About realism...

About realism…If my mind can conceive it, my heart can believe it; only then can I say that I can achieve it.

People in this world have different perceptions. This is what makes it an exciting place to live in. Optimism and pessimism explain two popular notions about how people perceive things. While a person adhering to the former essentially sees this world as bed of roses, another person views the same world as full of thorns.

My consideration in this article revolves around the undue attention that people having these two attitudes get…or rather the undue attention that these two notions get. In addition to it, my effort is also to put forth my point of view…which I choose to categorize neither as optimistic nor pessimistic but as 'realistic'.

I present this view as a lay person. I have no intention or capacity to delve into the intricacies of human psychology or any other field to which the terms used might relate. So I urge the reader to proceed in the light of this fact.

I have come across people who readily tell you what type of thinking you have just by the way you perceive the level of water in a glass. It is a very popular way...Isn't it? If one sees it as half full, he/she is heralded as an optimist and if he/she takes the contrary view he/she is condemned as a pessimist. I, being a realist find this exercise quite amusing. I will tell you why.

How does it matter whether the glass is half-full or empty? If the water is inadequate to quench your thirst, you are very likely to pour some more and drink it. If it is ample, you won't go into a silly question as that. And if you are not thirsty at all, the question becomes sillier. My mom might opt do something very different...like ask me to put the glass in the wash basin so that she can clean the dinner table ! Practical no? Oh yes, it is.

Some years ago my oldest friend, upon realizing that we have the same/common contact and that too in USA remarked that the world is too small. I could not help disagreeing. No, I did not say that it is big….for I have not seen it all. (People do say, "It is a big bad world", or that "the world is too big, I may take shelter anywhere") I said "the world is round; people are bound to meet if they are destined to". Notice the realism before laughing at it. (In case you are) That the planet is round is a 'universal truth'. The 'destiny' part is of course for the believers.

Coming to a bit of Philosophy, people also say that life is short, that thus it should not be whiled away but spent in worthwhile causes...material or spiritual. Recently my brother said the very thing. Somehow it did not feel good. Besides having a sad tinge about it, it is not the right perspective in my opinion. I will give you reasoning before you jump to say that everyone has a right to hold an opinion.

How can you say that life is short, or long for that matter? With whom do you compare human life? A tortoise has an average lifespan of 500 years. In comparison to this animal, well yes, I can say that my life is short. (And that too relying on the scientific concept of 'average life expectancy') But it sounds silly, doesn't it? To me it does.

What then is the right perspective? In my opinion life is neither short nor long; it is uncertain, thus precious. No one knows till how long he/she is going to live, so none can claim having a long or a short span of life…till death makes everything certain. Again pragmatic.

Pessimism...yes it should be kept at bay. So I shall not talk about it any further and concentrate only on optimism and realism. An optimist tends to take a very cheerful view of matters. He/ she expects the best outcome. 'He dares to dream', it is said. Very good. One should dream. Even a realist dreams, but at the same time he/she knows the essential difference between a dream and a 'pipe dream'. While the former is a vision of a conscious mind, the latter is just a fond hope…an illusion that is elusory. A realist expects the best outcome only when he/she has tried for it and deserves it. He/she not only dares to dream, but has the necessary will and capacity to make it happen. In short, a realist does not fantasize. A realist does believe in miracles, for they do happen; but at the same time he/she has the prudent wisdom to treat them as rare exceptions. He/she does not 'expect' misfortune, as a typical pessimist would do, but does not eliminate the possibility of it either. The line of difference between a realist and an optimist is too thin but there exists one, and this 'one' may make a world of a difference.

Dated: December 15, 2001

Sunanda Bharti.

The absolutist in me.

Since long I had been thinking of writing this. What triggered the desire was my conversation/s with a couple of my friends and gang of cousins whom I am lucky enough to have in my life. I shall remain indebted to them forever.

Time, they say is a versatile performer…it flies, marches on, heals all wounds, runs out and will tell. These are nothing but my thoughts on various issues…whether time manages to change my perception remains to be seen. At times though, I feel that it (time) needs a helping hand from the other 'me' to achieve the task. I try with utmost honesty to render it.

Trust :

When people claim to trust someone, how can they doubt him/her thereafter? Trust, I believe is blind. Blind inherently and totally. It has to exist without a trace of doubt. 'Vishwaas, andha hi hota hai'. This means that nothing, as 'andhvishwaas' exists in my dictionary. Either one can trust someone or cannot. This of course does not mean that he/she has to mistrust the remaining. He/she might remain indifferent towards them.

I don't understand the way people use the expression. I obviously lack the wisdom that others possess (….may be because I refuse to accept the very superfluous ‘working definition’ of the word.) They claim to have trust in people. How can they claim that a certain person will not do such and such thing? Human behavior is so diverse. People behave differently in different circumstances and even in same circumstances. The situation is cryptic and uncertain and yet 'trust' is claimed to exist. Strange.

If I know a person well, all that I might say/be able to say about him/her is that he/she can do this and this. I would not be able to say that he/she cannot do such thing today so he/she would not do it in future as well. I wonder how people claim the latter.

Love :

Everyone seems to be in it….fallen, risen, sailing or bitten. Going by what is claimed and seen and often flaunted, more than half the population is 'deeply' in love…So it has attained epidemic proportions despite suffering from a handicap…blindness. I am being stupid. Let me stop right here then. No…I won't attempt the impossible task of defining it. Let me just say that it is a feeling pristine and giving in nature. Lust has no business here. So is the case with vocal chords. It is a feeling…remember…so it has to be 'felt' … found/experienced in silence…not lost in verbal clutter.

Creativity :

I have written on it before as well. It is something innate. Either it is there or is absent. Yes, I believe it to be congenital. Creativity cannot come in the list of traits acquired after birth. Talent, acumen, skill (or whatever the name given) can however be acquired.

Laziness :

This is something that I completely abhor. Consequently, my opinion about it is strong…rigid as that bright carbon. Shirking of work is not a character trait; it is an anomaly of blood. Need I say more?

Marriage :

This is where the problem begins. The root of the problem…my profession and me. Yes, it has murdered the sweet, conventional girl in me. Nothing that I regret; my parents however, might. Marriages …made in heaven? Frankly speaking I do not find/have not found anything sacred in it. In the Indian scenario, (for I cannot comment on how the rest of the world treats it/considers it) and for an Indian female, it is nothing more than a socially accepted, institutionalized, and thoroughly reinforced, serfdom.

Why am ‘I’ a root cause for what my opinion on marriage is? The answer shall come automatically for those who know me enough. Because of my independent (read rebellious) attitude/thinking, which I valiantly guard, I find myself ill suited for the ‘service’. I cannot (and do not want to) fit into the mould of a stereotype wife. An average Indian male today has thoughts that are ‘ostensibly’ radical but intrinsically retrograde…at least I find most of them not evolved enough. Because of their pampered and ‘different’ upbringing, they first ‘fail’ to and after marriage ‘refuse’ to do their things themselves.

Companionship and procreation are the two, very powerful reasons put forth (usually by men and women respectively) in favour of marriage. Hmm, they could have a point here and since I am yet to make up my mind regarding these, I might as well abstain from commenting on it.

Finally…and this was important….Why should one bother to read, let alone adhere to my perceptions? I’d advise them not to and while saying this I have no regrets. I am used to it…no matter how hard people try…a few manage to board my train of thoughts…

The difference...

On several occasions, either voluntarily or otherwise (read out of ignorance) we use words that are meant to convey one meaning but they (the words) tend to deliver something totally different. That something totally different has been conveyed than what was meant, can be perceived only by a keen mind. Such a keen mind, I, very immodestly proclaim to possess. Impudent! So be it. (It's much better than being pathetically and artificially modest.)

One of the finest examples of how words convey an altogether different meaning arises when people say that they are "feeling very alone". One can never feel alone; one can only be alone. It signifies that one is solitary. That there is nobody around him/her. One can feel lonely though. This can happen even when people surround one. It can easily be associated with boredom, jilted lovers, people who are ever brooding and pensive…. and the like.

Then, one often says that one is not 'creative' enough. Creativity, they say can be acquired. No, it cannot be. Now this is entirely my perception. I believe that creativity is inherent, it's in your blood, it's God's gift. If one is not creative, one simply cannot be. It is not a property open to acquisition. Controversial? Let it be. What happens to those who are not blessed? They can acquire something else…'talent'. Yes. There is a difference between talent and creativity. Talents, acumen, skills …all can be acquired through repitition, slogging, practice and so on. So what is the difference between a talented person and a creative person? The former treads the beaten path, goes by general rules, and aims to touch the horizon. The latter creates those paths, goes by exceptions, and knows no horizon. His/her frontiers are seamless.

It often happens that people don't listen to what one has to say. Some other times, they 'only' listen. What problem can I possibly have to this one! The problem is that it is better not to listen than to 'only' listen devoid of attention. One listens when one's hearing faculties are unimpaired. This is involuntary, by default you may say. But when one pays attention as well, one's mental faculties work in conjugation with the sense organs. Attention requires some deliberation.

A topic favorite of Sherlock Holmes or rather Sir Doyle was to explain the difference between observation and seeing. In one of the stories, (which I believe was never penned by Sir Doyle but by an ardent fan of Holmes) Holmes and Watson are camping on a mountaintop. Rising from sleep one night Holmes remarks "Watson, I bet you can't see what I observe." Peeved, Watson starts listing the things that he can see. "I see the stars, and the beautiful moon." "And", says Holmes. "I see the foliage all immersed in moonlight" "Very poetic indeed Watson. And nothing else I suppose?" Exasperated, at such an irritating supposition, Watson answers in the negative. "Pray enlighten me to what else you percieve in this moonlit night!" he demanded. "That" answered Holmes in his characteristic coolness, "our tent has been stolen." The explanation is much the same. One sees all right if one's eyesight is OK, but one is able to percieve a lot more if he/she exercises his mental faculties as well.

Praise, admiration is different from flattery or sychophancy. One praises someone or thing from one's heart. Admiration is always rooted in truth. If it is not, it is nothing but hollow flattery. Flattery on the other hand is always rooted in some vested interest.

Having said the substantial part of what I wanted to say, I wish the readers to come to my aid in one particular aspect. There ought to be some difference between 'being helpful' and 'getting yourself exploited'. So many thoughts surround me all at once that I get confused. When is help sought or when should it be sought? When should it be given? Should one come to one's aid without being asked for? This surely cannot be converted into a general rule, for after all we are not all-good Samaritans or officious beings. If one, without trying even once to help oneself seeks help; does it not amount to getting exploited? Or do the norms change according to who the person seeking help is? Suppose, he/she is a good friend, then?

Till the time I get adequate inputs or am able to independently organize my own thoughts on the point, I think it appropriate to give a pause to this piece.

Sunanda Bharti

Dated: February 16, 2002

May the Trinity prevail...

Hmm, another piece written ages ago...in the year 2002 to be precise. You might like it!

Ever wondered why in Indian households the number 'three' is considered ominous? I had the occasion to chance my thoughts upon it recently while tracing some memories. My grandmother used to say…."Arey teen log saath mat jao, kaam nahin baneyga." We readily obeyed. We were small little children then….too obedient to defy her (or any body else's) dictates. Besides, 'logic' had not taken roots. Today, when I am past the juvenile age, I try to find the logic (if there is/was any) behind considering the number of 'three' as a bad augury. Strangely, I find none…I fail completely. On the contrary, I am able to give numerous instances of it being a good/relevant sign/symbol.

An average Hindu, whom I consider as averagely religious, has firm faith in the Trinity. It is believed that Brahma, the creator, created this beautiful Earth, all replete and complete with resources; Vishnu, is the lord responsible for preserving it; and Mahesh is the lord of destruction. Three Godesses viz. Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati ably support them as their consorts. Devalok, Mirttyu loka and Pataal lok are believed to be the abodes of Deva's, Manushya's and Asura's respectively.

Speaking of the Trinity, I would like to add the significance of the mythical third eye of Lord Shiva. ('Trinetra' is often used as a synonym for the lord.) Opening of this third eye signifies 'pralaya', Hindu equivalent of an apocalypse.

All 'matter' on this Brahminical creation i.e. Earth exists in three states….solid, liquid and gaseous. 'Atom', the basic constituent consists of three parts- proton, neutron and electron. Physics, Chemistry and Biology are the three main streams of Science. Winter, summer and rainy season constitute the climate cycle on Earth.

Leaving aside Earth and coming to earthlings…the human beings, supposedly the smartest crearures to dwell on this Planet…Three basic traits- personality, perceptions and priorities define a human being, and differentiate him/her from another of the same species. All jobs taken by this human being may be classified into three categories- mental, manual and menial. (And this time, let us leave aside the hypocritic claim "ke koi kaam chota ya bada nahin hota"…. that no job is menial if it proves to be OK on the touchstone of honesty. Urban metropolis life is surely oblivious of the plight of scavengers and night soil removers who take up the job due to helplessness/social stigma and extreme poverty. Their job is menial by all means and standards. Their presence even after nearly 55 years of independence mocks at State efforts. It is also indicative of how cruelly slow and grossly inadequate the process of social change has been.)

Coming back to the theme of the article, the prefix 'The Great' is associated with three great men about whom we read in history-Alexander, Ashoka and Akbar. Those who are not so great strive to attain three basic necessities of life- roti, kapda aur makaan. Litigation in India is concentrated around three matters-zar, zoru and zameen.

The point of similarity and perhaps the only point between these great and 'not so great' men is their faith in the Almighty. Religion might be different though. Buddhism for instance gives the mantra of 'Buddham sharnam gachchami, Dhammam sharnam gachchami, Sangham sharnam gachchami.' Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha being the three goals or destinations. Amongst Hindus hardly any would be able to deny the significance of Triveni Sangam, the point of confluence of three great Indian rivers- Ganga, Yamuna and the mythical Saraswati. Then….Bhakti, Gyana and Karma are believed to be the three paths to attain mokhsa. Satyam Shivam Sunderam is another Hindu belief.

The Lion Capital at Sarnath has three visible lions in the sitting posture. We have adopted it as the National emblem.

Poverty, population and pollution sum up the anathema with which our planet is afflicted.

Many more examples can be added to the above list. They may verge from silly to serious. Infact some of the above examples might occur to be exaggerations, but there is a difference. They all have logical bases. They are rooted in mythology, religion or reality. The point in writing this piece is to counter a belief, to which no logical interpretation can be given. (At least I could not find any). I asked my grandfather once. His answer can be summed up in the proverb- ' Two is company, three is crowd.' While two can be in agreement, three will always be in argument. The philosophy makes some sense. 'Some.' Frankly, it does not occur to me as so great a logic so as to justify a complete ostracization of three! (Dated: January 9,2002)/ Sunanda Bharti.

Noor, The Impeccable

Empress Noorjehan

Being a feminist who is all for women liberation, Noorjehan is one woman in the history of India who intrigues and impresses me beyond any measure. My amnesic memory fails me when I try to recollect when this wonderful woman became an integral part of my reveries. Yes, whenever my routinised existence permits, I never fail to daydream. No, I do not dream to picture myself as Noor, but, I do admit, for reasons I am to explain here, that I secretly often wish to have been born during 1605-1627 AD. I would love to see her in flesh and blood to understand the enigma that she is.

Though I doubt if words would serve as an appropriate and adequate medium to explain this multifaceted personality, my agitated mind compels me to make a beginning. So, here is Noor for you…the woman, as I understand her.

Birth and family history:

Noor was not an Indian by birth. She was born in Kandahar (now in Afghanistan). She was not also an Afghani however. To understand a complex and diverse personality as Noor, one has to shed the jingoistic and parochial approach and look beyond the contemporary geographical boundaries till the present Turkey. See map below.

Persia, Kabul and Baluchistan

This old map shows Persia, Kabul and Baluchistan. Upon comparison with the map below, one may see that the present countries of Turkey, Iran Iraq and many more were a part of Persia to which Noorjehan belonged.

Present day Central Asia. Kindly ignore POK as it has been shown as a part of Pakistan.

Picture Narration: Close focus of Persia in olden days

Noorjehan’s grandfather was a respected noble in Tehran, then a part of Persia. (Presently, Tehran is the capital of Iran). He died in a battle and his family, fearing bad times, decided to migrate to Hindustan, as India was then known. This family consisted of Mirza Ghiyas Baig, his wife and son named Asaf Baig. En route to Hindustan, Mirza s wife gave birth to a daughter and named her Mihir-un-nisa (sun amongst women). This was in the year 1577 AD in Kandahar (presently in Afghanistan). It is believed that Mihir-un-nisa’s mother had once decided to abandon the newborn in the deserts of Kandahar, perhaps to lessen the hardships of travel. Lack of any corroborative evidence lends this information the status of gossip. It is however a fact that this newborn, technically a Persian immigrant, grew up to attain the enviable status of Empress Noorjehan of India.

Mirza Ghiyas Baig, father of Mihir-un-nisa, succeeded in winning favours from Akbar upon reaching India. Akbar was then the Mughal ruler of India. Being courageous and independent in nature, Mirza rose high up in the imperial hierarchy and very soon he became an indispensable commander of the Mughal army. Asaf Baig, brother of Mihir-un-nisa, was also an important courtier and a proud father of the lovely Arjumand Bano Begum. Arjumand later gained immortality as Mumtajmahal, the alleged reason behind the construction of Taj Mahal.

Upbringing of Noor:

Mihir-un-nisa, as Noor was then called, grew up into a proficient lady with fascinating artistic capabilities and a tremendous intellectual potential. Having received her earlier education in the holy Quran and Persian language, she had a natural flair for poetry.

In 1605, Akbar died and amongst the many changes that were introduced, also marked the coming into prominence of Noor. In 1607, when she joined the royal court as a ward, she was already a married woman, married to Sher Afghan, a Mughal officer and the mother of Ladli Begum.

Being a lethal combination of beauty, intelligence, innueumerable creative talents and perhaps an ambitious zeal, it was not long before the colourful Prince Salim (later Jehangir) became a victim of Mihir-un-nisa’s impeccable charms.

An interesting legend, again lacking any evidentiary base, provides that so besotted was the prince with her and so mad was his desire to possess her that he sent her husband, Sher Afghan, to a hopeless expedition and had him murdered. A logical insight into prince Salim s lustful adventures (if the legend of Anarkali can be given credence) make me believe the fable that ranks the prince Salim (later Emperor Jehangir) as a conniving murderer. Also, the coincidence (?) of Noor s joining court and her husband s death (both in 1607 AD) do not seem as a chance happening.

Transformation:

Not long after the death of Sher Afghan, the husband of Noor (in 1611 to be precise), Jehangir professed his profound love for her and married her. Thereafter they became inseparable and Jehangir fondly named her Noormahal (light of the palace) and later Noorjehan (light of the world).

Noor is known to the History as Jehangir’s ‘favorite’ companion and consort. Yes, while Jehangir was Noorjehan s second husband, Noor was Emperor Jehangir s 20th wife. Keeping a harem, I believe, in those days was a political requirement rather than a consequence of lust. In an era when women were married off at a tender age, it is indeed startling to note that Noor was 34 when she married Jehangir. Not only this, she was a widow of a mere Mughal Army officer. Consider this and then also consider the general restrictions laid upon women in those times and culture; imagine the kind of aura and charm Noorjehan might be having that completely bedazzled the Emperor. In addition to all this, one cannot overlook the fact that she was his favourite despite being unable to provide the kingdom and his line with the all important heir to the throne. Prince Khurram or Emperor Shah jehan as he is known to the world, was Noorjehan s stepson. His biological mother was Rani Manmati, a Rajput Princess.

Nuruddin Jehangir’s wasteful, alchoholic and womanising ways are not new to the Mughal history or legend. Noorjehan s impressive personality and perhaps an ambitious temperament not only captured his roving attention, but managed to sustain it till his death. Clearly, it was something more than external beauty that brought this about.

Noorjehan had impressive credentials. She was an excellent conversationalist. Perhaps her inherent flair for poetry granted her words beauty and cogency. With her regal ways and engaging conversations, she managed to impress scholars and intellectuals from faraway lands.

Administrator:

I believe Jehangir’s aversion to administrative affairs in contrast with Noor’s natural abilities made the latter wield the real power. Noorjehan not only gave audiences at her palace, she even had her name appear on all the royal farmaans. It is impressive to note that she is the only woman in the history of India whose name appears on the royal coinage. Yes, the love laden Jehangir had the coins struck in her name. The couplet on the coin read:

Ba hukma Shah Jehangir yafta sad zevar
Ba nam-e-Noorjehan badshah begun zer.

Translation: Coin struck by the order of Shah Jehangir: ‘This gold has attained a hundred beauties because the name of Noorjehan, the Badshah Begum has been inscribed on it.’

Noorjehan was popularly known as Badshah Begum. Having established herself as the real imperial power, she proved herself worthy of being what she was. Infact, it would be no exaggeration to say that perhaps she discharged the royal responsibilities a 100 times better than her husband would have. Jehangir, being overshadowed by Akbar s greatness and his own indulgent ways, could never come out of the weakling mould. He grew up like a creeper, in need of constant symbiotic support. Noorjehan provided him that Redwood support.

This pillar of strength had a dictatorial streak in her. Court ambassador’s and historians quote that nothing could be done in the Empire, unless Noorjehan okayed it. In order to rule ably, she even maintained, what may be called an espionage team; the Noorjehan’s junta as it is referred to. It comprised some close confidants like Itimad-ud-daulah, Noorjehan’s father, Prince Khurram (later Shah jehan) and Asaf baig, Noorjehan s brother.

I find Noor’s creative accomplishments the most impressive of all her traits. A number of legends are popular on the way she was impressed by the Turkish embroidery and the way she introduced the fine art of Chikankaari to India. This form of needlework is presently a trademark of something essentially Indian. The brocades, rugs and dresses that she designed became a trend that continues to inspire the present day designers.

Noorjehan was an ardent patron of painting and architecture. She assisted Jehangir in designing the layout of Persian gardens like the Shalimaar Bagh near the Dal Lake in Kashmir. Shalimaar Bagh was caused to built by Jehangir for his beloved wife Noorjehan. It literally means ‘Abode of Love’.

Itimad-ud-daulah’s tomb: The real cenotaphs (Upon noticing the above photograph carefully, the richly carved floor cannot be missed)

Itimad-ud-daulah’s tomb at Agra, often dwarfed by the pristine glory of the Tajmahal was caused to be build by Noorjehan for her father. This highly ornate edifice is an ode to Noorjehan s creativity. I believe that people who visit Agra just to see the Tajmahal insult this wonderfully decorative and richly crafted monument that has so many firsts’ to its credit.

Historians maintain that it is the first structure in the architectural history of India wherein white marble supplants red sandstone for the floor. Almost every inch of the structure is ornately decorated with pietra dura, the Italian art of stone inlay (another first to the exceptional monument).

It would not be wrong to say that Noorjehan caused this lovely art to be imported from beyond the seas. It is an art that was perfected by Abdul Hamid Lahori, the chief architect of the Taj, while constructing the monument.

The art of Pietra Dura: Italian Art of stone inlay

Coming back to Itimad-ud-daulah’s tomb, the walls of the tomb, floor, and ceiling are all covered in precious stones. My love for stones and the art of pietra dura in general compels me to explain a few things. Pietra Dura is an Italian art wherein cut-out pieces of colourful stones are embedded in marble.

The splendour and opulence of this art as displayed in the monument makes me pay 100 tributes the patron in Noor. History, I feel, has done injustice to the queen in forgetting her accomplishments just because she does not have a Taj to her credit.

Close focus of one of the four minarets of the tomb. Notice that every inch of the structure is covered with precious and semi precious stones/gems

Above is a brief about the kind and variety of gems that have been used in the Moghul structures. Apologies for the small print.

It seems that Noorjehan was particularly fond of jems and jewellery. Ardent collectors like the Salarjung family have preserved her daggers and other stone studded jewellery. Presently they are believed to be a popular display item at the Salarjung museum in Hyderabad.

Last Phase:

During the later years of Jehangir s life, Noorjehan strained her relationships with the members of her junta. Her own brother, Asaf Baig, colluded with prince Khurram and rebelled against the Emperor. Noorjehan desired a marriage alliance between Shahryar, Khurram s younger brother, and her daughter (Ladli Begum) from the first marriage. Her main motive was to support Shahryar s candidature to the throne despite prince Khurram’s obvious eligibility. History records that the rebels captured Jehangir and Khurram ascended to the throne as Emperor Shahjehan.

In 1607 Jehangir died and Noorjehan retired into solitude and later oblivion. Jehangir s tomb, another architectural marvel in red sandstone and marble was caused to be constructed by Noorjehan and Emperor Shahjehan in 1637 AD. It is in Lahore, in Pakistan. From the Mughal dynasty in India, Jehangir is the only emperor whose tomb is not in India.

Noorjehan, who was perhaps born to rule the world died like a prisoner (she was imprisoned by Shahjehan) in 1643 and is buried in Lahore. It is said that once her tomb had a marble cenotaph that she had built herself during her lifetime. However, history records that some Sikh marauders plundered the tomb and carted off the riches to decorate the Golden temple at Amritsar.

Thus, an eventful life, lived in splendour, extravagance and riches passed away in lonely quietude.
What makes Noorjehan take credence over other women of prominence is that she proved herself to be an astute administrator of an empire purely on the basis of her inherent capabilities and merit. Like Razia Sultan, Chand Bibi and Rani Laxmibai, she never wielded a sword to gain notice. Neither can she fall in the category of those bewitching beauties like the legendary Anarkali and Mumtazmahal whose only claim to fame is either a mismanaged, controversial and doubtful love affair or a mausoleum.

Interesting titbit: It has intrigued me beyond any measure to understand the habit of chewing paan amongst Muslim women in particular. My fidgeting curiosity was laid to rest when I came across the information that the habit of chewing paan was popularised by Noorjehan. She had discovered that by adding some ingredients to the leaf grants a natural red colour to the lips and used this knowledge as her very own cosmetic therapy!

Mass Hysteria

About Mass Hysteria
Note: This is another article written in the year 2001. The examples and references thus, might appear old but they do convey a point. Moreover, I did not want to 'refine' it. Just wanted to preserve the thoughts I entertained at that time.

For a very long time I was planning to write something about mass hysteria. The events, which had and have been taking place around me, were compelling me to express my views on the topic. At the very outset I must clarify that I am no authority on the concept. Surely I am as naïve as any other average layperson in so far as a complicated topic as the one chosen by me is concerned. But, it cannot be denied (and my fellow brethren who have spent a considerable part of their life in India will agree to this), that being an Indian itself makes one more aware of the concerned subject. In other words, an Indian can boast to be an exponent of mass hysteria much more easily than anyone else in this world. For those readers who are still trying to figure out the head and tail of this article, let me be a bit more explicit… Indians I believe are more prone or susceptible to the phenomenon of ‘mass hysteria’ than any one else. And no, there is no need to grit your teeth and brand this as an outrageous act of blasphemy, for it will only prove my point. It will indeed show that we have become increasingly intolerant of any negative perception about us. This intolerant attitude I believe, is the breeding ground on which mass hysteria thrives. Have you ever wondered as to why on some occasions we let ourselves be governed by the minds of others? Why we let ourselves be incited by religious or political lords? Why on hearing anything antithetical to our age-old beliefs we become eager to shed the ‘social’ part of our entity and become animals in pure? In short, why for Godssake we fall prey to the herd instinct and fail to see reason?

As I have already pointed out that I am no authority on the subject of mass hysteria, so I shall take help from other sources to define the term. As per the Microsoft Encarta World English Dictionary, ‘mass hysteria’ means a feeling characterized by herd instinct. It is a part of crowd psychology as well. The term can be applied to situations in which a large number of people exhibit the same kind of physical symptoms with no organic cause.
Freud, the great psychoanalyst opined that it is the undischarged emotional energy of an individual that manifests itself in the form of hysteria. Having defined the term let me proceed by citing some incidents as examples… All these examples have been taken from the time period when I had developed enough maturity to ponder over them, i.e. the examples are comparatively fresh.

I wonder how many of you remember the famous Ramar Pillai who became infamous too soon. He is the man who jolted the wits out of reputed scientists and researchers by claiming to have made ‘herbal fuel’ not so long ago. Initially everyone was skeptical…thanks to good education. Then suddenly he decided to demonstrate the use of his invention and did that successfully! Despite the fact that he never disclosed the ‘trick’ of making his ‘organic elixir’, the scientists believed him… thanks to the aura that Ramar was able to build around the concept by favorably exploiting government’s urgent need to find a substitute for petrol. The scientists were taken for an embarrassing ride. Why did the scientists and why only them, the general people as well, failed to see the obvious? Why did they not use their famous ‘rational’ thinking to detect and defy the concoction? Why did they make themselves so vulnerable to the herd instinct?

Then, at one point of time God decided to oblige His creation by accepting milk from them…remember? I was in the second year of my college and that makes it 1996. I still have a vivid memory of the grand occasion, when ‘superstition’ was given the authority to grant ‘logic’ a day off. Every person was vying to get the status of being ‘the chosen one’. Litres and litres of milk were offered as ‘prasaad’. For those who never got a chance to give his offerings to the Almighty came home depressed and heart broken. The sheer massiveness of the crowds at some temples created law and order problems. Then finally God decided to end his liquid diet by granting a barber the wisdom to see the truth…which till now was hidden in the well-known principle of ‘surface tension’! So, a not so learned man (and this is in comparison to the large intelligentsia which spares no opportunity at flaunting the superiority of their brain cells), was able to see through the shenanigan supposedly played by an American- Indian crony. Why couldn’t the learned detect the prank? Why did the ‘junta’ allow themselves to accept the bizarre? Is it not true that the incident primarily happened because of our intransigent and rigid religious perceptions, which refuse to see reason when matters of ‘faith’ are touched upon? The answer is YES, a big and bold one. Had our faith not been blind, had our souls understood ‘Him’ correctly, and had our body experienced well, the sordid state of hunger; we could have been able to see the crying infant who kept on waiting for his share of milk (which was never to arrive); we could have been able to see the gallons of milk which literally went down the drain; and finally we could have been able to realize that His hand which feeds the mouth can never possibly accept the food which He has made for His own children.

From God let us move to lesser mortals… the ‘godmen’. I must say that their hypocrisy makes even me hysterical! Just a joke! Coming back to the topic, these godmen appear to be graduates in crowd psychology to me! Otherwise there is no other way they could pull such huge crowds. People pay homage to them, treat them as incarnations and they have a field day exploiting their sentiments. They accept gifts, live lavishly, allow their feet to be touched by men and women twice their age, but people, blind in their faith or working under the hypnotic spell of their sermons, again fail to see through the obvious. Perhaps here the public is not justified in being blamed. The nature of populist measures taken by these ‘godmen’ is such that anyone can get ‘affected’. Still the fact that people do fall prey to the same old ‘herd instinct’ cannot be denied. They take divorce from all logic and succumb to the charms of magic! Don’t they possess the prudent wisdom to differentiate a garb from a God? Had they been true messengers of God, they would have opted to live a simple and serene life…much like say Mahatma Gandhi or Swami Vivekananda. (these examples have been cited just to reflect upon their simple lifestyle and not to suggest that they were messengers of God) Instead they roam around in limousines, carry cellphones, indulge heavily in myriad philanthropic activities, and even live abroad! Really, I pity those people who either fail to, or obstinately refuse to see through the reality of their crimson robes.

In conclusion I must cite two recent examples… remember the infamous monkey man or kaala bandar episode? Of course you must be, for it is too ripe and horribly good to be forgotten. Hysteria played havoc and forced innocent, terror stricken people to commit suicides. Sad.

Recently the release of ‘Gadar’ saw a strange phenomenon…many of the people who protested against its screening claiming it to be against their religious sentiments did not even see the movie in the first place! Clearly, they were playing in the hands of someone else. A spark was shown and the people ignited their passions…the rest was taken care of by our very own ‘herd instinct’. Bad.

Dated: September 30, 2001/ Sunanda Bharti.

The Uphill Task of Moving From Property to Personhood

It is indeed curious to note that ‘legal personality of animals’ is a subject of study in jurisprudence wherein analyses and comparisons are intricately drawn between animals and humans, only to discover and conclude that animals are no legal persons at all; that most of the legal systems, including India, neither assume nor confer legal personality in respect of animals.

Before the irrational and apparently whimsical basis behind the current scenario is dissected, some light must be thrown on what is meant by ‘legal personality’.

In simple terms, and amongst other things, the expression refers to an entity that is the subject holder of legal rights and bound by the correlative legal duties—the correlation as given and understood through the Hohfeldian thesis1. Natural persons, that is, normal human beings, are the prime claimants of legal personality because of certain inherent traits, viz, the will and capacity to act on their own, power of expression etc. So, regarding these natural persons, that is ‘us’, the legal systems throughout the world have no issues at all in assuming legal personality. This is the non-controversial position with respect to legal personality.

We, being the fortunate keepers of certain traits unique to mankind are legal persons ab initio and per-se. Law does not have to confer personality on us, unlike in the case of an idol2 , an unborn child3 and a corporation4 . The latter are the examples of a few entities that require concession5 in the form of conferment or grant of personality as certain theories of legal personality have put6 . In these cases, in the name of legal reasoning and administration of justice, law employs a certain fiction and grants legal personality to a non-human entity. Animals however, have been consciously avoided from this category. Two reasons may be cited for this exclusion:

The first reason revolves around the popular debate that since animals—‘lower animals’ as ancient jurists would like to put it7 (as human beings are superior animals)—lack the abovementioned human traits; that animals essentially are irrational beasts which lack reasoning and logical faculties and thus the question of conferring legal personality to them does not arise at all.

The second reason being the already recognized, institutionalized and well-established-through-the-ages status of ‘lower animals’. They are/have been considered as objects and not subjects of rights and duties. They are, in law as it stands today, ‘things’ or ‘chattel’ over which we have rights and towards which we have a duty to take care. The sentiment popular with many of us is that they (animals) should be happy with their property status and stop haggling for greater concessions.

The basis of this paper is to ascertain through logical arguments and reasonable analysis the strengths and weaknesses of these two reasons, the preference being skewed in favor of the latter.

To begin with, the intellectual dementia appears particularly appalling when pages after pages are written about the unlikelihood of conferment of legal personality on animals as they lack the traits that persons-properly-so-called inherently possess. For instance, they (animals) lack rationality. Steven Wise, the Harvard Professor and one of the foremost animal law experts, in his book ‘Rattling the Cage’8 also succumbs to the same consciousness when he argues in favor of granting personhood to at least certain non-human primates who are evolutionarily closest to ‘us’. This obsession with taking and treating human likeness as the basis for granting personality to animals is beyond reason. If attribution of legal personality can be purely a work of fiction (as in case of an idol, a corporation or a charitable fund etc), why can’t the same logic, if any, be applied in case of animals as well? Why is it that one tends to grope for a human link and akin-ness when it comes to ‘lower animals’? Animals are different from human beings, but, can they be disallowed something simply under the ostensible garb that they do not exhibit complex reasoning and superior intelligence? When other entities have been conferred with personality without being judged on this criterion, why is it that a special need is felt whenever the case of granting legal personality to animals is put forth?

It is worth noting that there does not exist any point of commonality between the non-human entities that have been granted personality by the Indian Legal System for various purposes. Paton, infact, asserts that the quest to discover any common essence which unifies all the entities on which legal personality has been conferred itself is outside the scope of jurisprudence; perhaps because there is no common thread running through these entities9.

Another rather amusing fact is that none of the legal theories concerning personality10 , manage to explain why certain entities are treated ‘as if’11 they are persons—why only those entities and not others; for instance, why idols, corporations and funds and not animals?

Since theories fail to explain the ‘why’ and the jurists also suggest that the query is beyond jurisprudence, it would be safe to assume that as of date, animals, to be treated as legal persons, do not have to fulfill any particular/common criteria.

Idols, corporations and funds do not bear any direct resemblance to human beings, yet they are legal persons on one pretext or the other; while animals have been consistently denied the status—why?12 This question is a bit difficult to answer but can and must be attempted nonetheless, as it might be academically relevant. If some logic is applied to reality, ‘convenience’ seems to be the only criteria that has been and is followed in granting legal personhood to certain non-human entities.

The apparently popular subterfuge that has been traditionally employed to deny personality to animals is their lack of human trait/s. This argument or ‘logic’ has been rendered hollow already (see above). Now, we come to the real reason/s behind the legal indifference/denial.

The reasons are as follows:

(a) It suits us to deny them personality: For after all, other non-human entities have been given personality because the State stands to gain/benefit revenue-wise or management-wise (for instance, in case of an idol and corporation respectively). In case of animals, granting them legal personality would entail humungous legislative efforts and require colossal post legislative management of implications. In the absence of any apparent gain, it is convenient for us to tread the beaten path and take them as objects and not subjects of legal rights.

It must be put here that though re-defining and re-structuring the concept of property and legal persons would require incremental and grand-scale changes in the existing law, does this mean that we should be opposed to improving the lot of other species with whom we coexist and who also have a claim over the planets’ resources? It is for us—the superior species, to come up with a responsible answer to this relevant question.

(b) In order to retain our superiority: Another reason behind our denial and indifference could be that it gives us a chance to gloat over and reinforce our superiority and age-old dominion over animals. Treating animals as property has so deeply ingrained the human consciousness on account of centuries of undisputed and uninterrupted rule over animals that humans have become averse to even reasonable improvements of their lot, for the fear of being dislodged from that elevated pedestal.

Denying legal personality to animals ensures our dominion over them and gives us a freedom to maltreat them, without inviting much penal sanctions13.

Also, if personality is attributed to animals, they are likely to evoke and invoke greater societal/community sympathy in court battles. So, we fear that once made equal to man (human beings as such), by the power of legal personality, they (animals) might become a threat to our status.

Regarding this point, it is necessary to mention that the intention is not to counter the notion of ‘superiority’ that human beings have been nurturing since times immemorial; for it would mean asserting something absurd against the inevitable. On this planet and at least to date, Homo sapiens remain the undisputed superior. In what respects they are ‘superior’ needs no elaboration and thus, should be considered as understood.
Humans have immense power as a species and what needs to be understood is that with great power comes great responsibility. It is for us, who claim to be superior, to guard the interests of other species. Convenience (in not granting legal personhood to animals) must be abandoned in favor of compassion and humanity—a virtue truly unique to mankind and alien to beasts. Laws should also reflect this aspect. Presently, though animals have been accommodated in many respects, by and large the legal regime remains primarily for the benefit of human beings. The legislations14, proceed on the notion that only those animals deserve protection, which are either useful or amusing to human beings.

It is asserted that we can grant legal personality to animals through fiction while retaining our superior status at the same time, if the tag is all that relevant.

To conclude this point, it is understood that legal personality cannot be taken as attributed to non-human entities in the same sense and degree as it is assumed in case of human beings/natural persons, because the nature of the two differ drastically. Thus, animals also need not display any human traits or akin-to human-characteristics to be eligible for legal personality (as emphasized elsewhere in the paper).

Similarly, just as corporations have only as much personality as the law imputes to them by fiction; it is possible, by all means, to attribute a restricted personality on animals as well15. They can have some measure of personality, just sufficient for them to eke out a decent survival amidst the human sea; just enough to ensure that their interests are not intentionally ignored, maliciously trampled and consistently abused. The personality so attributed should allow them to vindicate their rights against the superior species, that is, ‘us’.

(c) Warped understanding of the concept of standing: Another reason, the third one, on why personhood has been consistently denied to animals is because of a warped understanding of the concept of standing.

It is often believed and argued by a set of people that granting legal personality to animals would be legally impossible or meaningless at any rate, as they would not be able to assert the rights so granted in the court of law. It is true that animals cannot generally be plaintiffs in a lawsuit, but since when did membership to particular specie become a criterion to institute lawsuits? Both an idol and a fund16 require human agents to carry out the activities incidental to litigation. Why can’t then such an agent be employed to vindicate animals’ rights?17

Another issue related to standing is that the grant of legal personality would result in one animal asserting against another animal (i.e. person) the right to, say, live! This can be tackled easily, and infact would be taken care of automatically, if the personality attributed to animals is restricted in the sense explained in the above paragraphs—that is, by confining attribution in such a sense that rights can be asserted primarily against human beings, them being the major unnatural and avoidable interference to their survival18.

If a mathematical formula is introduced into jurisprudential reasoning, then to say that grant of personhood to animals would result in one animal filing a lawsuit against the other sounds absolutely logical and inescapable. But, the point is that law is not all mathematical logic, it has to be reasonable as well. Reasonability suggests that one would have to ignore and exclude inter-species brutality of the animal world from the purview of legal personality. In short, the legal system would have to devise ways and chart out an arrangement whereby the interests of social and lower animals are harmonized. Even if law remains primarily for human beings, which in all likelihood it would, but manages to accommodate animal interests optimally and honestly; it would be a laudable effort. Taking an extreme view in this regard would be catastrophic, no doubt.

(d) Age old emphasis on legal duties: Fourth reason why animals have been denied legal personality by the legal systems is the age-old emphasis on absolute duties19.
Austin suggested that animals cannot be holders of rights and duties—they are entities towards which human beings, owe an absolute duty. These are duties that do not have any correlative advantage in the form rights in others corresponding to them.
Though when he gave the concept of absolute duties, he did not have legal duties in mind , yet, in the modern era, many such duties have been pulled into the legal net by being elevated to the status of legal duties. In-so-far as the Indian Legal System is concerned, all the anti cruelty provisions and statutes concerning animals are an open manifestation of these legal duties. However, they are legal duties for the benefit of animals and not towards animals in the strict Hohfeldian sense. This is because the corresponding legal right is not held by animals in these cases. The repository of that legal right is some other representative entity through whom the benefit would ultimately flow in favor of the animals (as would be seen later through a tabular analysis on the basis of the Hohfeldian thesis).

So, those who are fixated with this concept of duties towards animals continue to deny them acceptance as entities worthy of possessing legal rights.

It is certainly laudable that humankind has acted responsibly by legalizing certain duties that benefit animals by instituting anti cruelty provisions, but such attempts at revolutionizing social values concerning animals need teeth to be effective. Grant of legal personhood would entail making animals’ subjects of legal rights and duties and would enable the social revolution gather the requisite momentum.

(e) Opiniated mindsets: The final reason that may be cited on why animals have been denied legal personality is related to the fourth and it is: opiniated minds.
Every time the legal system is on the threshold of a renaissance in expanding the kitty of non-human legal persons, we tend to throw up reasons on why it is feasible not to do so. This blind aversion curbs all legal improvisation. This is also the reason why animals have failed to get their status altered from property to persons.

Before this paper reaches its conclusion, it is important to put in a few lines about the current status of animals in the Indian legal system. It appears necessary because certain issues like ‘anti cruelty laws’ and the penalty provisions tend to create confusion and spread the notion that animals are already the holders of legal rights, in the sense that they have a legal right not to be treated in a cruel manner. If we follow the Hohfeldian thesis, we would realize that it is not so. For the sake of understanding, the statutes/legislations that speak of directly/indirectly preventing cruelty towards animals or protecting animals have been classified.

They are:
(a) The Criminal laws, which, in the case of India, would primarily be the Indian Penal Code 1860: the main substantive criminal legislation of the country;
(b) Tort Laws; and
(c) The Special Statutes like the Prevention of Cruelty towards Animals Act 1960, the Wildlife Protection Act 1971 et al.
If cruelty against animals is a provision under the Criminal Laws, animals are not the repository of legal rights—the State is:




Since State is the sole master of criminal prosecution, one party, in any criminal matter, has to be the State. The State, hence, has the legal right to demand adherence to its prescription. It can display the behavior ‘you must’—that is ‘You must follow my prescription’. Against this, subjects are under a correlative and corresponding duty to abide by the prescription.
If cruelty against animals comes under the Law of Torts, then, in all probabilities, the tortfeasor owes a legal duty (to pay damages) towards the owner of that animal (in case of a pet animal). The owner can display the behavior ‘you must’ that is, ‘you must pay damages to me on account of the injury suffered by me via my animal/pet. The table would be as follows:




If however, the animal is a stray, the community at large may be said to have a legal right to vindicate the stand of the stray animal, which, according to Salmond should be treated as a member of the community as a whole21. The table in this case would be as follows:




Claim in the community may manifest through public interest litigations as has been well established in India through the case of Shriram Fertilizers (1987-SC)22

It is worth noting that in all the three tables above, no legal duty is owed towards the animal as such, and there vests no legal right in them.

Coming to the special laws—Art 48A of the Indian Constitution directs the State to make efforts towards protecting and improving the environment and safeguarding the forest and wildlife of the country23. The abovementioned special laws are a result of those efforts only. Under these laws, the parent Act itself has appointed an administrative body to carry out the purpose of the legislation. Thus, there vests a legal right in that authority to demand adherence to a particular conduct corresponding to which there exists a legal duty in the public at large to do or abstain from doing something.

To sum up, we do not owe any legal duty ‘towards’ animals. In other words, they are not holders of legal rights, for that is a privilege exclusively reserved for legal persons.

The widespread notion is that by strengthening the anti cruelty laws, animal rights would become meaningful. This is not true, as animals, in this country at least, are not the repository of any legal rights. If laws enacted to prevent abuse and cruelty are strengthened, the animals do stand to benefit, no doubt, but they do not stand to take even a small step towards legal personhood. At the most, these anti-cruelty legislations reflect the extent to which humankind has been willing to accommodate the lower species or the extent to which it has agreed to put restraints upon itself.

To conclude, the question whether animals should enjoy legal personality or not needs to be answered in the affirmative. With a lot of good work being done to improve the living conditions of animals (working or wild), the time is just ripe for these not so social animals to demand some substantive gains. In order to foster a change, we not only require a compassionate Legislature, but also need to overhaul certain viewpoints through a social revolution and an open minded judiciary.

Finally, those who still discard the idea of granting legal personality to animals as musings of a dreamy academician, fit only for class-room teaching, there is only one thing remaining to be said: “Some minds are like concrete: thoroughly mixed up and permanently set”.

References:

1. The analysis of rights in the wider sense (as referring to rights strictu sensu, liberties, immunities and power) and the correlatives reached its culmination with the work of Hohfeld. See his ‘Fundamental Legal Conceptions’, published posthumously in 1923.

2. See Pramatha Nath Mullick v Pradyumna Kumar Mullick [1925] LR 52 Ind App 245, discussed by PW Duff, 3 Camb LJ (1927), 42.

In this case, it was put that ‘the will of the idol in regard to the location must be respected’. Normally, this will would be interpreted by the guardian but the law would interfere if the guardian did not act in the interests of the idol, that is, presumably after consulting the interests of the worshippers.

3. For instance, section 20 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lays down that a child who was in the womb at the time of death of the intestate and who is subsequently born alive, has the same right of inheritance, as if he was already born when propositus died, This, the unborn is the subject of legal rights.

4. ‘Besides men or natural persons, the law knows as subjects of proprietary rights, certain fictitious, artificial or juristic persons, as one species of its class it knows the corporation’: Savigny.

‘Corporations are invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of the Law’: Lord Coke in Dartmouth College v Woodward 4 Wheat 518 at page 636.

5. As for the concession theory, see ‘A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) pp 411-413.

6. For theories of legal personality, see ‘A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) pp 407-419.

7. Austin, for instance, uses the expression ‘lower animals’ while giving the types of absolute duties.

8. See ‘Rattling the Cage, Towards Legal Rights for Animals’ by Stephen M Wise, Perseus Books ISBN: 0-7382-0065-4.

9. See ‘A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) pp 408-409.

10. As for legal theories, see ‘A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) pp 407-419.

11. See‘Jurisprudence’. RWM Dias (5^th Edn) p 268.

12. Paton also appears to agree when he says that ‘legal personality refers to a device by which the law creates or recognizes units to which it ascribes certain powers and capacities…..it says that certain things shall be units for the purpose of the law and that such unit shall possess the capacity of being parties to the claim-duty/power-liability relationships’.

Thus, the basis of conferment, the ‘why’ part has been safely omitted by law. The deliberate omission of animals from personhood becomes clear when Paton (though in a different context) says that ‘though it might sound absurd, but it is not impossible for the law to accord legal personality to trees, sticks or stones’.

13. See the Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 428 and 429.

14. As we would see later in this paper.

15. See A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) p 393.

16. . These entities are recognized as legal persons for different purposes by the Indian Legal System.

17. The author emphasizes that it is not the lack of standing for assertion of legal rights that would be a consequential problem (if any problem arises at all post the grant of personhood to animals), but it is inability of animals to fulfill legal duties (or the inability of the representative human agent in making the Principal discharge its legal obligations) that might pose some difficulties.

18. For jungle beasts, killing or attacking each other to satisfy their hunger and establish superiority through display of brute force is something natural and thus, unavoidable—our legal system needs to ‘factor-in’ this aspect, while granting legal personality to animals.

19. See ‘Legal Duties’ by CK Allen, p 156; see also ‘A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) p 294.

20. See ‘A Text Book of Jurisprudence’, by George Whitecross Paton, (4^th Edn) pp 294-297.

21. See ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’ (12^th Edn) p 300.

22. See MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086.

23. See the Constitution of India art 48A.

Tail of Totto

Totto’s tail is my object of appreciation…it is bushy. It, like any other dogs tail, is an indicator of his moods. It works as a swipe card; if it wags, which does not happen often, you are allowed entry into our premises. If this posterior does not activate into a wag-wag, a thump-thump, a whish-whoosh or attains an apprehensive wiggle-waggle stance or remains inactive altogether, it means trouble…stay put baby!

Recently, that bush got a thorough trimming, for which I got many a dirty looks. For days, I had to avoid his scathing sideway glances. One ought to have observed him (if one is cynical, apprehensive, skeptical or doubtful about his understanding of the human language) when Mr Mehra, our neighbor, remarked that he was looking like a mutated sheep with his hair cut in steps. He managed to avoid his glare and a casualty was averted.

Sometimes he does not hesitate to indicate that he is not happy amongst us, that he requires and deserves better servants. Try having your meals without serving him, the self acclaimed master of the house, and face his wrath. When not in a vindictive mood, he would sit there at your feet…drooling. Utter disgust would compel you to serve him. At other times though, he would give you one of those ‘say-it-all’ looks, which may be translated thus: “You petty, servile, good for nothing human, just remember you come too low in my understanding of the food chain to take such liberties as forgetting to feed me!. In such cases, sheer fright would compel you to serve him.

He is a friendly ‘dog’. Yes, I am not one of them (I cannot use the expression ‘owner’ as who owns whom is questionable at my place) who would take pride in asserting that the canine who lives with them should not be addressed as a dog and that he is a member of the family and blah blah blah, out of their so-called ‘love’ for the animal. For me, he is a dog…was always so. And, in fact, during our duals I make it clear that is a DOG! However, intoxicated by his own sense of superiority, the expletive seems to have a therapeutic effect on him. I hate to admit it, but in most of our silent duals, I have been left speechless…cryptic, no…consider this:

On one occasion, upon being amply demeaned by my cousins on his messy eating habits, he questioned their set of etiquettes. Challenged them into licking their respective plates clean. Told them that it was sloppy and artless on how they could not clean, not even touch, the tip of their nose with their tongue! True, even if we had sacrificed the human sense and set of table manners, we could not have managed the latter. He won.

On another occasion, he seemed to comment—“J Lo butt eh?” What is so special about that one? How can anyone of your specie find a posterior as incomplete and anatomically incorrect as that, fascinating? No tail? How can you even balance yourself? He won…hands down this time.

The superior being in him made us sign a pact. A ‘selective-barking pact’. This happened four years ago. Our fond wish of having a guard dog received a severe blow when His Highness showed no inclination or desire to use his vocal chords. No amount of ‘hush hushes” and shoo’s could activate his lethargic being. Upon seeing a human visitor at our doorstep and then the expectant look at our faces, he seemed to question us back? —“What? You expect me to bark? I mean, excuse me, but it is one of your kind; if you do not want a visitor, you bark at him. I will attend to my kinds only…I think it is fair enough.” Since then, his woofs, snarls, growls, barks and occasional yelps are exclusively for his fellow beings that happen to pass his territory.

Dr Yadav, Totto’s vet however, has some control over him. Due to some unknown reason, he does not behave like a super alpha with him and the vet manages to get away with some cruel remarks. Like, quite early (when Totto was hardly a year old), he had predicted that he was a dog prone to tantrums and that thus, he might become a morsel monger. And it happened. On our second visit, the vet surprised both of us by addressing him as Mr Bora. ‘Bora’ in Hindi stands for a sack…he called him a ‘sack of potatoes’ with fat bulging at odd angles. I managed to suppress a smile but the attendant burst out in a peal. Totto was hurt.

Similarly, the last time I met him, he thanked me for helping him diversify his area of practice. Puzzled, I enquired why. Making sure that Totto was out of earshot, he revealed on how, all thanks to Totto, he was confident that he could treat elephants and hippos. I managed to get the undertone of sarcasm and so did Totto it seems. I did catch a glimpse of him trying to mark the vet’s car parked outside.

By the way, Chandramukhi, an emaciated, stricken and withered looking dogess is his romantic interest. For him to have chosen that measly mongrel, his love must seriously have been blind. He is not to be shaken from his loyalty however and behaves like a much enamored ‘devdas’ whenever she passes through our lane.

Needless to say that despite his imperial attitude, he is my smiling factor. My saviour from cockroaches and bigger species. On our routine walks, he is the one who keeps the roadside romeos and sickly strays at bay. He is my knight in a sheared armour.

The feminist point of view

Note: This is an article that I wrote in the year 2001, during the time I was still a Law student. Though it was very hard to resist the temptation to correct an few things and add/delete bits and pieces from it, I managed to somehow not succumb to those mental pressures. Re-reading it was an amusing experience for me. Hope you enjoy it too.

The feminist point of view

Man proposes, God disposes; A woman proposes, He is impressed by the skill of His creation.

This article will always remain close to my heart....I can say this even before writing it. As the title suggests, this is about the perception of a female. A female, that is me.... who sees this world as a whole big society of unequals. Since I am a hardcore feminist, this article might hurt a particular segment of the opposite sex. I do not intend to apologize to that segment though it is large.
In this article I shall deal with a number of aspects, norms, dogma's which are age old and universal ...the very presence of which seem to defy our concept of modernity and decry it as something hollow/superficial.
I would like to start with 'hypocrisy'...not in general but in particular relation with males. The two are intimately connected. You must have seen boys flirting with and drooling over girls....nothing wrong with that. Afterall, they have always been like that..isn't it? They can spend their lives practicing it to perfection. You must also have seen that when it comes to flirting they mostly pick and choose the ones who are the most outgoing, carefree, minimally attired, and absolutely bindaas....nothing wrong with that either! Afterall, one should have the freedom of choice. If nothing is wrong then what is the point writing about it? The point my dear reader is this....What happens when these very boys/men realize that it is time to settle down and enjoy the peace of marital bliss? I will tell you what happens....since now is the matter of lifetime, they refuse to settle for someone lesser than a 'Sita incarnate'! Now do you see the hypocrisy? They want a fully clad, preferably sari draped, mute homemakers as their wives. To make the right 'selection', they do not hesitate in subjecting them to what I call as 'dumb doll displays'. Some go to humiliating extents and verify their virginity! This, from people who perhaps have been destroying 'it' all their lives! Really, this height of hypocrisy stinks...it makes me vomit with malaise.

For those religious zealots who are about to create a hue and cry, I must clarify that the above reference to Sita is not meant to be interpreted as something contemptuous. Sita represents an ideal…someone perfect. Just as the perfection of Rama cannot be achieved by men of today, it is not fair and feasable to expect something of the same standard from women....for they as well are but lesser mortals.

Now let me come to the popular perceptions about attire. Several interpretations are attached to how girls/women dress up. A point worth noting is that such very 'creative' interpretations are not seen regarding the dressing sense of men. For instance, a girl in a cut sleeve top and jeans or a mini dress is seen as a chic, someone very smart and forward. Not good as a 'wifey' material but cool enough to be ogled at continuously and unblinkingly. On the other hand, a girl in a salwar-suit or a sari is seen as conservative, decent and worth a lewd stare.
All right!, I agree that one cannot but look at something/one beautiful, but can it not be an innocent glance?! Is the demand of this much decency too much? How many girls/ women have you come across who do that? Not many. OK, I agree again that they (the fairer sex) are made of a different material so far as this is concerned and it is not fair to compare. But then, do these ogling owls stop at that? No they do not. How can their pervert mind rest without passing a lewd comment, making an indecent gesture, or breaking into a medley of double meaning songs....all too suddenly! Do they have no control over their sense organs? Does their body system function 'by default'?

While dealing with attire, it is also relevant to mention a very popular complaint which is heard often from the opposite sex as the reason for their odd behavior. It is said that girls dress up meagerly which fire their desires...provocates them. This argument suffers from a serious lacuna. It seems to suggest that commission of heinous crimes as rape are restricted to semi clad babes. This is not true of course. It has to be rubbished outright. The only thing that can be concluded is that they are and have been lying....it is not the attire or the absence of it that 'provocates' them. Had it been true, there would not have been any case of eve teasing with females clad fully and 'tradionally'. There would not have been instances of criminal assaults on girls of tender years, and rapes on infants. There would not have been any Bhanvari Devi or Dr. Aruna Shanbaug or a bunch of nuns still awaiting justice.

So, what do all these examples suggest? Are all such males mentally sick as some of them often plead to be to mitigate their offence? Is there something seriously wrong with the way their body and mind functions? But God cannot make the blunder of sending so many dysfunctional pieces to Earth. Can He? So this one ought to be omitted. These morally depraved people are basically corrupt, prurient and lewd. Whatever they do is intentional and planned. They cannot be allowed to take shelter behind some disease of the mind to justify their act. This is the view which I intend to go with.

Another aspect related to female attire has come to the limelight (it was always there) because of religious fundamentalists. All their norms seem to have been written for females. The reasoning is particularly interesting. It is a way to protect their culture they say! Pray tell me how a composite and complex aspect as 'culture' be protected by threatening and coercing ladies into dressing themselves like sacks!! Just because males do not have control over their Casanova type tendencies, is it fair to put blames and restrictions on females? It is not fair...but then did I not say that it is essentially an 'unequal' world?!
By wearing what she likes, a girl/woman does not seek to provoke. She does not intend to corrupt minds. And please for Godssake she is not at all throwing an invitation to be raped! All that she probably intend to do is to flaunt whatever she has. Is it a crime? Does she deserve to be punished for this innocuous little act by throwing acid on her? Can not the male mind digest her individuality and freedom for once? She is also a human being after all! Why are all the controls and restrictions female oriented? I will tell you why....It is a convenient measure taken by this male dominated society for its inability to, or rather its reluctance to develop a semblance of morality in themselves; it is because of their lack of courage to face competition; it is to protect their hegemony.

Recently there was a news article in the newspapers that a 17 year old unwed mother was stoned to death for her immoral act. The man of course is free....same old story. Now do you see the convenience with which justice is imparted outside courts by 'guardians of morality'! Nice - quick summary procedure with no hassles of human rights, no need for principles of natural justice....for justice comes 'naturally' in these cases! 'Forsaken female is at fault'. Always.
In today’s context, many believe in the success of women's liberation. I regard it as a misconception. The grand idea of liberation is still in hibernation....or rather it has been comatosed deliberately. Otherwise how can one explain the ignominious presence of dowry deaths, infanticides, child marriages, flesh trade? A woman today does not even have the freedom to conceive at her own will. That a woman should 'plunge' into procreation post' haste' after marriage is still the popular notion. Thereafter, is she allowed the freedom to keep her little one to herself? No.
Result: Female foeticides,
Lower sex ratio,
Try again till you succeed.
Now I would like to turn your attention to a totally unrelated topic....'civic sense'. It would not be an exaggeration to say that men lack it. Mostly. “Give us one good reason behind making a blanket statement like that!" they would cry. Well; I can give them many.
They consider this planet as a spherical spitoon. Chew paan and spit. Don't chew paan and spit. Spit spit spit...you don't need a pit. Spit till you give Municipality a fit!

Smoke and burn your tensions out. Smoke to turn heads. Smoke to remain in vogue. Smoke to impress. Smoke till you drop dead or everyone else near you does!
(I have no qualms about admitting and blaming even the females for the above two. Some fall in this category.)
Men are born incontinent. Their urinary bladders are faulty. Only that can explain peeing in public.
(No, females cannot be included this time. None fall in this category.)


Dated: September 3, 2001

Sunanda Bharti.