Of Cur & Curse
INDIA THAT IS BHARAT
SHAKESPEARE was right. There are apparently more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of by this communal cuss. The first among them is secularism. When everything in the world is going to the dogs, why not secularism? But does that mean dogs have become secular? In the judicious opinion of the Jew judiciary that seems to have happened, for news comes from Jerusalem that an orthodox Jewish court there recently condemned a dog to death by stoning as it suspected the dog of being the evil incarnation of a secular lawyer who had insulted the court’s judges 20 years ago. It so happened that one day, when the cursed cur made his way into the courthouse, frightened the judges, and refused to leave when shooed away, one of the judges recalled that two decades ago the court had put a curse on a secular lawyer who had insulted the judges of that time. And what was the curse? It was that the lawyer’s spirit would move into the body of a dog, an animal considered impure by traditional Judaism. As it also happened, before dying a dog’s death the canine criminal made his escape. What does this incident show? It shows that when, as now, men, women and Congressmen are unhappy about secularism going to the dogs in India, at least Israeli dogs may be equally unhappy about it. Secularism, it seems, is dangerous for dogs.
However, in the legally considered opinion of Satiricus, who happens to have a degree in Law under his belt, this dog could have saved himself if he had a lawyer. When, for instance, a dog somewhere in America bit a small boy and was sued for it, the court appointed a lawyer to defend the dog. Satiricus does not know the verdict in the case, but clearly a canine canon is called for. In the absence of such a safeguard a biting dog may pose quite a bit of a problem not only for the biter dog and for its owner but also for the bitter bitten as well as the world around that has not yet gone to the dogs. As it happened when another American dog bit another American’s finger. What did the bitten American, a New Yorker, do? He filed a suit against the dog-owner, the city of New York as well as a couple of hospitals for cash compensation for the bitten finger. And how much cash did he want? Two undecillion dollars. How much is that? 2 followed by 36 zeros. Well, now, what do you know? Satiricus has read somewhere about an American psychologist teaching his dog to recognize a thousand names. That means this dog can count upto 1 followed by 3 zeros. Maybe the time has come to teach all dogs in New York to collectively count upto 2 followed by 36 of them.
American Adoration For Ahimsa
DESPITE daily reports in the dailies to the contrary, Americans seem to be an exceptionally peace-loving people. Exceptionally because they may not mind the use of guns even to kill their own children, but they take exception to more dangerous weapons—such as, for instance, a sandwich. The other day a man was jailed for attacking his wife with a sandwich. After an argument between the two the wife phoned the police and lodged a complaint saying her husband had pushed her down and rubbed a sandwich on her face. Good God ! How terrible ! How cruel ! How terribly cruel ! The shocked court sentenced the man to five days in jail. Amazingly enough, this American adoration of Ahimsa extends beyond men and women to even vegetables and fruits. For another American was arrested for “aggressively” stabbing a watermelon. The complainant wife told the police she found a watermelon on the kitchen counter with a butcher’s knife plunged in it, then her husband came into the kitchen and began carving the fruit in an “aggressive-passive” and menacing manner. Satiricus, of course, was suitably shocked at the butchery with a butcher’s knife, but unfortunately the court was not. It did convict the man of threatening behaviour, but let him off with a bond of 500 dollars. Maybe the court would have treated the crime more seriously if he had butchered a lemon instead of a melon.
A STUDY by researchers at the London University has recently found that the shape of a person’s brain determines his political views. Now that’s certainly an interesting explanation. For it means a politician defecting from party to party does so because of a recurring brain-attack. In that case the cure would be brain surgery to remove the tumour of defection. But what about apolitical persons—like, for instance, Satiricus? His friends assure him there would be no such problem in his case. Why? Because, they say, if political views depend on the brain, that clearly explains why he has no political views.