India That Is Bharat
What is this na-Pak nonsense that Satiricus hears? He can hardly believe it. Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik has called Kasab a terrorist, and said, hang him. To quote the unquotable, “Ajmal Kasab is a terrorist…. he should go to the gallows,” Rehman reportedly recently remarked. Really ridiculous! As a sensible secularist, Satiricus must expose the many-sided falsity of this statement.
In the first place there are simply no terrorists in India. True, we have an ample supply of extremists, militants and what have you, but is there a single terrorist? Not to Satiricus’s knowledge. Look at our “journalism of courage”. Do our prestigious papers call a terrorist a terrorist? Never. Why? Because discretion is the better of courage, and of course if Satiricus cannot understand the world of difference between a terrorist and a militant (as between a barber and a hair dresser), he has to thank his dim wits for it.
Secondly, if, for argument’s sake (mind you, only for argument’s sake), Kasab is a terrorist, would our sensible government spend 50 crore rupees to keep him alive and well? But perhaps here stupid Satiricus misses the point. The point is not about being sensible, the point is about secular, and if Satiricus thinks the two terms can co-exist, what does that prove? It proves Bernard Shaw was right when he said journalism is an illiterate profession.
And thirdly and frankly, does not the Pak advice to kill Kasab amount to infernal interference in India’s internal matters? Does the government of Pakistan not know that the government of India’s policy is not to kill Kasab but coddle Kasab? Unfortunately, even some Indians share this ignorance of the Pakistanis. These idiotic Indians are found loudly and publicly wondering if Kasab was going to live as long as Afzal Guru. Satiricus can confidently assure them that they are wrong. Kasab is not going to live as long as Afzal Guru. He is going to live longer.
Why did Satiricus become a journalist? Because he is not fit for anything else. And why is he not fit for anything like some decent job? Because he lacks the imagination to imagine what questions he should expect to answer in a job interview. He was idiotic enough to assume that questions asked in a job interview are meant to find out if the applicant knows how to do the job for which he has applied. But it seems those simple days were simply for simpletons like Satiricus. Maybe they were befitting boring Bharatiyas, but not advanced Americans.
Take, for instance, this questionnaire for a job in the Peace Corps that he saw in an American publication some time back. One of the questions for the applicant was: Out of the following, what would you like to become a horse, cat, lion, dog or a seagull? See? Hindu humans are told that human birth is a rare gift of God, but American humans are asked if they would like to become animals. It’s a tough question especially for those who want to become animals not specified in the question. What if the applicant doesn’t like cats and so would like to become a mouse? As for a seagull, what if the applicant is bird-brained enough to prefer becoming a crow?
Apart from animals, birds and other bird-brained creatures like journalists, there are some other employers who require some quite weired questions to be answered. For instance, the American fashion magazine Vogue once asked an applicant : Have you ever tried to overthrow the US government? Good God! Satiricus does not know what the applicant answered, but Satiricus knows how he would have answered: Yes, I did, but the attempt failed, so I am now doing something equally terrible applying for a job in your magazine.
The answer was smarter than the question and that was the problem. For the cardinal principle of finding employment is that the employee must never be smarter than the employer. Take that Peace Corps case. An applicant said he would like to become a seagull, and then answered the questions that followed as a seagull: Where do you sleep? On the waves of the sea. What do you eat? The fish in the sea. Of course he was rejected as too bird-brained. In yet another case, a big New York firm sent a candidate to a psychiatrist for a mental check-up. The psychiatrist asked him: If you are searching for something in a room in the dark, how will you go about it? The candidate promptly replied, I’ll switch on the light. The psychiatrist reported to the company the man’s childish.