Sorriness For Future
Some people never learn. Especially the Hindus-cum-communalists. For instance, the other day Satiricus read in the papers that some horrid Hindu, some communal cuss, was asking what happened to all those court cases against painter MF Hussain. Court cases? What court cases? Is the fellow referring to those paltry one-thousand-odd cases some stupid citizens of oh-so-secular India that was Bharat had filed against that shining light of secularism? Why, with ex-Indian Hussain settling down to enjoy the luxurious life of a Middle-East Sheikh, all that legal nonsense is history. In fact Satiricus was under the impression that the whole thing was over when Hussain was taken to court for the second time in 2006. What did the law prove in court on that occasion? The law proved that the law is an ass. But is that not common knowledge?
So the question is, if the law is an ass, what about the lawyer? The lawyer who practises law, whose profession is the practical application of law? Could one call him a practical ass? Satiricus does not know. But he could not help wondering about it, especially because of what happened that time about MF Hussain’s obscene paintings of Hindu goddesses.
The Bombay High Court had directed Hussain to file a reply to a citizen’s petition against these paintings. And what did Hussain’s lawyer do about it? To quote the newspaper report of that day, the lawyer “submitted that the painter had already tendered an apology before the Supreme Court in a similar matter.” See? Hussain had once said ‘sorry’, so why should the law be such an ass as to ask him to say so again and again? Why can’t Hussain’s ‘sorriness’ for his first set of obscene anti-Hindu paintings be legally applicable to the second set of still more obscene paintings–and probably the third , fourth, fifth set of the future as well?
The point is, even if the law is an ass, should it be a tiresomely repetitious ass? By the way, Satiricus recalls the type of apology Hussain had tendered on that first occasion. He was in England at that time, and had written that he was sorry if he had hurt the feelings of Hindus. What did that ‘if’ mean? It meant Hussain was not sure if he had really done so. Still he had apologised out of generosity of his heart and in recognition of the nonsensical narrow-mindedness of these hopeless Hindus, these fundamentalist fools.
Anyway, once he had said sorry, should not the matter have been considered closed once for all? So we Hindus better shut up, and let Hussain continue with his libidinous libations to the secular gods in the safety of the Muslim Middle East. To come back to the beginning, the law is an ass, and an ass is known for patience, but even an ass’s patience might wear thin if Hindus perniciously persist in standing up like men instead of scurrying away like mice.
Wonders never cease for wordsmith Satiricus. At least not the wonder that is the capacity to be abusive of the English language. Unfortunately English in India that is blessed Bharat, especially in politics, does not do justice to this particular precious quality of the Gora Sahib’s lingo. Indian politics is as richly dirty as anywhere else in the world, even in America, but alas, it is not as picturesquely abusive.
Of course we do have Sharad Pawar, who once called Bal Thackeray “Hindu Khomeini”, and a Congress leader who once called BJP-walas “traitors”. But these are at best poor imitations of real abuses. The real abuse was when the American Kissinger called us Indians “bastards”. It shocked us. But that was because we did not know the high American standards of real abuse. For really dirty words there is nothing like dirty politics, as a recent American book titled Going Dirty has shown. Here are some impressive samples:
In 1800 President Thomas Jefferson was attacked by Churchmen who accused him of being an “infidel”, and a newspaper warned that his election would mean “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced”. John Adams, the sitting president in 1800, also got his share of slung mud. A journalist in league with Jefferson told the country that Adams was a “gross hypocrite” and a “hideous” hermaphrodite. A Pennsylvania Congressman accused President Martin Van Buren of being so decadent that he landscaped the White House grounds into hills resembling “an Amazon’s bosom.”
So, oh Macaulay-Manas-putras, how about teaching us ignorant Indians how to be really, really abusive?