The Wizard King

Once upon a time, in a faraway land, there lived a man with a broad chest who ruled over a kingdom where the people’s lack of intelligence astonished even him. He rightly observed this to his coterie. But his subjects, blinkered in their lives, had never seen a donkey and thus could not compare themselves to the timid, foolish beast. They believed their King was clever, and they were as clever as he.

The King was as canny as a fox, though he also fancied himself smart with a high IQ. Kings from other kingdoms longed to politely remind him he was an idiot, like his subjects, but he hastened to hug and charm them upon meeting, so they refrained from candour to avoid rudeness.

The truth was stark: the King frequently appeared on national television, issuing mad decrees he claimed were for the greater common good, demanding compliance that his donkey-like subjects, the fools, gleefully obliged, eagerly awaiting more. He was a sorcerer, hypnotising his subjects, who followed him with a fervour that would make the Pied Piper of Hamelin envious. He proclaimed decrees at night, and the next day, he would wail, beating his chest, urging them to burn him at the stake if he was wrong. They forgave him, unable to bear the sight of tears in his eyes, unaware that his marble-like eyes could not produce tears. Often, he sent a decoy—some say his real old mother—to perform the same tasks he asked of his subjects, and they went wild, dancing and singing eulogies to the King and his old mother. The King spared not even his mother! How noble! In his castle, the King laughed heartily, rocking in his chair, while his donkey subjects brayed in unison, “Oh, great leader, you are the shining star, the burning sun, son of gods; you could never be wrong. You are infallible, the light, and our deliverance.”

One day, shortly before midnight, the King appeared on television, dressed in splendid silk attire with an appliquéd tapestry that, upon closer inspection, bore his name embroidered in gold thread. His snow-white mane was immaculately groomed and waxed with ancient Indian herbs, its aroma stifling even through television screens, yet perceived as fragrant incense by his hallucinating subjects in their dreamy indolence. He decreed that from midnight, he would suspend the earth’s gravity so his subjects could spread their wings, hitherto tethered by evil forces, and fly with abandon. As midnight struck, his donkey subjects flocked and jostled to leap from apartment windows, expecting to float like fairies in zero gravity. Those in hutments scampered up coconut palms to jump and fly. Such was his commanding sway over them that they gleefully leapt and flew—only to fall flat on their skulls and faces, crashing to the ground like hailstones. Their craniums, ribs, and bones snapped like twigs, yet they believed they were flying, feeling the cold wind against their faces. They were in awe, convinced they soared. The wizard King effortlessly held them under his spell, and their broken skulls, dying hearts, and aching bodies refused to accept they had not flown. They bled and bled.

The Circus after the Hanging

Early yesterday morning, after switching on the television, I began to wonder if Covid-19 had vanished from the country overnight. Not a word about the contagion was mentioned; instead, all channels were dominated by the news of the execution of four rapists in the early hours at Tihar Jail. It seemed like a carnival at the gates of Tihar. Placards proclaiming “We trust the judiciary” signalled a newfound faith in the system. Bizarre slogans, which I now struggle to recall, filled the air. Men and women alike were jubilant. It resembled a medieval circus where public executions drew crowds baying for blood. After seven years of waiting, the Indian judicial system, moving at a tortoise’s pace, had finally closed a sordid chapter of gang rape, brutality, and murder that would shame even the wildest of barbarians, including the Vikings.

Seven years ago, on a wintry night, a young Delhi girl was stalked by six savage men. After thrashing her companion to near incapacity, the brutes gang-raped her in the most heinous and dreadful manner imaginable. That night, India as a nation and we as a society failed her miserably. We failed because we allowed six depraved individuals to violate her physically—she was mauled and torn apart. The brutality was beyond what even wild beasts would inflict. We failed again when we outrageously christened her “Nirbhaya,” meaning fearless. How dare we? How dare we presume she wasn’t gripped by mortal fear when six hellish, debauched men pounced on her, ignoring her pleas, cries, and entreaties, ripping her apart like ravenous wild dogs? How dare we bestow upon her grandiose names, ostensibly to elevate her to a pedestal of courage and bravery, thereby assuaging our collective guilt? She, a frail teenager, could surely do little to resist when six cannibals pinned her down and set upon her in a manner words fail to describe. Yet we call her “fearless”! It sickens me and makes me retch when I hear her referred to as “Nirbhaya.” We should hang our heads in shame. She ought to be known by her given name; her memory must not endure under a pseudonym granted by a hypocritical society. That is the least justice we can offer her.

One can empathise with her parents, who pleaded for the execution of their daughter’s rapists. Their anguished minds could not see beyond retribution, nor grapple with the moral and ethical nuances of jurisprudence. When the mother expressed relief, saying her late daughter had finally received justice, we could understand her feelings. What else could a mother feel? But it makes me wonder when the public declares, “Justice served for ‘Nirbhaya.’” What justice can a dead person possibly receive? Someone claimed her writhing soul would now be at peace. Semantics and fanciful phrases aside, the soul is a mirage we humans invented to appease our longing for immortality—a satisfaction derived from believing a part of us persists after death.

What justice can we give a girl now dead, when we, as a society, collectively failed to protect her while she lived? What justice awaits the teenage Unnao girl, brutally raped and later murdered? What justice can we offer Asifa, the seven-year-old raped repeatedly for days and murdered in a temple in Kathua, Kashmir? How many more individual acts of justice must we pursue for the daily rapes and murders of women and girls in this country? It is offensive to think we can find satisfaction or clear our consciences by invoking the phrase “justice served.” Nonsense!

Yesterday morning, tribal instincts came alive outside Tihar, and television channels, barring a few like Asianet News and NDTV, revelled in the news of the hanging of the four men while simultaneously questioning the foundation of capital punishment in countries like India, which we call civilised. The “rarest of rare” benchmark is a flawed premise. Protesting capital punishment in today’s India would be deemed as seditious and anti-national as criticising Hindutva. The humane Kiran Bedi, the fiery cop who, as the first female Inspector General of Prisons, introduced reforms aligned with a civilised society, was upbraided for attempting to reform the incorrigible and advocating for prisoners’ human rights. It is a primitive tribal notion that prisoners forfeit their rights as humans. One might even hear the hackneyed cliché: “If what happened to the Delhi girl happened to your kin, you’d think differently.”

There is a sine qua non for calling ourselves civilised. We must first eradicate patriarchal mindsets and misogyny from society and teach children from a young age to respect women. If an accused person is found guilty and punished as per the law, that law must either facilitate their transformation during incarceration or acknowledge that retributive justice is not justice but vendetta, as offensive as the crime itself. Look at those baying for the blood of the accused or guilty—it’s a trait of primitive tribal societies. It doesn’t take much to realise that the men vociferous outside Tihar yesterday might readily stalk, violate, molest, grope, or harass a woman if they believed they could escape apprehension or punishment. That is the duality of people: they hunt the victim and later cry for her.

A few months ago, much of the country applauded when the Hyderabad police staged an encounter and killed three alleged rapist-murderers. Like fools, we eagerly accepted their alibi that the men attacked the police before attempting to flee. We were content to believe extrajudicial killings delivered swift “justice.” We failed to question whether a diligent trial confirmed their guilt or if they were decoys planted by the real culprits. Did we consider the anarchy such extrajudicial, instant retribution could wreak on society’s fabric and its legal system? Not a word was spoken thereafter; we moved on—or rather, backward.

When we passionately claim retributive justice for the Delhi girl, believing she has finally received justice, we are lying to ourselves and, dare I say, mocking her soul, if you will. There is no evidence that retributive justice or capital punishment—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth—serves as a deterrent. Only uncivilised, barbaric societies, citing antediluvian practices and bizarre texts, justify chopping off hands for theft, stoning for adultery, or decapitation for murder. When societies worldwide have abolished capital punishment, I see no reason why this medieval, retributive punishment should remain on the statute books of a country like India, which claims to be civilised. Lifelong incarceration, with or without the possibility of parole, would torment the criminal, potentially leading to reform or psychological decay.

To quote Henry Ford, “Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty.”

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.