Sunday, August 14th, 2022 01:02:18

Sheer Secular Description

Updated: March 23, 2013 10:34 am



Why is Satiricus a Hindu-cum-Communalist? The simple answer to that is that he is a simpleton. He just doesn’t have the brains to be anything else. On the other hand being an Anti-Hindu-cum-Secularist is exclusively reserved for the elite Indian intelligentsia. In plain words, it is damn difficult. And it becomes doubly difficult if and when such an elite suffers from illucid intervals in which he (or she) suspects that being a Hindu may not be all that heinous.

A classic case in point is the famous fifth-columnist of India’s biggest English (and therefore secular) newspaper. This female of the secular species has established her credentials by calling RSS ‘knickerwallas’ the lunatic fringe of the society, but her recent piece Indian Islam Under Threat distressingly damages those creds. For in the very beginning she castigates Akbar Owaisi for the “Islamist nonsense” that he “vomited out”. As if this is not alarmingly anti-secular enough, she claims that Owaisi is not alone in thinking what he thinks, rather, “he was reflecting the opinion of an increasingly large number of…half-literate Muslims,” who “are being taught a warped idea of Indian history. This makes them believe that India was an area of civilizational darkness until Islam came along, and that its idol-worshipping religions are worthy only of contempt”. Omigod! Is this a secularist speaking? Yes it is, and, believe it or not, it is a secularist who castigates Congress political leaders who “believe it is ‘communal’ to mention a past that was without doubt Hindu.”

That does it. Can there be salvation for a secularist who says such things? Fortunately, there is. It is the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, between different brands of Islam—the Indian, and the imported. For, after dressing down Owaisi for looking through a “distorted lens” she fondly recalls ‘the kind of Islam that existed in India” in her childhood “before harsh winds from Saudi Arabia changed it unrecognisably”. Oh my, how touching ! Satiricus also had a childhood once upon a time, and he too recalls the communal riots when Hindus were too frightened to step out of their houses, when Moplahs slaughtered Hindus, when Swami Shraddhanand was openly murdered, and when Iqbal wrote poems on how “our caravan landed on the banks of the Ganga” to civilize this benighted people at the point of the sword. But of course Satiricus did not know then (nor does he know even now) if beneficent Indian Islam had been distorted by malignant Arabian Islam. By the way, was this not exactly the same argument put forth by some Pakistanis about Pakistani Islam when killers came to be routinely hailed as heroes?

And finally, even with the little logic learnt in his undergraduate days Satiricus cannot help wondering how far it would be logical to say with a straight face that something original such as Islam in Arabia could distort something subsequent such as Islam in India. Oh well, so far as understanding the intricacies of Islam (Indian or Arabian) are concerned, this Hindu retard cannot stand comparism with this learned lady, because he did not go to visit its holy seat at Deoband (as she did) and was not turned away from the gate (as she was).

Political Wordsmith

Did he or did he not? That is the question that has been flummoxing Satiricus. He is talking about Hon’ble Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde’s apology about his remark on saffron terror. Some say he did. Others say not. And what does Satiricus say? He says he does not know what to say. He is a journalist, and a journalist is called a wordsmith, so it is his business to know about words, but all he knows about words is that words are like leaves and where they most abound much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found. So Shinde is not expected to make sense, but possibly there is at least an apology of an apology in what he said.

On the other hand, according to the nay-sayers Shinde was forced to eat his words, so to save his secular health from the forced feeding, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath very helpfully clarified that Shinde had not apologised for his remark but had only expressed regret. In other words, it was unapologetic regret. Well, now, that’s wonderfully clear, no? No, not to this wretched retard. For to make the confusion in what passes for his brain worse confounded, Kamal Nath added that Shinde did not deny what he said, he just clarified that he did not mean what he did say. Does that mean there are words that do not mean what they mean? Apparently so in a politician’s dictionary. Surely so in a secular politician’s dictionary.

Comments are closed here.