Satiricus is not sure if he should congratulate or commiserate with respected Bharat Ratna Shri Sachin Tendulkar. He is talking about that recent big bold newspaper headline in which “Sunny and Sachin” were put side by side to give the tremendous news that there was a sort of test match between the two in which “the score thus far : Sunny Leone—3 lakh, Sachin Tendulkar—1 lakh”. Stupid Satiricus was stupefied. It couldn’t be runs, then what was it in which that latest Bollywood import out and out outclassed him? It is the number of ‘downloads’ on the mobile video app. Translated into English this means 3 lakh people feasted their eyes on Sunny Leone, while a meagre one lakh have so much as looked at Sachin Tendulkar. And why was it so? Because while Tendulkar only entertained us with his tons, Leone, as the papers lovingly put it, is Bollywood’s par excellence “adult entertainment star”. And how did she entertain adults? By—before bursting on Bollywood—giving ‘live’ sex shows on the stage in the west where she was living as a PIO, Person of Indian Origin—even with a surname of Indian origin.
For the kind information of ignoramuses like Satiricus, not long back a paper had reported that a certain senile citizen of Tinkle Town—sorry, sorry, senior citizen—was so infatuated with this body that he produced two films one after the other with the title meaning ‘body’. So then, can Sachin Tendulkar deny this body of evidence against him? This Bharat Ratna says he will now “bat for India”. But isn’t the Bollywood Ratna already doing that? So how about batting for Bharat?
Things are getting a little too queer, it seems to simple Satiricus. In the good old uncomplicated days, when he looked around him he saw people who were divided into just two categories—some were men, some were women, and that was that—that simple. But then, progress overtook simplicity, and the two genders were expanded into four—LGBT—Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transexual. Now ‘Lesbians’ are women, and ‘gay’ is what homosexual men like to call themselves, but as ‘homosexual’ means a person sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, why not permit women to be as ‘gay’ as men? Satiricus does not know. Nor does he know why being ‘queer’ is the exclusive privilege of the male homosexual. All he knows is that we no more have just men and women, male and female. We now have homosexuals, gays, lesbians, queers, and trans-sexual—Satiricus has even heard about ‘queen’ for male homosexual and ‘butch’ for the woman-’husband’ of the other woman—and finally ‘straight’, like the mere male, Satiricus.
Aren’t these enough varieties that God has missed out? Apparently not. For according to wonderful news from America, thanks to Facebook, the lucky Americans can now have their choice of 50 genders just with a click of a cursor. If you are a male, just one click, and you become a Trans Male. Another click, and you can become ‘Neutral’. A “former female” chose as many as three—Transsexual, Transgender, and Androgenous. What does this show? It shows the inordinate inadequacy of God. Satiricus suspects Facebook may be laughing in God’s face.
A Hoary Holy Tradition
Satiricus is a Hindu because he is too much of a dimwit to be anything else. How, for instance, can he be a Muslim—good, bad or indifferent—if he does not know Arabic, which, according to the Quran, is spoken in Paradise? So he duly accepted it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Quranic truth when the Islamic government of Malaysia recently seized hundreds of copies of the Bible translated into the Malay language on the ground that it uses ‘Allah’ for god but “the Arabic word ‘Allah’ was exclusive to Muslims”.
Of course, of course. He accepts that he is an ignoble ignoramus not to know this. But he wonders….why are there so-called scholars, both Muslim and Hindu, who are as ignorant of this truth as Satiricus? Take this ex-Pakistani scholar of the Islam, Dr. Anwar Shaikh. In his book Islam: The Arab Imperialism he wretchedly writes: “The Haj ceremony belongs to pre-Islamic times” and this “equally applies to Allah himself”. In another book titled Islam : Sex and Violence he says that in pre-Islamic times “Allah was the god of Arabia, who appeared as a popular suffix in ordinary names”—including that of Mohammed’s father. This was bad enough, what was worse, a horrid Hindu by name Sita Ram Goel wrote in his book that the pre-Islamic Arabian god Allah was “hijacked” by Mohammed. Oh well, maybe Malaysian Muslims think hijacking is a hoary holy tradition that should (and does) continue, Remember Kandahar?