A List of Hurt Sentiments of Muslim Groups

28 Jan

Some people should know what will offend and what will not but they never seem to learn. If you’re writing an article, a book or making a movie you should first make a list of all those who will be offended by it and then sanitise your work. This piece of sound advice is not from me but the Honourable Minister Shashi Tharoor. You see, Tharoor believes anything offending Hindus is a work of art and should be appreciated and applauded as such. But if you’re about to write anything or make any movie that has the remote chance of offending Muslims you should think twice. He established this doctrine of free speech in a debate with the late Christopher Hitchens. I quote Tharoor because his logic symbolises the entire left-liberal crap in the Indian socio-political system.

Poor Ashis Nandy! He made some comment about OBCs and Dalits being corrupt and he’s about to pay a price for it. This was during a discussion at the latest edition of the Jaipur Litterfest. Yes I call them Litterfests since they seem to have nothing to do with literature but more of a platform for political discussions. Last year the same Litterfest had to contend with protests against Salman Rushdie’s participation. Hmm! That guy had offended Muslims with ‘Satanic Verses’. This year the Muslims have taken preventive measures to ensure he doesn’t turn up. Then there are those ThinkFests by the Tehelka group of Tarun Tejpal which is tainted by accusations of extortion for ads from the Goa govt. Then again there was another Litterfest where Girish Karnad ranted against VS Naipaul at a function to honour the latter. While the Rajasthan govt was quick to file FIRs against Nandy they haven’t filed any FIR against Union Minister Sushil Shinde who spewed hatred with his “Hindu terror” speech. It took the AP govt months to act against the Owaisis who frequently indulge in filthy speeches.

Imagine, if Shinde had made the same statement about “Muslim Terror” his house probably would have been burned to the ground on the same day. He would have been lucky if there was no physical attack on him if he were to make such a statement. And for all this, super moron Shahrukh Khan believes he’s a “victim” in India. Both Shinde and SRK have now found a natural friend an admirer in ‘Shri’ Hafeez Saeed. I have written many times over that our media is simply scared of Islamic terror and that prevents them from honestly reporting the loutish and thuggish behaviour of certain Muslim groups. Every Muslim public figure has enhanced the “victimhood” feeling for Muslims despite some having achieved fame and fortune in India like SRK. NDTV even specialises on topics that claim Muslims are being “stereotyped”. Let’s see, if some Muslims are going to be angered and protest (often violently) so frequently over every silly thing who exactly is stereotyping them?

Then Muslims claim they don’t get enough job opportunities and aren’t accepted as part of the mainstream. Victimhood again! Hypothetically, supposing a Muslim was employed as a senior manager and one of his peers were to be promoted there is nothing to suggest he won’t claim being discriminated against because he’s a Muslim and won’t go to court. The behaviour and conduct of public figures from the Muslim community holds them to a prison where it seems they can’t lighten up. Jokes offend them, articles offend them, books offend them, music offends them, movies offend them; there isn’t much that doesn’t offend them. India makes them feel like victims! Is there anything that doesn’t offend them? Amitabh Bachchan had to live the taint of Bofors scam for 25 years but he didn’t claim he felt like a victim in India. SRK has faced nothing like that and yet claims he’s victimised because he’s a Muslim in India. The nonsense of SRK has been wonderfully exposed by Venky Vembu in Firstpost who appropriately calls it “King of Victimhood: Shah Rukh Khan bites the hand that fed him”.

Trust me, it doesn’t stop there. Three years ago when US president Barack Obama visited India some Muslims were up in arms. In that case the reason being a security dog from the Obama team was named “Khan”. Makes me wonder how many movies should have been banned, theatres burnt and actors attacked because domestic helps in Bollywood movies are often named “Ramu Kaka”. One of the greatest legal battles in the US over free speech was between Larry Flynt (Founder of porn magazine Hustler) and religious leader Jerry Falwell. Read about in Die Freedom. I quote from that post:

In the landmark case the US SC observed: “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas”.

Flynt and the late Falwell later became friends and often had friendly debates. In one of those debates Flynt mentioned that in the monthly agenda meetings of Hustler the discussion was “Who haven’t we offended this month?” Haha! That requires constitutional protection. And he added “Time and Newsweek don’t need constitutional protection, it is people like us who offend who need the protection”.

So when Kamal Haasan’s latest movie “Vishwaroopam” was banned in Tamil Nadu it’s again because Muslims protested. I haven’t seen the movie but I hear it’s about a dance teacher who is also a Tamil-speaking Jihadi in Afghanistan. That in itself is laughable but more laughable is that some Muslims find it offensive, many may not even have seen the movie. Against a petition by KH to Madras HC to revoke the ban, the court actually told him to “discuss with the opposing members” to find a solution. This is what appeasement has brought India to. We may now have to negotiate solutions with those who break the law, the offenders. Who knows, in future a molestation victim may be asked to negotiate with the molester too.

I believe the Film Certification Board in India should be the last word on whether a film complies with the laws in India and if they have certified it then the movie shouldn’t be banned. If the FBC has overlooked any provisions of law, that should be contested only in a court and not on the streets. There was this joke floating on Twitter last evening about a devout Arab Muslim hiring a London Taxi.

LondonCabbie

It seems there is precious little that doesn’t offend certain groups of Muslims. I believe before Lokpal or any other law, our parliament should now make a comprehensive list of things that offends and hurts the sentiments of some Muslims. The rest of us can abide by such a list so that these frequent intolerant protests can stop. Alternatively, they should make a list of things that doesn’t offend such groups of Muslims. I believe that list would be much shorter and easier to understand and follow. If this offends you, I am willing to negotiate.

25 Jan

karmnirvan:

Super read…

Originally posted on Random Thoughts of a Demented Mind:

First of all sir congratulations on becoming the Vice-President. Some may say that congratulating you for this is like congratulating eleven o’clock for coming after ten o’clock, or congratulating an apple broken from its stem for dropping to the ground  or congratulating P K Nag’s sons for  taking over P K Nag and Sons.

But still.

So I read your speech, the speech that you delivered to the party after your coronation…err…selection after studied deliberation by your peers in the chintan shivir.

And I noted a few things.

You said you felt optimistic. I understand why you would sir. I would too if I had a national party as a family heirloom, if I knew I would have an army of qualified courtiers watching my back, an army of guards clearing the road of commoners, and an adoring media to pump my ego. Yes. I would feel very optimistic then…

View original 1,028 more words

Every parent should read this before giving his or her child a phone

31 Dec

Janell Burley Hofmann: To My 13-Year-Old, An iPhone Contract From Your Mom, With Love:

Janell Burley Hofmann: To My 13-Year-Old, An iPhone Contract From Your Mom, With Love.

Laurie Watson: Not Having Sex? 7 Ways To Start Again

22 Dec

remembers this exquisite torture, and no one wants to live without it. Desire is relationship cocaine.

via Laurie Watson: Not Having Sex? 7 Ways To Start Again.

Value the details of your relationship..

15 Dec

“When I got home that night as my wife served dinner, I held her hand and said, I’ve got something to tell you. She sat down and ate quietly. Again I observed the hurt in her eyes.
Suddenly I didn’t know how to open my mouth. But I had to let her know what I was thinking. I want a divorce. I raised the topic calmly. She didn’t seem to be annoyed by my words, instead she asked me softly, why?

I avoided her question. This made her angry. She threw away the chopsticks and shouted at me, you are not a man! That night, we didn’t talk to each other. She was weeping. I knew she wanted to find out what had happened to our marriage. But I could hardly give her a satisfactory answer; she had lost my heart to Jane. I didn’t love her anymore. I just pitied her!

With a deep sense of guilt, I drafted a divorce agreement which stated that she could own our house, our car, and 30% stake of my company. She glanced at it and then tore it into pieces. The woman who had spent ten years of her life with me had become a stranger. I felt sorry for her wasted time, resources and energy but I could not take back what I had said for I loved Jane so dearly. Finally she cried loudly in front of me, which was what I had expected to see. To me her cry was actually a kind of release. The idea of divorce which had obsessed me for several weeks seemed to be firmer and clearer now.

The next day, I came back home very late and found her writing something at the table. I didn’t have supper but went straight to sleep and fell asleep very fast because I was tired after an eventful day with Jane. When I woke up, she was still there at the table writing. I just did not care so I turned over and was asleep again.

In the morning she presented her divorce conditions: she didn’t want anything from me, but needed a month’s notice before the divorce. She requested that in that one month we both struggle to live as normal a life as possible. Her reasons were simple: our son had his exams in a month’s time and she didn’t want to disrupt him with our broken marriage.

This was agreeable to me. But she had something more, she asked me to recall how I had carried her into out bridal room on our wedding day. She requested that every day for the month’s duration I carry her out of our bedroom to the front door ever morning. I thought she was going crazy. Just to make our last days together bearable I accepted her odd request.

I told Jane about my wife’s divorce conditions. . She laughed loudly and thought it was absurd. No matter what tricks she applies, she has to face the divorce, she said scornfully.

My wife and I hadn’t had any body contact since my divorce intention was explicitly expressed. So when I carried her out on the first day, we both appeared clumsy. Our son clapped behind us, daddy is holding mommy in his arms. His words brought me a sense of pain. From the bedroom to the sitting room, then to the door, I walked over ten meters with her in my arms. She closed her eyes and said softly; don’t tell our son about the divorce. I nodded, feeling somewhat upset. I put her down outside the door. She went to wait for the bus to work. I drove alone to the office.

On the second day, both of us acted much more easily. She leaned on my chest. I could smell the fragrance of her blouse. I realized that I hadn’t looked at this woman carefully for a long time. I realized she was not young any more. There were fine wrinkles on her face, her hair was graying! Our marriage had taken its toll on her. For a minute I wondered what I had done to her.

On the fourth day, when I lifted her up, I felt a sense of intimacy returning. This was the woman who had given ten years of her life to me. On the fifth and sixth day, I realized that our sense of intimacy was growing again. I didn’t tell Jane about this. It became easier to carry her as the month slipped by. Perhaps the everyday workout made me stronger.

She was choosing what to wear one morning. She tried on quite a few dresses but could not find a suitable one. Then she sighed, all my dresses have grown bigger. I suddenly realized that she had grown so thin, that was the reason why I could carry her more easily.

Suddenly it hit me… she had buried so much pain and bitterness in her heart. Subconsciously I reached out and touched her head.

Our son came in at the moment and said, Dad, it’s time to carry mom out. To him, seeing his father carrying his mother out had become an essential part of his life. My wife gestured to our son to come closer and hugged him tightly. I turned my face away because I was afraid I might change my mind at this last minute. I then held her in my arms, walking from the bedroom, through the sitting room, to the hallway. Her hand surrounded my neck softly and naturally. I held her body tightly; it was just like our wedding day.

But her much lighter weight made me sad. On the last day, when I held her in my arms I could hardly move a step. Our son had gone to school. I held her tightly and said, I hadn’t noticed that our life lacked intimacy. I drove to office…. jumped out of the car swiftly without locking the door. I was afraid any delay would make me change my mind…I walked upstairs. Jane opened the door and I said to her, Sorry, Jane, I do not want the divorce anymore.

She looked at me, astonished, and then touched my forehead. Do you have a fever? She said. I moved her hand off my head. Sorry, Jane, I said, I won’t divorce. My marriage life was boring probably because she and I didn’t value the details of our lives, not because we didn’t love each other anymore. Now I realize that since I carried her into my home on our wedding day I am supposed to hold her until death do us apart. Jane seemed to suddenly wake up. She gave me a loud slap and then slammed the door and burst into tears. I walked downstairs and drove away. At the floral shop on the way, I ordered a bouquet of flowers for my wife. The salesgirl asked me what to write on the card. I smiled and wrote, I’ll carry you out every morning until death do us apart.

That evening I arrived home, flowers in my hands, a smile on my face, I run up stairs, only to find my wife in the bed -dead. My wife had been fighting CANCER for months and I was so busy with Jane to even notice. She knew that she would die soon and she wanted to save me from the whatever negative reaction from our son, in case we push through with the divorce.— At least, in the eyes of our son—- I’m a loving husband….

The small details of your lives are what really matter in a relationship. It is not the mansion, the car, property, the money in the bank. These create an environment conducive for happiness but cannot give happiness in themselves.

So find time to be your spouse’s friend and do those little things for each other that build intimacy. Do have a real happy marriage!

If you don’t share this, nothing will happen to you.

If you do, you just might save a marriage. Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up…

The next sexual revolution: All about a room of my own?

31 Oct

Abhijit Banerjee, noted economist and co-author of Poor Economics says in an editorial published in the Hindustan Times today that ‘that there are more forms of inequality to worry about than just money’. He asks, “What are we doing as a society to reduce inequality of access to sex?”

It’s a valid point. One of the biggest casualties of growing up in a middle class or lower middle class Indian household – where your chemistry books fight for space with your father’s grocery accounts book, where you have had to lock yourself up in the bathroom to say good-morning to the new boyfriend, where you’ve constantly fought with the grandmother to lower the TV volume so that your music player becomes audible – is your sex life.

And if you happen to be a boy, you have possibly cursed the school stud several times over for having a room of his own – one with Cindy Crawford posters and Cosmopolitans shoved under the mattress.

But did that bother you more than having to guzzle formulas while your younger sister tried to mug up the hierarchy of a Mughal administration in the same study room-cum-bedroom? Did it bother you more than the feeling of hopelessness at seeing your mother, an ailing grandparent and his/her nurse spend nights in the same room because that’s all that they had?

Chances are you have outgrown the school stud, found enough places – friends’ cars, sea-side hotels, parks, the house emptied by parents on a trip to the aunt’s house – to make out. And unlike Professor Banerjee, never thought to what we were doing to reduce inequality of access to sex.

I’m not so sure if Banerjee in his editorial, uses the obstacles to physical intimacy posed by economic inequality as a prototype for all the issues plaguing the homeless and the poor India, in which case you can’t question it much. However, as the blurb of Banerjee’s article published in the newspaper says, he probably sees no reason why we should be outraged at Mamata Banerjee‘s recent comment that ‘rapes in India has something to do with public displays of intimacy’.

He doesn’t defend rape on those grounds, but seems to associate its root – sexual jealousy – as something that has to do with the abysmal economic landscape of our country, which often leaves young people, especially men without the space to indulge in physical intimacy. Crowded, homes, not enough money, et al.

Banerjee traces the roots of ‘sexual jealousy’ to the economics of a middle class and lower middle class housing. “A lot of this inequality, at least in our urban areas, is a direct result of our policies. We pay lip service to low-income urban housing, but do nothing about it beyond insisting that tiny pockets of high income neighbourhoods get set aside for smaller and cheaper flats, which are usually just too lucrative to end up with the genuinely poor,” says Banerjee, in his article.

Does that mean sexual jealousy, something that Banerjee acknowledges as ‘powerful’ and ‘more palpable’ than several other forms of dissent, is rooted primarily in economic discrepancies?

To simplify in layman terms, would men and women be relatively free of sexual envy, had they enjoyed economic means that makes sex seem more gettable?

While Banerjee does debunk the idea of a ‘public brothel’ he seems to be saying that had there been enough space and enough women willing to have sex, unmindful of the man’s social status, the intensity of ‘sexual jealousy’ in our country would be dissipated. And this is an issue that the country should pay heed to.

At the risk of sounding cynical, one has to say, that the argument probably holds in some Utopian social structure. Banerjee, effectively, is asking for an economic overhaul – one that gives less-than-affluent men and women both the luxury and space to claim what he calls ‘conjugal rights’. Fair enough.

Though he seems to be denying doing so, Banerjee is circling back to the ‘inequality of money’ after all, an inequality which deprives people of education, medical help, basic life security, not just better sex. Arguing for better housing facilities to facilitate healthier sex lives, hence a safer society with more sense of justice, seems as absurd as Mamata Banerjee blaming rapes on open intermingling of the sexes.

While sexual jealousy doesn’t necessarily translate into rape, envy doesn’t always result in violence and Banerjee’s article doesn’t say so either, one cannot overlook the social profiles of the recent victims of rape and the perpetrators. Here we can safely assume that rape, is a result of strong sexual jealousy.

The men in Haryana, upper-class, moneyed Jats, raped a woman from their community, and presumably were not ones who would “watch their coevals go by with their wives or girlfriends, holding hands or cuddling, fortunate because their parents were rich enough that they had a place to go to and be intimate with each other.” The women in question, in most of these cases, weren’t seen tom-toming a rich boyfriend and his ample economic resources.

‘Sexual jealousy’, like Banerjee mentions, might be partially rooted in economic divisiveness – a lot like the way you harbour attraction for unattainable celebrities – but most of it, especially of the violent kind, has no foundation in any logic that can be addressed by government policies.

Banerjee notes: “There are few forces more powerful than sexual desire and few forms of inequality more palpable than inequality of access to sex: all the rich guys, to a first approximation, get all the pretty girls, at least if pretty is what Bollywood (or Hollywood) tells us it should be.”

Making sexual angst seem like the ‘most powerful’ fall-out of realtors’ unhinged colonisation of urban spaces also slightly dilutes the enormity of the other problems related to it. In some social narrative ‘access to sex’ might be of greater concern than access to a shelter that doesn’t drip rainwater on to a child’s head, but then that’s a micro-issue. And it hardly makes Mamata Banerjee’s views of ‘public display of intimacy’ and rape seem justified.

The human penis is a puzzler, no bones about it

23 Oct

The human penis is a puzzler, no bones about it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,022 other followers