Censorship gone crazy

You'll be amazed at what you find on Samachar at 2 a.m. It turns out the Bombay Police are investigating claims that a soap opera is defaming female lawyers, following a petition filed by Ratan Agarwal, the General Secretary of the Young Lawyers' Association. Whether that particular title is something to be proud of is another question entirely, but I must ask - is this really necessary? Have these lawyers never watched a comedy sketch in their lives? Lawyers are the most parodied professionals on earth, and surely it should take more than a mere soap opera to incur their wrath. Yet another example of a few sensitive individuals going ahead and wasting taxpayers' money. Mind you, the Young Lawyers are not too far off the mark. If their move is successful, I will petition against the broadcasting of all Indian soap operas, on the grounds of health concerns. I have felt myself become dumber after being within ten feet of this mindless drivel that passes for prime time entertainment in households throughout India (and now thanks to the good people at Zee and Sony, in New Zealand too), and it is time to stop the pain.

I don't go trawling for the latest news on soap operas, I really don't.

Political humour is awesome

Okay, so it's a little dry, but a George Allen insult generator still warrants a look.

The devil is in...the streetwear

Hoo boy. If you thought Jesus Priest was bizarre, check this out - a priest in Vrindavan has been sacked for dressing an idol of Krishna in a T-shirt and jeans, and replacing his flute with a toy mobile phone. To top off the wardrobe reshuffle, Krishna sported sunglasses (possibly imported - details on the sunglasses are sketchy at best), presumably to shield his eyes from the Sun, or to impress his harem. Clearly they had grown tired of his childlike eyes and musical talents over the last 5000 years.

Naturally, as is the case with all things God, there was a roar of righteous indignation heard right through the State against the priest - Jugal Goswami - and his actions. Burned effigies, clichéd chants, closed shops - these protesters were no mugs. Their anger was well justified too - how dare this blasphemous priest deny us the chance to see our Lord in all his topless, dhoti-fied glory? It's an outrage, I tell you! SP Unit Chief Ballabh Bhandari thinks so too

"Dressing up the Lord Krishna idol in T-shirt, jeans and making it hold a mobile phone in his hand is against the tenets of Hinduism and the act has hurt the sentiments of devotees across the country"

Do these priests not read? It's right there in Kanda I, Prapathaka III of the Yajur Veda - "Thou shalt not dress the Lord in jeans, nor the Shirt of the Tee, but a classy suit will be fine. Sunglasses must be Ray Ban only, and try to get a good mobile plan that gives Him plenty of free minutes...Svaha!"

I cried myself to sleep last night - does Jugal Goswami care? I can barely look at my Lord without imagining a large "I'm with Stupid" shirt straddling his shoulders.

Seriously though - does anyone else see the awesomeness of this situation? Finally Hinduism has a figure to match Buddy Jesus (just in case you were wondering what the deal was with the picture at the top) for coolness. Speaking of cool, I wonder how Krishna would use his new-found phone. Here's a blogger's impression:

Krishna: Abbe oye Radha! Apun Dwarka jarelai elec-son ladne ke liye. Chal jaldi apun ko pappi dey!

Too blasphemous? I would translate the above text, but it would lose its Mithunian effect. Still, moving back to the matter at hand, it appears people's sensitivities have led them to make mountains out of molehills yet again. Vijay Bahadur, BJP politician, is a case in point.

"Hindus, already under attack from various forces, are aghast to discover an enemy within."

With all due respect, if playing dress-up is tantamount to religious treachery, little girls everywhere better watch out, because Vijay Bahadur is on the case and coming after you! What surprises me is that I was wrong about Krishna all along. You see, I used to believe it was his teachings that were important, and his dress code was just a sign of his times - he would have dressed differently in a different era. How wrong I was. It was once said that clothes make the man - I suppose this is true of deities too. How am I supposed to believe Krishna's teachings if he looks just like me? His toplessness and blueness serve to signify his superiority, especially in the winter months, because as far as I can remember, I have never once seen Krishna in a woollen jacket. It's topless or nothing.

This controversy has had far-reaching effects - not least in the nearby city of Varanasi, where devotees dressed in shorts were banned from entering the Kashi Vishwanath temple. Said policeman Jogesh Tiwari:

“The temple is also for women. How can a woman stand and pray if she sees semi-naked men hovering around?”

You see...it's for the ladies' own well-being. How could I have been so insensitive? Just one question though - isn't the Kashi Vishwanath temple essentially home to a phallic object (the lingam)? I have nothing against worshipping the male form (I worship myself in the mirror regularly), but surely if you can keep a straight face in front of a phallus, what harm can an exposed leg do?

To paraphrase Chris Rock, I highly doubt my fashion choices are going to determine my fate after death. I can imagine approaching the Pearly Gates (or the Reincarnation Station for us Hindus) in a pink polo, shorts and grillz, only to be told by whoever's in charge (with a major lisp) :

"Oooh, that just won't do! Pink only went out, like five decades ago honey! We're going to have to get you into something a little more 'here and now' and a little less 'fashion crisis'. And why the grillz? You have a wonderful smile, let people see it! I'm sorry sweetheart, I'll have to send you to fashion prison for a while - have you heard of the Fab Five?"

Again, let me remind you, St. Peter (or whoever is manning the station at the time) will say the above with a MASSIVE lisp, and perhaps a limp wrist. Point is, I'm going to Hindu Fashion Hell.

That just about wraps up another segment on religion bashing. I have so far offended Muslims (population: 1.4 billion), Hindus (population: 900 million) and Jehovah's Witnesses (3 men and a dog). Check in next time to see who I rant about next. It might be you.

The life of a student

Krisann narrates her experience with last-minute assignments. If I didn't know better, I could have sworn she was writing my life story. The panic, the emotions, the feeling of accomplishment, the B- that follows - it's all so true. I suspect my driven, motivated high school self is shaking his head in disappointment right now.

Oh and I don't want any "I do assignments on the day they're handed out and get an A+" types arguing about this. We outnumber you, so nyah!

Good news at last - AIDS doesn't kill all its victims...

...they just die of other causes. I guess something's got to keep the population in check.

Thar be debauchery afoot

September 19 is here, and it's International Talk Like a Pirate Day, or should I say "Avast, me hearties! 'Tis the day dem land lubbers snarl and gnarl and get debaucherous with the best of ye. But only fer one day, and nary a second more, because then it just gets really really annoying".

Considering the content of my last post, a pirate's life might be a good option. Of course, Indians aren't pirates in the traditional sense ("why do you want to swing like a monkey from a mast when you can sit at a desk and count other people's money?"), but if you ever need a cheap copy of the latest film or video game, I know just the place - that's piracy working for you.

Sigh. 'Tis late. I'm off to 'ave me rum and sing about fifteen men, the likes of whom I ne'er seen before narr since. Garr.

Ekta at TrueBluePrint has much, much more. Check it out. It's an excellent blog and that girl needs to write more.

P.S. To my good friends at the RIAA: I have never bought or sold pirated goods, nor will I ever consider it. I understand Chamillionaire (don't be fooled by the name) needs my money to pay for a brand new set of gold-plated grillz and a multi-million dollar music video. Far be it from me to deny a brother his expensive tastes for the sake of two lousy meals. That would just be selfish.

Update: I was wrong - the West coast of India was inhabited by pirates in the 18th century (thanks Ekta).

Spill my blood next

The last couple of weeks have been tough, on a personal level and otherwise. Then again, you'd be hard pressed to recall a week that did not include a major global incident. For me, it's been a roller-coaster ride through a fourth year engineering project - the details of which I'm sure you're all very interested in, but that's a topic for another day - India's shocking performance at the World Cup of Hockey, India's shocking collapse at the hands of Australia (I'm starting to see a theme here), the Malegaon bomb blasts, Steve Irwin's death, Manchester United's loss to Arsenal and of course, the Pope's comments about Islam.

Who can seriously say they didn't see this coming? In a hyper-sensitive world where cartoons can cause an international incident, it's no surprise that zealots everywhere have taken offence to a mere quotation from a centuries-old text. The statement in question reads "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". An inflammatory comment no doubt, and worthy of a verbal backlash...had it not been written circa 1391. As far as delayed reactions go, this one's right up there, and if I remember clearly, Christian-Muslim relations in that era were strained at best. Reading the transcript, it seems pretty clear that the Pope merely quoted a conversation between an emperor and a learned scholar, and in no way implied those feelings were his own. I'm not a fan of the papacy, in fact I am opposed to the idea of anyone having the power to dictate other people's personal choices, but in this case the Pope appears to be in the right. According to my understanding of the speech, the passage discussing Muhammad uses him merely as a device to further explain the central theme of the speech - that of faith and reason. Whether Muhammad preached religion through violence or otherwise is entirely beside the point.

Of course, logic never stopped anyone before. For the sake of brevity, or sensationalism, or both, the news media quoted select passages of the speech and blew it all out of proportion. The Pope was now a bigoted enemy of Islam, a symbol for all that was wrong with the arrogant West. He may be all that and more - after all he's the head of an organisation that strongly opposes stem cell research, artificial contraception and a woman's right to abort her baby, not to mention their aggressive conversion drives - but the views of the church in this case are irrelevant. What he said in no way implies that he himself agrees with the emperor regarding Muhammad's contribution to religion - in fact he describes his words as "astoundingly harsh" in the German translation of the speech - but that he believes acts of violence go against the will of God. It was this point that formed the crux of the speech, not the part criticising Muhammad, which brings me to my next point.

Why is it taboo to criticise a man whose teachings you may not believe? Of course, public figures such as religious heads and politicians must choose their words carefully, lest they be misconstrued and used against them, or worse still, against others. This does not, however, mean that they should be denied the right to free speech. If anything, a civilised discourse on religious matters is exactly what is needed to resolve issues between communities. Moreover, it strikes me as slightly ironic that Jesus (or rather, Christianity) is more ridiculed in the Western world than Muhammad. Of course, there are still protests from the religious right when this happens, but not to the extent seen with the Muhammad cartoons or the Pope's comments. There does appear to be one standard for Islamic sensitivities regarding Muhammad and another for other religions, when all religions and public figures should be open to respect and ridicule in equal amounts.

By raising violent protests, "vowing war against the worshippers of the cross" and refusing to accept even the slightest criticism of the Prophet, certain groups are only hurting their own cause, furthering the false stereotype of the fanatical Muslim when the more sensible option would be to react calmly and logically. This applies to members of all religions, including Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Mind you, I'm sure most Muslims couldn't care less about the Pope's speech, and this is yet another instance of religious and political leaders using the incident to further their own means.

God has so far refused to comment on this matter, possibly due to exhaustion after sweetening water in a polluted lake and drinking copious amounts of milk.

Priest discovers he isn't Jesus

According to the Daily Record and the Religion News Blog, as well as the New Zealand Herald (sorry, I couldn't find a link), a priest in Gabon tried to imitate Jesus's purported feat of walking on water...and promptly drowned. Said a source at the scene:

"He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat.

"He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."

At what point do you think he would have realised he didn't really have the power to walk on water? I'm no religious expert, nor am I a scientist, but I would have personally given up when the water reached my neck, because really, I'm not technically walking anymore, so much as fighting to save my life. And why would you walk on water before learning to swim? You know how the old saying goes, you must learn the crawl before you walk...on water. I'm done with the puns - a man died here. But on the bright side, he's a shoo-in for the Darwin Award.

In a completely unrelated sidenote, I'm going to see Snakes on a Plane today. It's mutha****ing snakes on a mutha****ing plane!

Woohoo! Mainstream!

As a firm believer in the tenets of the great poet Homer (Simpson), I tried my hardest to follow his every teaching to the letter, like any good religious pawn would, but somehow failed. I quote the Great One himself:

Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try

Wise words indeed, but I failed you, Your Awesomeness. I didn't even try to maintain a functional blog - instead, I concocted a lethal mix of lazy writing and chronic lack of talent, and somehow still got published at a major online magazine! Show me the path once more, My Lord, and I shall repent for what I have done to thee (translation in Homerian - "D'oh!").

Seriously, though (this is when the rest of you go "that was a joke?") it's a huge honour to have one's random, tangential ramblings published in a mainstream magazine. I hope I do justice to the folks at MediaBlvd and meet the standards of the rest of their writing crew. Do check out the website - it's a fantastic read (heh, plugs don't get more shameless than this).

Once again, thanks to Ekta and Ami for the huge ego boost they've given me, and I hope I don't screw this up.

Hedgehogs force a rethink

McDonald's have narrowed the openings of their McFlurry containers, after it was found that hedgehogs were getting trapped while on the lookout for a tasty morsel. Of course, this just would not do - McDonald's isn't here to kill tiny insectivores (and let's face it, if McDonald's kills hedgehogs, who do drivers kill?), it's here to drive an entire population of people towards a slow, painful obesity-related death! The news was greeted with a positive response from the chief executive of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, Fay Vass.

"This is excellent, it is long overdue news," said Fay Vass, chief executive of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society. "We have been in touch with McDonald's about this problem for over five years and are delighted that they have at last solved the problem."

Wait, there's a hedgehog preservation society? Tigers, elephants, lions, pandas, chimps - all nearly extinct, yet these guys are more concerned with roadkill. Screw it, I want in. I've always wanted to protest on behalf of a hedgehog. Next on the agenda - lowering the speed limit so as to give our little fellas a fighting chance. Failing that, I'll lobby for research into genetically-modified spines, because we all know mutant hedgehogs with adamantium spines would be soooooo badass.

We deserve what's coming

"mmmmmm...donuts"

David Gill says United were offered Javier Mascherano (twice!) but chose not to sign him because "while he is clearly a very good player it was decided he wasn't required at the club".

WHA...???

Calm down Bhavesh. Count to 10.

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10

That didn't help. It's news like this that reduces me to a spluttering buffoon (though it could be argued that I don't really have too far to go in order to become a spluttering buffoon). Is John O'Shea really that much better than Javier Mascherano? Who do we require then? Another reserve goalkeeper or a left-back? I know, let's sign a 14 year old Norwegian and watch him rot in the youth team!

Not required at the club? A club that has been crying out for a world-class holding midfielder proceeds to miss out on the best young holding midfielder available, that too in a summer where Emerson and Patrick Vieira were also available at bargain prices! We may have Michael Carrick, but he's primarily a playmaker. We still lack a genuine ball-winner, and Mascherano would have given us that option. When you're just one or two players away from having a top-notch squad, as United are, you sign those one or two players and mount a serious. You don't just sit around smugly while half the world's players move clubs to anywhere but Old Trafford. Moreover, you don't place your faith in a 33 year old, injury-prone left winger, a 31 year old, injury-prone creative midfielder, an expensive gamble who can't tackle and...John O'Shea/Darren Fletcher to take you through the whole season and actually expect to win something. This summer has been tough to stomach as it is, with players either rejecting moves or having them blocked by their clubs, but this takes the cake. You know what, I can understand it when the club does its best to attract new players, but when you don't show any ****ing ambition, we have a problem.

To add insult to injury, the article states that United were never interested in Tevez. And why would we be? Gill and the Glazers clearly have their sights set on relegation anyway. Next season's transfers will probably include Ade Akinbiyi and Noah Hickey.

"We were never interested in Tevez," United chief executive David Gill told BBC Five Live. "We were also offered Mascherano, but we didn't want to go for him.

"We were offered Mascherano for a significant sum at the start of the summer and also last week on a loan deal.

"We had watched him last season but the manager (Alex Ferguson) and his staff didn't want to pursue him.

"While he is clearly a very good player it was decided he wasn't required at the club."

Each and every one of those quotes has "come back to bite me in the ass" written all over it.

Old morning cartoons

1 a.m. is a good time to get nostalgic about those morning cartoons I used to watch back in school. Of course, as Samurai Pizza Cats ran from 8 till 8:30, and school started at 8:40, I'd never get to see who won. This clip brings back so many memories, mostly of breakfast, freezing cold weather and morning chaos. Mmmm....cereal.



Related posts: 1, 2