “It’s about how one thinks—the mind shines through the face. You can’t fake it with bravado. Men are terribly mistaken, don’t you agree?”

“Ha, indeed!”

“Thank you for agreeing. Remember that girl you mentioned, who abandoned a lucrative job in the Far East, slung a backpack, and travelled the world? Was she my age?”

“Hmm.”

“Sir, I quote from her book: ‘Four years ago, I gave up my home, sold most of my possessions, and embraced a nomadic life. This journey has taken me as far within as with my feet.’” A pause followed, then: “I hate him, the bastard!”

“What?” I asked, confused. I had recommended the book, and those words weren’t from the passage she cited, nor related to her text about the author she cherished. If spoken, I might have dismissed them as misheard, but they were typed.

Ignoring my question, she continued: “…how travelling changed my perspective on marriage and not wanting children. ‘Sir, I felt sick after that.’ I wrote this post for dreamers, adventurers, and rebels who feel stifled by a lack of choice.”

“What?” I pressed again. After a prolonged pause, when I asked about her abrupt remark, she explained.

“I needed to get this off my chest. It’s him.”

“Who?”

“My father.”

“What about him?”

“He hugged and kissed me today.”

“What’s wrong with a father hugging his daughter? I do. Hasn’t he before?”

“No, it’s not that. He has, but this was different. I felt it when he touched me—nauseating, terrifying.”

“What are you saying?”

“Exactly that. I feel sick and scared. He kissed me, biting my cheeks, nearly my lips, and I felt… his thing pressing against me through his lungi. It was deliberate, all in seconds.”

Speechless, I asked, “Are you sure?”

“Please, Sir, I’m not a child. This never happened before, but I felt it, saw it in his eyes. I was frozen, unable to pull away. Lately, I’ve felt uneasy around him, a vague discomfort… but now…!”

“Have you told your mother?”

“No, I can’t. It would worsen things. They’re not getting along, and it might affect my sister too.”

“Is he your stepfather?”

“No.”

“What do you want me to do?”

“Nothing. I just needed to unburden this.”

“If anything untoward happens, tell someone. Call me if you need to.”

“Hmm, yes. Instead of longing for the next holiday, perhaps build a life you don’t need to escape.”

Was that a quote? I’m unsure. It was her last message before the line went dead. Months have passed, and she’s vanished without a trace. Perhaps her footprints linger in the sands of time—across deserts, mountains, South American river basins, or the forests she dreamt of. Maybe she found the courage to flee, to live without needing escape. I pray she didn’t yield and become trapped.

Narendra Modi & Alladin's Magic Lantern

A Sanghi enthusiast is touting what he claims is an excerpt from Narendra Modi’s scripted interview with Akshay Kumar, a less accomplished actor. He asserts that Modi’s response left everyone in awe.

According to this enthusiast, Akshay Kumar asked Modi what he would do if he found Aladdin’s fabled magic lamp. Modi reportedly replied that he would urge academicians to stop narrating such fables to children, as they promote a culture of idleness and lotus-eating, alien to India’s ethos. He then allegedly critiqued Indian education for belittling the country’s past and instilling foreign values in children. Does this thespian realise that One Thousand and One Nights is a collection of Middle Eastern fables?

Even a cursory glance at this claim reveals the absurdity of Modi’s purported stance, likely a scripted answer. We’ve seen what happens when his responses aren’t rehearsed—he fantasises about an elephant’s head grafted onto a human child and calls it plastic surgery! 😁😂

What’s startling is that Modi seems unaware of Arabian Nights and the myriad fables that enchanted our childhoods. Can anyone point to contemporaries who became lotus-eaters, languishing in dreamy indolence, awaiting lady luck? He overlooks how fables, Indian and foreign alike, shaped our formative years. Unlike Modi, we drew values from Aladdin’s fortunes, wary of the scheming uncle; from Sinbad’s voyages, which introduced us to distant lands and cultures; from Ali Baba and the forty thieves; from the cunning “Fisherman and the Jinni,” the “Tale of the Vizier and the Sage Duban,” or “The Fox and the Crow.” The list is endless. Does he know many of these tales carry Indian and Persian influences?

Venturing further west, are we to believe that Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella, or The Pied Piper of Hamelin are corrosive to young Indian minds, as Modi might suggest?

If we entertain Modi’s convoluted (nay, devious) logic, we’d miss the richness of Anton Chekhov’s The Bet or Leo Tolstoy’s God Sees the Truth, But Waits—a tale prescient of Modi’s era! He likely hasn’t heard of O. Henry’s The Trembling Leaf, conveniently alien as it’s American. Nor, perhaps, of Kerala’s Aythihiya Mala, a collection akin to Arabian fables, which he might dismiss as foreign to his sensibilities, despite its uniquely Malayali essence. Herein lies the contradiction in his bizarre understanding of culture, fables, and literature, however commonplace.

Does he know that W. Somerset Maugham’s Appointment in Samarra draws from the Katha Upanishad and an ancient Mesopotamian fable?

What distinguishes ordinary mortals like us from Sanghis is our exposure to a kaleidoscope of inspiring tales from diverse cultures. These stories enrich our lives with values of moral courage, ethics, and goodness, regardless of their origin. It’s a pity we have a Prime Minister who rejects inclusivity and the universal appeal of such narratives. Perhaps Modi had little time for fables, reportedly spending his childhood meditating in dense jungles or on the icy peaks of the Himalayas. What a sacrifice he made—and now we bear the brunt! Poor us!

tête-à-tête - but we were 4

                                                                            

Yesterday, after dusk, I had three visitors: the local ward representative and two other respectable-looking men I hadn’t seen before. One was introduced as a scientist or some such figure, but since they announced themselves as BJP representatives soliciting my views and vote, I gave little credence to the science tag. I recalled how Indian scientists sat silently when the Prime Minister spoke of ancient plastic surgery involving an elephant’s head on a human torso.

Having enjoyed a couple of sundowners, I was relaxed and in no mood to discuss politics, especially with strangers. I feared provocation might weaken my resolve—and it did, despite my repeated assurances that there was nothing to discuss and that I respected their request for my vote. They persisted, asking why I wouldn’t support the BJP. I politely explained that their ideology was antithetical to my values, and that bigotry, divisiveness, hate, and falsehood rarely build a nation. I was keen to remain sensitive and restrained, though the Old Monk was stirring some mischief within.

“Oh, look at initiatives like Startup India and GST—see how things are changing!” they countered.

I reminded them that Startup India was stillborn, and GST wasn’t a BJP idea; they had opposed the Manmohan Singh government’s efforts to introduce it. With five or six tax slabs, its hasty and chaotic implementation caused havoc—credit for that mess goes to Modi!

“But it takes time to change the system!” they argued.

“What system are you changing? The BJP seems intent on destroying systems. Do you have credible statistics on GDP, jobs, agricultural output, or farmer suicides? Everything seems concocted, doesn’t it?”

“No, look at Nirav Modi and others who profited with Congress’s help.”

“I don’t know if they profited with anyone’s help, but they fled while the Modi government looked the other way. What did your government do with Raghuram Rajan’s report on NPAs and defaulters?”

“Oh, we’re trying to save Hinduism and Sabarimala! The census shows Hindus are declining in numbers.”

“What’s there to save? Hinduism has survived for over 3,000 years; if left untouched by internal termites, it will endure another millennium. The census tells a different story—Muslim population growth is slowing, yet you stoke fear. As for Sabarimala, the BJP tried to turn it into another Ayodhya.”

“No, we’re protecting the sanctity and holiness of the place.”

“That sanctity was eroded by the Sangh. What were you doing for five months in the name of that shrine? You have a reckless state party president creating chaos. His loose tongue spewed idiocy. You even made a martyr of an alcoholic who doused himself in kerosene and set himself alight. It reminded me of an old Malayalam film where parties vie to claim a corpse. How can we forget the infamy of abusing women in the name of Sabarimala? Didn’t we see a Sanghi poised to smash a coconut on a woman’s head?”

“That was a Marxist man,” came a feeble retort.

“You claim there’s a sinister plot between Christian evangelists and people like Amartya Sen.” I scoffed, unable to help myself, as I would have even fresh from bed.

“Gentlemen, name one significant issue your BJP highlighted in the past six months besides Sabarimala. Did you address the farmer suicides in Wayanad? The havoc caused by the floods and the state’s rebuilding efforts? The alleged lapses in post-flood assistance? Environmental degradation? Any existential issue facing the state? Sabarimala won’t provide anyone a square meal. There are pressing matters begging for introspection and action. You saw Sabarimala as an axe to grind, like Ayodhya.”

“No, the state government was against devotees.”

“The state government opposed troublemakers and Sanghis causing bedlam. The police were unusually restrained. How can you blame the state for following the constitutional court’s ruling? Why didn’t the BJP introduce legislation to resolve the issue? Weren’t the petitioners supporting women’s entry BJP and Sangh functionaries? Come on, you may gain votes through Sabarimala, but not mine nor my family’s. We each have strong convictions about the life we cherish.”

In hindsight, I told them I hadn’t wanted this discussion and hoped there was no rancour. They graciously replied it was their privilege to engage.

“If you vote for our candidate, you won’t regret it; he’s a good choice, you’ll see when he’s an MP.”

I smiled. One gentleman added, “You must also consider the candidate’s moral character.”

“Who are we to judge another’s morality? What is your morality? You’re soliciting my vote—do you know mine?” I forgot to ask what morality justifies abandoning a wife to languish.

Sensing enough was enough, they stood to leave, and I politely saw them off at the gate. By then, my daughter had sneakily photographed us and sent WhatsApp messages joking that I might be kidnapped!

I was introduced to The Hindu when I was about eight. My father was adamant that I read the editorial daily, regardless of whether I understood it. Such was his despotism! Among his many quirks, this particular insistence proved beneficial over time. I must admit, in those days, my reading of the newspaper began with the sports page. As time passed, I came to agree with my father that The Hindu’s editorial was a uniquely well-written piece, distinguished by its language and content. It was akin to the resonant voice of Melville de Mellow, the Indian broadcaster whose English news bulletins on All India Radio were more impeccably English than the English themselves could muster.

Melville de Mellow’s poignant commentary in 1948, articulating the nation’s grief during Mahatma Gandhi’s funeral procession to Raj Ghat—non-stop for seven hours—remains one of the finest moments in radio broadcasting, in India and globally. His command of language, articulate delivery, and sensitivity to the occasion are qualities sorely lacking in the shrieking reporters seen on Indian TV news channels this past week. For these clamorous individuals, a tragedy, a poignant moment, or a solemn occasion rarely shapes their reportage. Their insensitivity and vexing behaviour over a mutilated corpse are utterly deplorable!

As for the media, particularly The Hindu (which remains one of the few sober print dailies), its coverage of the Pulwama attack and Modi’s electoral gambit involving the Indian Air Force’s strike in Pakistan was so poorly reported that no international news agency deemed it even conditionally quotable. To claim that 300 terrorists or JeM militants in training camps in Balakot (PoK) were killed in the IAF raid, when not even a single dead donkey was found in the targeted area, reveals the pathetic state of Indian media and their shameless complicity in peddling the government’s flagitious falsehoods and malarkey.

N. Ram, you owe an explanation—not because of who you are, but because The Hindu is an icon, an institution, a symbol of conscientious journalism to many. The trumped-up jingoistic fervour on various Indian news channels since yesterday morning has been pure rodomontade, evoking revulsion. These outlets may now compete to put Wing Commander Abhinandan under the spotlight, vying to outdo each other for an exclusive on the pilot. This isn’t journalism; it’s voyeurism. When you lend undue credence to a snooty, grandstanding Prime Minister who thrives on falsehood, misrepresentation, and cunning, you rival Faust in a Faustian bargain.

Wing Commander Abhinandan deserves accolades for his resolute conduct in enemy captivity. His return is a profound relief for every Indian. Undoubtedly, we have many such Abhinandans in our military—but so does Pakistan! Our enemy is another country’s hero, and vice versa; valour knows no boundaries. Humans, my friends—flesh and blood, pain and contentment—cannot be reduced to grandiloquent narratives by jingoism, nationalism, or unethical journalism, whether about Indians or Pakistanis.