His name:
Hari Prasad,
His claim to fame:
Scares the security guard
Hari Prasad the doggy baa
Is found at Rajeev’s gate
He lost his ma,
But is keenly looking for his mate
Hari Prasad the street mongrel
Sits around and bays at the moon
And wonders what the stars fortell
Will his soul mate appear soon?
Hari Prasad needs to bathe in a tub
But smelling like pooh is so comfy
Exchanging a lick for a tummy rub
The smell won’t bother that human goofy
Hari Prasad knows how to please all
Women because his habits are like their men
Men because only a dog responds to their call
Before they count from one to ten
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Racist Whistle Blowers
The Racist Whistle Blowers
Make no mistake about it. Cricket is a great game and racism has no place in it. Nor does racism have a place in any aspect of modern day life. Of course you agree with this you little twerp. Who in their right minds would not agree with something as banal as that? To say that racism is a strict "no-no" is an universal truism. A tautology. A given. A "why do we even need to spell it out" kinda thing.
Here's why.
Trouble is there is as yet no consensus on precisely what constitutes racism. Take away the most covert acts of discrimination or abuse with racial undertones and you are left with a wide range of incidents which could or could not be interpreted as racism. Fact of the matter is that there are huge cultural differences in the manner in which racism is understood. And the incident in the Sydney test was a disaster waiting to happen simply because we refuse to address this issue and prefer to be coy and not talk about it at all rather than reach a better understanding of these cultural differences. To me it almost seems as if being politically correct and non-controversial is more important than reaching the right conclusion.
The Canadians of course are the most ridiculously politically correct of them all. We Indians will rib each other and giggle and nudge elbows at the silliest of "sardar" jokes. And everyone will guffaw at the caricature of the old Parsi who (for heavens sake!) features regularly on TV commercials!! Including the Parsis themselves! We Indians have a sense of humour above everything else. And the ability to laugh at ourselves is the biggest gift we have since it enables us to recognise our differences and get to like them rather than pretending that we are all the same. But heavens forbid if someone in Canada cracks a Polish joke. But then Canadians are very nice people and it’s a reputation they intend to keep. And I have to say I have never faced any kind of racial discrimination in Canada.
But what that does not help is the issues that our cricket team is facing in Australia. Yes, so our off spinner Harbhajan ("Bhajji") Singh called the only black Aussie player on the field a "monkey". All right. Perhaps personally offensive but does it have racial connotations?
To all except those who have scrambled eggs for brains, calling someone a monkey is not racial abuse. It may be abuse (though everyone knows that it is common place for players - especially the Aussies - to use even four letter words in the heat of the moment) but what is it about our simian ancestors that could be associated with racial abuse? If you think about it, is it not the whistle blowers themselves who are in their own minds associating a black player with a monkey? Why can't someone who is white or brown (or black or blue) be synonymous with a monkey? And why would the colour of Andrew Symond's skin be the only obvious association with a monkey rather than any other characteristic? And if Bhajji had used any other epitaph - for example "elephant" - would that not have been plain vanilla abusive rather than racial abuse? So if "monkey" is racial and "elephant' is not then the racism is in the minds of the accusers since it is they who at some sub-conscious level associate monkeys with black people.
Which brings us to MY BIG POINT about racism. It’s just not what you say or how you say it that matters. It’s what you actually think which is important. And if we do not address this, then racism is going to be a big problem because the subtle brand of racism will continue unabated. And it’s you & I who will be responsible since we refuse to address it. Pretending that it does not exist simply because it is not expressed is the problem. Which is why the controversy in Sydney was something which was inevitable. Pity it soiled the fair name of the great game of cricket.
Make no mistake about it. Cricket is a great game and racism has no place in it. Nor does racism have a place in any aspect of modern day life. Of course you agree with this you little twerp. Who in their right minds would not agree with something as banal as that? To say that racism is a strict "no-no" is an universal truism. A tautology. A given. A "why do we even need to spell it out" kinda thing.
Here's why.
Trouble is there is as yet no consensus on precisely what constitutes racism. Take away the most covert acts of discrimination or abuse with racial undertones and you are left with a wide range of incidents which could or could not be interpreted as racism. Fact of the matter is that there are huge cultural differences in the manner in which racism is understood. And the incident in the Sydney test was a disaster waiting to happen simply because we refuse to address this issue and prefer to be coy and not talk about it at all rather than reach a better understanding of these cultural differences. To me it almost seems as if being politically correct and non-controversial is more important than reaching the right conclusion.
The Canadians of course are the most ridiculously politically correct of them all. We Indians will rib each other and giggle and nudge elbows at the silliest of "sardar" jokes. And everyone will guffaw at the caricature of the old Parsi who (for heavens sake!) features regularly on TV commercials!! Including the Parsis themselves! We Indians have a sense of humour above everything else. And the ability to laugh at ourselves is the biggest gift we have since it enables us to recognise our differences and get to like them rather than pretending that we are all the same. But heavens forbid if someone in Canada cracks a Polish joke. But then Canadians are very nice people and it’s a reputation they intend to keep. And I have to say I have never faced any kind of racial discrimination in Canada.
But what that does not help is the issues that our cricket team is facing in Australia. Yes, so our off spinner Harbhajan ("Bhajji") Singh called the only black Aussie player on the field a "monkey". All right. Perhaps personally offensive but does it have racial connotations?
To all except those who have scrambled eggs for brains, calling someone a monkey is not racial abuse. It may be abuse (though everyone knows that it is common place for players - especially the Aussies - to use even four letter words in the heat of the moment) but what is it about our simian ancestors that could be associated with racial abuse? If you think about it, is it not the whistle blowers themselves who are in their own minds associating a black player with a monkey? Why can't someone who is white or brown (or black or blue) be synonymous with a monkey? And why would the colour of Andrew Symond's skin be the only obvious association with a monkey rather than any other characteristic? And if Bhajji had used any other epitaph - for example "elephant" - would that not have been plain vanilla abusive rather than racial abuse? So if "monkey" is racial and "elephant' is not then the racism is in the minds of the accusers since it is they who at some sub-conscious level associate monkeys with black people.
Which brings us to MY BIG POINT about racism. It’s just not what you say or how you say it that matters. It’s what you actually think which is important. And if we do not address this, then racism is going to be a big problem because the subtle brand of racism will continue unabated. And it’s you & I who will be responsible since we refuse to address it. Pretending that it does not exist simply because it is not expressed is the problem. Which is why the controversy in Sydney was something which was inevitable. Pity it soiled the fair name of the great game of cricket.
Hooray for Huckabee
US Elections
I know a lot of folks out there who think that the world would probably have been a different place if the US Supreme Court had allowed a recount in Florida. I have no doubt that it would have been a better one. For one thing, we would not have had to gape at our television screens on hearing the "axis of evil" speech. For another, Bob Woodward would not have written another wildly successful bestseller. Or he would have found another topic to write about. Whatever! The point is that like it or not, the US presidential elections affect everyone. It certainly affects corporate lawyers who sit in their offices half way across the world, wondering during their coffee breaks when the US will fix its Pakistan policy. Especially when most of his clients just happen to be American companies doing business in India. So if I have somehow found the time to scrutinize the policies of each of the candidates and to follow what they have been saying all this while, then its not just preparation for my own political future. (Not in the US. thank you! They already have that guy called Bobby wassizface. I refuse to be called Peter Billimoria, even if it is to become the Governor of the Bihar of the US). It’s also to stop morons like you wondering what a silly cricket-crazy Delhi-ite will know about US politics. Surprise surprise!! In the electronic age, we don't need feet (or the backsides attached to them) to be planted in New York (more likely New Jersey which is where all the "Indian-Chinese" restaurants are) or California to be able to form informed opinions. And our opinions are probably more informed than at least several among the US electorate who have never applied for a passport, and who think that India is a "never developed" country of snake charmers and mahouts.
So as things stand right now, I have concluded that Huckabee is a candidate that the American people should seriously consider. Not that they will. But elections are not designed to always throw up the best candidate as the winner. Not even in the US. Why else do you think that guy Edwards wears his plastic smile and talks about "doing something" for the poor! His "winning formula" is simple. Attack the insurance companies! Is he really serious about getting them to pay for what the government can’t fix? Even if it’s not in the insurance policy they wrote? Well! Even if he gets the "Dear John ... " treatment from the voters, he sure has a bright future in Indian politics since people who offer free lunches seem to win here all the time. Good thing that Hilary and O-Bama are streets (or primaries) ahead. (Poor joke intended to relieve your boredom).
And good luck to them both too. Not just for keeping “errant Ed” at bay but because they stand for change. A black president with a muslim genealogy? Or a woman? (Even if it will - in a way - be her third term!!). This surely must be the ultimate glass ceiling. In the US no less! The country where the libbers first started to burn their bras. Wasn’t that several decades ago? Meanwhile Israel had its Golda Meir, & we had our “Indira-jeee”. So did Sri Lanka & Pakistan for crying out loud (their own women presidents, not Indira-jeee!) (More PJ's to relieve more boredom).
But wait a minute. What is the agenda of these two "first ever in history" candidates? Mrs. C has her own health care plan of course. It’s a great idea. But most of it is in her book. (Some of it is unworkable but save that for another blog if she wins!) Thank God for small mercies. And O-Bama has his own charm. Great communicator! He did not need Oprah's endorsement. The women love him anyway. (Although not so much in New Hampshire it seems!). But seriously ... what IS their message? Is it getting lost in all the cacophony? Or is it just silly old me? Could it be that you can't, after all, form an informed opinion by reading BOTH the New York Times AND the Washington Post? Could it be, after all, that you need your feet (and yes your ... ) right in the kitchen of the Indian-Chinese joint after all?
Or could it be that the main message these candidates offer is just change? But change to what? Surely, Mrs. C will not stop all the outsourcing work coming to Bangalore & Gurgaon like Ed the (poverty) exterminator. But what will she do for the economy which is fast heading South? (Apart from consulting her husband on "How to wave the red flag to the bulls on wall street" I mean.) Can she pull it out from the inevitable recession it will be in when she takes oath? (Oh yes. The "R" word! Wow! That hurts. Especially when the Indian economy will come to the rescue with its rampant consumerism. But save that for yet another blog).
Truth be told, both these candidates are too left of centre on economic policy. Problem is that the Republicans are barely talking any sense too. And with the reds come other problems such as foreign policy driven by neocons. Except of course in a Huckabee administration! Now here we have a candidate who is a fiscal conservative and yet has compassion (witness how many death row inmates he has pardoned). A guy who cuts taxes to spur growth. (A formula which works every time all the time). And a level headed thinker on foreign policy. Although I suspect he will need and get a lot of help from the likes of Henry Kissinger. But at least we will not have any more "axis of evil" speeches. Too bad he will have to depend on the evangelical vote bank to make it through the primaries. But if he makes it, then finally, we see a candidate who holds out the promise to do the right thing. Which is simply to govern well, keep government small and keep it out of business. Sometimes, that’s all it takes.
I know a lot of folks out there who think that the world would probably have been a different place if the US Supreme Court had allowed a recount in Florida. I have no doubt that it would have been a better one. For one thing, we would not have had to gape at our television screens on hearing the "axis of evil" speech. For another, Bob Woodward would not have written another wildly successful bestseller. Or he would have found another topic to write about. Whatever! The point is that like it or not, the US presidential elections affect everyone. It certainly affects corporate lawyers who sit in their offices half way across the world, wondering during their coffee breaks when the US will fix its Pakistan policy. Especially when most of his clients just happen to be American companies doing business in India. So if I have somehow found the time to scrutinize the policies of each of the candidates and to follow what they have been saying all this while, then its not just preparation for my own political future. (Not in the US. thank you! They already have that guy called Bobby wassizface. I refuse to be called Peter Billimoria, even if it is to become the Governor of the Bihar of the US). It’s also to stop morons like you wondering what a silly cricket-crazy Delhi-ite will know about US politics. Surprise surprise!! In the electronic age, we don't need feet (or the backsides attached to them) to be planted in New York (more likely New Jersey which is where all the "Indian-Chinese" restaurants are) or California to be able to form informed opinions. And our opinions are probably more informed than at least several among the US electorate who have never applied for a passport, and who think that India is a "never developed" country of snake charmers and mahouts.
So as things stand right now, I have concluded that Huckabee is a candidate that the American people should seriously consider. Not that they will. But elections are not designed to always throw up the best candidate as the winner. Not even in the US. Why else do you think that guy Edwards wears his plastic smile and talks about "doing something" for the poor! His "winning formula" is simple. Attack the insurance companies! Is he really serious about getting them to pay for what the government can’t fix? Even if it’s not in the insurance policy they wrote? Well! Even if he gets the "Dear John ... " treatment from the voters, he sure has a bright future in Indian politics since people who offer free lunches seem to win here all the time. Good thing that Hilary and O-Bama are streets (or primaries) ahead. (Poor joke intended to relieve your boredom).
And good luck to them both too. Not just for keeping “errant Ed” at bay but because they stand for change. A black president with a muslim genealogy? Or a woman? (Even if it will - in a way - be her third term!!). This surely must be the ultimate glass ceiling. In the US no less! The country where the libbers first started to burn their bras. Wasn’t that several decades ago? Meanwhile Israel had its Golda Meir, & we had our “Indira-jeee”. So did Sri Lanka & Pakistan for crying out loud (their own women presidents, not Indira-jeee!) (More PJ's to relieve more boredom).
But wait a minute. What is the agenda of these two "first ever in history" candidates? Mrs. C has her own health care plan of course. It’s a great idea. But most of it is in her book. (Some of it is unworkable but save that for another blog if she wins!) Thank God for small mercies. And O-Bama has his own charm. Great communicator! He did not need Oprah's endorsement. The women love him anyway. (Although not so much in New Hampshire it seems!). But seriously ... what IS their message? Is it getting lost in all the cacophony? Or is it just silly old me? Could it be that you can't, after all, form an informed opinion by reading BOTH the New York Times AND the Washington Post? Could it be, after all, that you need your feet (and yes your ... ) right in the kitchen of the Indian-Chinese joint after all?
Or could it be that the main message these candidates offer is just change? But change to what? Surely, Mrs. C will not stop all the outsourcing work coming to Bangalore & Gurgaon like Ed the (poverty) exterminator. But what will she do for the economy which is fast heading South? (Apart from consulting her husband on "How to wave the red flag to the bulls on wall street" I mean.) Can she pull it out from the inevitable recession it will be in when she takes oath? (Oh yes. The "R" word! Wow! That hurts. Especially when the Indian economy will come to the rescue with its rampant consumerism. But save that for yet another blog).
Truth be told, both these candidates are too left of centre on economic policy. Problem is that the Republicans are barely talking any sense too. And with the reds come other problems such as foreign policy driven by neocons. Except of course in a Huckabee administration! Now here we have a candidate who is a fiscal conservative and yet has compassion (witness how many death row inmates he has pardoned). A guy who cuts taxes to spur growth. (A formula which works every time all the time). And a level headed thinker on foreign policy. Although I suspect he will need and get a lot of help from the likes of Henry Kissinger. But at least we will not have any more "axis of evil" speeches. Too bad he will have to depend on the evangelical vote bank to make it through the primaries. But if he makes it, then finally, we see a candidate who holds out the promise to do the right thing. Which is simply to govern well, keep government small and keep it out of business. Sometimes, that’s all it takes.
My Baa
MY BAA
Look at that family picture with such happy faces, all beaming with joy. Surely, such a bunch of happy people must have been gathered together on some momentous occasion which must have triggered the picture perfect smiles. And yet, there must, no doubt, have been previous occasions when some of the participants of that photo session would have shed a tear, grieving for a loved one as I do now. The message that picture conveys to me is that joy and sadness are an integral part of the journey called life and living which we all have embarked upon. Of course! There will be future moments when my face too will radiate the same glow as those faces in that picture. How can it not? Will I not be delirious with joy when I hold my child for the first time at the moment of birth? Will I not be crazy happy when my children say the first word or walk that first step? Will I not pump my fists in the air when my son learns to play cricket and gets his first hundred? And will I not be completely over the top when he graduates?
So right there, I have found some redemption. Hope that flows from a picture on the mantelpiece, of people I hardly know. Hope from the thought that just like these people who would have overcome their own private grief over the passing of loved ones I too may someday come to terms with the thought that my Trixie-baa is no longer a part of my life. And yet I immediately question that very hope. How will the memory every fade? Is it not that a part of me is gone forever? They say that one should cherish the good times and deal with the loss. It’s a part of life they say. Only God can and does deal with death it is not for us to question why, they say. And of course, pets have a shorter life span so one should fully expect them to pass on leaving you empty and disoriented. They say that too.
But at this point I think all who say this have no understanding of what I feel and it is beyond the scope of my strength and patience to even try to explain. And who cares about what people say. I only know what I feel. And yet I question whether I am being arrogant in thinking that no one can possibly understand the extent of my sense of loss. Everyone has to deal with bereavement at some point and they somehow find the strength to carry on. So why I am thinking that this is the worst possible feeling and that no one else can understand what I feel? Am I being a wimp? Or are the others who think it is momentary and a passing phase being uncaring and selfish? Or perhaps it’s me who is selfish. I am thinking only of how I feel, how much I miss her and whether I will ever be able to come to terms with her passing.
It seems now that I am only thinking of myself and my own feelings. And to compound the offense I am now convincing myself that I am the only caring person and all the rest of them who grieve and overcome are somehow selfish and heartless. And so now, I have to also deal with the fact that somehow I am the one who is a horrible person, always so self absorbed in my own pain and absolving myself in a holier than thou philosophy, thinking all the time that no one else will ever understand.
So what is it now? Can it be that my love for my baa was of such magnitude that no one else can possibly identify with what I feel? Or is the blatant truth merely that I am so self absorbed that I somehow can’t accept that anyone else has ever felt as devastated as I now do? Or perhaps the simple truth is only that I am cracking up.
What are these random thoughts that come to me? And why are these only of myself? Even in considering whether I am being rational or not, it’s always about what I am and how I am being and behaving in this very sad moment. Never about my Trixie-baa. Can I truly claim to love her when all I can do at her demise is to think of how I feel? What about how she felt during her illness? Or how she must be feeling now in doggy heaven? Will she be thinking of me? Oh no!! There I go again. It’s always about me. It always gets back only to me. My thoughts, my feelings, my grief, my reaction to the pain, and now how an angel in heaven must be feeling towards ME!! I now begin to hate myself. Wait a minute. AGAIN … ME!! Will I ever learn to think of others and not about myself?
And then I realize that only a few minutes ago I caught myself wondering whether all those moments of joy I hope for will ever come to pass? Will I ever know the joy of holding a child at the time of birth, or see that child’s first step or hear that first word? Once again it’s only about me. By now I am reeling under the thought that I am perhaps the most selfish person in this world and resolve only to think of other loved ones who are here to be taken care of and to be looked after. But how do I deal with this feeling of devastation? I am truly shattered as if someone had sucked out the life force from my soul while retaining only the conscious perception of events. And then once again I check myself thinking only of me once again.
Then the question arises in my mind. Is the process of grieving only about one’s own self? It is about one’s own sorrow in any event is it not? So the pain I feel is not really about my baa. It’s only about my own self. So my misery is not because of empathy or love but only because of the fact that I will miss my baa. It’s all about me after all. And how selfish is that? But wait a minute. Perhaps the truth is that all feelings of love are in a way the most selfish emotion ever that anyone can feel. Missing a loved one is about our own selves and not about the person. So when I am saddened by the thought that my baa will never again snuggle up to me and I will never again kiss her snout it’s all only about what I will miss. So then is there anything like unselfish love? Some emotion which is so amazing and pure that what matters is only the happiness of the object of adoration and not of one’s own self.
My head spins and I search for an honest answer. Have I ever loved anyone or anything so well? I know the answer. There is someone. So now I feel a bit better. I am actually capable of such a wonderful emotion. Perhaps I am not such a bad person after all.
Look at that family picture with such happy faces, all beaming with joy. Surely, such a bunch of happy people must have been gathered together on some momentous occasion which must have triggered the picture perfect smiles. And yet, there must, no doubt, have been previous occasions when some of the participants of that photo session would have shed a tear, grieving for a loved one as I do now. The message that picture conveys to me is that joy and sadness are an integral part of the journey called life and living which we all have embarked upon. Of course! There will be future moments when my face too will radiate the same glow as those faces in that picture. How can it not? Will I not be delirious with joy when I hold my child for the first time at the moment of birth? Will I not be crazy happy when my children say the first word or walk that first step? Will I not pump my fists in the air when my son learns to play cricket and gets his first hundred? And will I not be completely over the top when he graduates?
So right there, I have found some redemption. Hope that flows from a picture on the mantelpiece, of people I hardly know. Hope from the thought that just like these people who would have overcome their own private grief over the passing of loved ones I too may someday come to terms with the thought that my Trixie-baa is no longer a part of my life. And yet I immediately question that very hope. How will the memory every fade? Is it not that a part of me is gone forever? They say that one should cherish the good times and deal with the loss. It’s a part of life they say. Only God can and does deal with death it is not for us to question why, they say. And of course, pets have a shorter life span so one should fully expect them to pass on leaving you empty and disoriented. They say that too.
But at this point I think all who say this have no understanding of what I feel and it is beyond the scope of my strength and patience to even try to explain. And who cares about what people say. I only know what I feel. And yet I question whether I am being arrogant in thinking that no one can possibly understand the extent of my sense of loss. Everyone has to deal with bereavement at some point and they somehow find the strength to carry on. So why I am thinking that this is the worst possible feeling and that no one else can understand what I feel? Am I being a wimp? Or are the others who think it is momentary and a passing phase being uncaring and selfish? Or perhaps it’s me who is selfish. I am thinking only of how I feel, how much I miss her and whether I will ever be able to come to terms with her passing.
It seems now that I am only thinking of myself and my own feelings. And to compound the offense I am now convincing myself that I am the only caring person and all the rest of them who grieve and overcome are somehow selfish and heartless. And so now, I have to also deal with the fact that somehow I am the one who is a horrible person, always so self absorbed in my own pain and absolving myself in a holier than thou philosophy, thinking all the time that no one else will ever understand.
So what is it now? Can it be that my love for my baa was of such magnitude that no one else can possibly identify with what I feel? Or is the blatant truth merely that I am so self absorbed that I somehow can’t accept that anyone else has ever felt as devastated as I now do? Or perhaps the simple truth is only that I am cracking up.
What are these random thoughts that come to me? And why are these only of myself? Even in considering whether I am being rational or not, it’s always about what I am and how I am being and behaving in this very sad moment. Never about my Trixie-baa. Can I truly claim to love her when all I can do at her demise is to think of how I feel? What about how she felt during her illness? Or how she must be feeling now in doggy heaven? Will she be thinking of me? Oh no!! There I go again. It’s always about me. It always gets back only to me. My thoughts, my feelings, my grief, my reaction to the pain, and now how an angel in heaven must be feeling towards ME!! I now begin to hate myself. Wait a minute. AGAIN … ME!! Will I ever learn to think of others and not about myself?
And then I realize that only a few minutes ago I caught myself wondering whether all those moments of joy I hope for will ever come to pass? Will I ever know the joy of holding a child at the time of birth, or see that child’s first step or hear that first word? Once again it’s only about me. By now I am reeling under the thought that I am perhaps the most selfish person in this world and resolve only to think of other loved ones who are here to be taken care of and to be looked after. But how do I deal with this feeling of devastation? I am truly shattered as if someone had sucked out the life force from my soul while retaining only the conscious perception of events. And then once again I check myself thinking only of me once again.
Then the question arises in my mind. Is the process of grieving only about one’s own self? It is about one’s own sorrow in any event is it not? So the pain I feel is not really about my baa. It’s only about my own self. So my misery is not because of empathy or love but only because of the fact that I will miss my baa. It’s all about me after all. And how selfish is that? But wait a minute. Perhaps the truth is that all feelings of love are in a way the most selfish emotion ever that anyone can feel. Missing a loved one is about our own selves and not about the person. So when I am saddened by the thought that my baa will never again snuggle up to me and I will never again kiss her snout it’s all only about what I will miss. So then is there anything like unselfish love? Some emotion which is so amazing and pure that what matters is only the happiness of the object of adoration and not of one’s own self.
My head spins and I search for an honest answer. Have I ever loved anyone or anything so well? I know the answer. There is someone. So now I feel a bit better. I am actually capable of such a wonderful emotion. Perhaps I am not such a bad person after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
