In God's name

Those of us who have seen the cover of the Time magazine of the week will retract in horror at what man can inflict on his own kind. Let me recall the picture of the woman with a gaping hole where her nose was.   Mutilated, chopped off by the self proclaimed puritan Muslims of Afghanistan. Her crime, having born in a medieval society which is sliding faster into the black hole! The abhorrence of the act which will be displayed in her face as long as she is alive, pales into insignificance compared to the absolute silence of the Muslim intelligentsia all over the world who ostentatiously  swear by woman’s rights, and respect for the fairer sex, and quote the  holy text to that end.. It really is sheer nonsense and of no vain that the scholarly and erudite Muslims world over proclaim that such acts are un- Islamic. Does it really suffice and justify if we trumpet that we are against thieving while we stay mute to the very act of thieving? Such silence and tacit acquiescence is similar to the Hindus turning blind eye to the practise of self immolation on the funeral pyre -‘sati’.

I have been following   articles and stories in various magazines and The Hindu on the French ban on the burqa – the full facial veil for women. And there was a programme on the BBC wherein quite a few young Muslim men and women where speaking on the ban and allied topics. Ironically even many of those young and educated women on that show swore by their Islamic identity- fair enough,but  for which they considered the veil as synonym and indispensable. How would it be if Hindu women swear by their right to perform ‘sati’i and claim that if they are forbidden it is infringement on their inalienable religious rights? And also claim that performing sati is bringing out their religious identity and that it is display of piety etc? I do not now intent to dwell on the merits and otherwise of the French legislation against the facial veil. That is a different matter and prerogative of the law makers of that country.

People quote scriptures to suit their end. The devil does that often too.

And there are people every where who  condone and clamour for such archaic and antediluvian practises.

Why??

I was once at a dinner elsewhere with a German lady. She was client of mine, a divorcee and now in a live in relationship with a man who himself was divorced and living with his two children. I remember it was my birthday and C had called her a few times to tell her and also remind her that.

To give me a pleasant surprise she kept C’s call a secret of sorts and took me to a restaurant in the country side. I did not tell her about the birthday either. I was quite surprised when the cake with lit candles was brought to our table by the steward.

In course of the conversation and dinner she shot me the question, “how do you manage to live with the same person for long; see the same face both at the office and back at home,. isn’t it terribly monotonous, boring”? I could only smile and perhaps laugh the question away. But for her that was a pertinent question and wonder.

Did the strange habitation happen because I was born to Indian parents and was brought up and lived in this country? Definitely so! Though social cohabitation habits have changed and are also fast getting amended here as well. Virulent western life styles and culture besides assertion of women, perhaps may be the reasons for this change happening .

“When a man has more than one wife, the relationship is termed ‘polygamy’ and when a woman has more than one husband it is termed ‘polyandry’. But the habitation the German fruauline was perplexed about was not polygamy or polyandry but why a marriage does not breakdown  out of being ‘ill’ from seeing the same face and of long time, and long term proximity. And also either or both wandering off to different and newer pastures.

If I told her that boredom and contempt out of proximity, or even mutual necessity are not in vogue she will not believe my eloquence. I still wonder if I will ever find a logical answer to her question whereby she would be convinced and also understand, ‘why’?

Sunday noon

Very often when we do something with intent to comfort or assist someone, ironically we end up facing retribution and scorn. This curious natural law can be seen all across the spectrum of social life, trivial or substantial.

Our Samaria intent is taken for opportunism, selfishness, arrogance and impertinence. The intent is interpreted as malicious. The pain and or effort we put in, howsoever piddling  is not noticed let alone appreciated The only comfort to the victim in this case is to perhaps stick to the advice in the Gita

“karmanye vadhikarasthe,

ma bhaleshu kadhachan”'

But how many of us would like to sit back and apply the verses of the Gita in real life? We end up wishing that we never endeavoured on any act of Good Samaritanship.

Severe rejections of good intent are many if they were to be mentioned. So let me note a little incident that made me feel like an arsehole. Yesterday noon I was driving back from town. I was reaching a quite busy intersection. That was when I noticed this middle- aged , couple, and they were half way across the road. The man was pushing his motor cycle and his spouse was in tow. He could not go back as there were speeding vehicles on the side, behind. I spotted his predicament and braked my car and waited a few feet from those folks, so that they could move on and reach the safety of the kerb. The man suddenly developed a furious expression and started gesticulating at me. He waved his hand at directions to convey that there was enough space for my car to go and why the hell did I have to brake and want to panic him. And not let him cross the road. I waved my hand and tried to tell him that I braked and stopped so that he can get to the other side and not be stranded precariously in the middle where traffic is zooming unmindfully and dangerously. He did finally cross the road, but kept the expression of fury and indiganance.

I watched him reach the kerb and I moved on..