An Insignificant Acne

INDIA THAT IS BHARAT

 Beauty lies not in the holder but in the beholder. Satiricus had read that somewhere. And it must be true. Otherwise why would Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid so perceptively point it out to us Indian ignoramuses apropos the lovely Chinese lately in Ladakh? Was it an ugly thing that the Chinese did when they intruded nearly 20 km inside Indian territory and pitched a tent? Of course not. At the most it was an insignificant acne, and “one little acne cannot force you to say that is not a beautiful face. That acne can be addressed by simply applying an ointment.” See? The Foreign Minister has just to carry (or send) a jar of this ointment to charming China trip—and hey, presto! The problem is solved.

Isn’t that exactly how our mai baap secular sarkar has all along been solving all our problems with Pakistan? Satiricus recalls that years ago an eminent columnist had written that the Indian response to Pakistan’s policy of inflicting “a thousand cuts” on India was “a thousand band-aids”. But of course a remedy for a cold may not be a remedy for a cough, so naturally a band-aid suitable for Pakistan had to be replaced by an ointment more suitable for China.

Then again, while so delicately dwelling on China’s beautiful face the Foreign Minister sweetly supplemented his quotable quote by assuring us that India-China neighbourly relations “are growing”. That of course removes all inappropriate apprehensions and dim-witted doubts of suspicious Satiricus. It also assured him that when the number of the Chinese tents first grew, it was only an endearing index of their growing friendship.

 The Common Code

Islamism being the core of secularism, Satiricus is happy to see that India is getting more and more secular with every passing day. The other day the Reserve Bank of (Secular) India called for Islamic banking to be practised in the country. A few days later it was reported that the government publicly assured it would pay special attention to “innocent” Muslim suspects in terror cases. This was followed by Anti-Terrorism Squad policemen of Maharashtra learning Urdu “to help the Muslim community in whatever way possible”. As if this is not secular enough, a Mumbai university course book on human rights violations now teaches the following: The attitude of the police towards Muslims is biased. They are first Hindu, then police, they are first Hindu, then army men. Muslim youths are being killed in encounters, hundreds of innocents have been arrested in terror blasts. And now, as the crowning glory, of secularism, a Sharia court has officially started functioning in Maharashtra, a state ruled by two Congresses.

            How legally lovely! Actually, despite a Law degree under his belt Satiricus did not know—but now does, thanks to Muslim Personal Law Board, which set up this court—that Sharia law courts are not only within the law of the land but are already proliferating in the country, as in Hyderabad, Malegaon and Patna, and even high courts in Bihar, Bengal, Odisha and Jharkhand are following verdicts given by the Sharia headquarters in Patna. Can there be greater glory for Indian secularism? For now that Indian law is following in the footsteps of Muslim law, a common code, for which ignorant anti-secularists are clamouring, is already here, no? So Satiricus now looks forward to the day when Sharia will be officially declared the common code applicable not only to blessed Believers but also to damnable disbelievers.

Garbage Producer Vs. Garbage Collector

Even journalists, for whom illiteracy is their stock-in-trade, need university education. At least Justice Katju said so the other day. But does that make the profession of journalism in general and news-reporting in particular a good profession? Not if a recent American survey is to be believed. For according to this survey of 200 professions, a reporter’s job is the worst of them—even worse than that of a garbage-collector. This is preposterous. Journalist Satiricus refuses to believe that a garbage-collector can be superior to a garbage-producer. In fact, where would the garbage-collector find the garbage to collect if us proficient practitioners of the profession of journalism did not produce substantial heaps of learned garbage day after day, and (like this column) week after week?