Kartikey Sehgal

On being asked what ‘what people do at an auto-expo’, and not willing to speak, I wrote the following on some napkins: 

let us go to an auto expo
scratch our chins
and act informed.

like in a fashion show,
which is a gift to hypocrisy
where we watch the models
but ogle at the fabrics

let us discuss 
engines and powers - 
not of the model,
who sashays around the bonnet
moving hers in style, - 
but of the car

let us take photos of the machine
and once in a while tilt the camera,
and act in despair,
for the car’s curves
have been lost
to the model’s.

let us hate
the objectification of women
as we point out 
to the model
again
and again
while talking - 
‘what have those creamy thighs
with a few minute moles on them
which are admittedly juicy
got to do 
with cars.
do aroused men buy more cars?’

a few lines about women issues
let us then walk…

let us then walk to the model
and ask - 
‘excuse me, who can give me more information?’
staring at her face,
and as she points out the person,
stealing glances
here and there.

Then when a representative asks,
‘may I help you’
you go to the washroom instead.

let us go to an auto expo
where you can’t afford a single car

Source

Ananth Venkatesh

In the final part of the Indo-Pak story, Ananth says that India ought to not believe in words of peace and make concessions or promises till the proven industry of terrorism is annihilated by Pakistan.

Any Indian government, which negotiates with Pakistan when no tangible action has been adopted by Pakistan to incarcerate the terrorist, Hafeez Saeed, is a dishonorable government.

Any Indian government or think tank or media house, which even contemplates negotiations with Pakistan for the ‘resolution’ of Siachen/Sir Creek/J&K disputes, is a hopelessly unrealistic and inexcusably idealistic entity. This vision of talking is unpardonably utopian as the terrorist industry in Pakistan has mushroomed in the last 15 years.

The dangerous battlefield [source]

There have been murders of prominent Pakistani politicians such as the Pakistani Punjab’s former Governor, Salman Taseer, and the former Pakistani Federal Minister, Shahbaaz Bhatti. The ISI and the Pakistani military have demonstrated no concrete sign to India and to the global community of their full breakaway from these macabre terrorist groups who carried out the killings. No convictions of the detained Pakistanis have occurred in Pakistan in order to provide justice to the casualties of the 26/11 barbarities in Mumbai. The ISI and the Pakistani military will be the final deciders of the Pakistani relationship with India, not the democratically chosen feeble Pakistani government.

There have been mammoth instances of Pakistan fomenting ghoulish terrorism in India, with some help from some indigenous Indians. Temporarily, the Indian government is outraged and appalled and desists from having conversations with Pakistan. But then, with the passage of time, everything is forgotten and India is conversing with Pakistan again and issuing homilies in support of Indo-Pak tranquility. Indian PM Manmohan Singh emits commendations of the ‘Pakistani intentions of peacefulness.’ But the terrorists are there on that country’s soil planning their next atrocity on India, the laboratory of Islamic terroristic experimentation.

Shahbaz Bhatti: A cardinal has called for the Church to consider declaring 
the murdered Pakistani politician a saint [source]

It should be an Indian governmental principle that India will not negotiate with a Pakistani government that doesn’t deliver an onslaught on terrorism. Sagacious and realistic diplomacy doesn’t mean that India should continue to have unfettered dialogue with the Pakistanis even if anti Indian Islamic dragons in Pakistan continue to envenom themselves untouched. Talking to this Pakistani government and even mulling over any ‘peace deal’ with them is an affront to the thousands of casualties in India. These Indian casualties, who have been exterminated in crowded trains, buses, marketplaces and outside temples, deserve an Indian government that doesn’t compromise with a Pakistani administration that doesn’t whip terror on its soil.

The bottom line is that Pakistan will continue to adhere to the policy of making India bleed gradually. This policy was embraced by the Pakistani State after the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh by India during the Indo-Pak battle of 1971.

This Pakistani policy is likely to continue at least till Pakistan attains its prime goal of annexing J&K. The question is, should India let that happen for the sake of ‘peace’ with Pakistan? For any kind of ‘durable’ peace and for a wholesome ‘resolution’ of Indo-Pak ‘disputes’, as stressed by Pakistan, India will have to make territorial and administrative concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan. India will have to make some territorial concession to Pakistan on the strategically important Siachen Glacier.

Then only, Pakistan will be satisfied and there may be ‘peace.’

[source] Still not solved. Not cared.

• Should India make these concessions and thereby scorn the sacrifices of its military personnel in J&K, who have sacrificed their lives to continue J&K’s association with India?
• Should India make the Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh minorities in Kashmir additionally vulnerable by making concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan? What about the miserableness of the condition of the dispossessed Kashmiri Hindus, millions of whom are not in their Kashmiri hometowns and are, instead, in piteous refugee camps and in other parts of India?
• Should India lose the strategic advantage it has currently by demilitarizing Siachen in the absence of any foolproof guarantee from the Pakistani military that it will not try to reoccupy Siachen clandestinely?
• Can Pakistani ‘tranquil’ intentions be trusted by India in the presence of such terrorist sectarianism in Pakistan, in the presence of copious anti-Indian Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan (and in Pak-possessed Kashmir)?

Illogical sentimentality with Pakistan will make India appear to be a friend of foolhardiness and idiocy. Indian military potency and an indefatigable resolve to place terror in an unrecoverable comatose condition will be India’s savior, not comical emotionalism. A nation that indulges in comical emotionalism on security matters will be ridiculed by the world. India can start off by executing some of the convicted terrorists in India jails, who are with the death penalty.

Ananth Venkatesh

Ananth does not trust the peace talks of Imran Khan and charts out the path he may be taking to oust India from Afghanistan, thereby creating worse conditions for India, the West and international peace. The real messengers of peace like Burhanuddin Rabbani are being murdered while the politicos are making pacts with the murderers. Part two of three in his story on India-Pakistan peace relations. (part one)

The infrastructural robustness and the ideological verve of these Pakistani terrorist groups are largely unstained and unbroken, notwithstanding the outlawing of some of them periodically by the Pakistani government. The outlawing is so passive and ineffective that these groups regroup and rename themselves and their aims to make themselves more palatable to the global community. They reincarnate themselves as outfits of philanthropy. Pakistan can then conveniently express its incapacity to crack and illegalize these ‘charitable outfits.’

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the humanitarian wing of the 
Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group (source)

Essentially, these ‘charitable outfits’ have the same demoniacal aspiration as their terrorist founders. One needs to look at the ‘transformation’ of the proscribed Laskhar-e-Toiba into a ‘philanthropic outfit’, which has meant that the Lashkar has circumvented the proscription on it by adorning the guise of a ‘charitable outfit’, which it may very well be, but its intentions and infrastructure, as well as finances for funding terror, still are healthy. Lashkar, LeJ and Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami were involved in the many unsuccessful endeavors to bump off Musharraf, which led majorly to their toothless banning in the first place. Of course, these terrorist groups have indulged in bloodthirsty bellicosity against Western interests as well, such as the vehicular bombing in June 2002 near the American Consulate in Karachi. The LeJ is also accused of participation in the loathsome homicide of the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, in December 2007.

The menace of these extremist Pakistani outfits hasn’t faded away, with many of their members forging ultra-orthodox political alliances, whose mammoth congregations have been attended by the functionaries of Imran Khan’s emerging political party, Tehreek-e-Insaaf. Imran Khan has promoted himself as the bringer of a better future for the Pakistani populace. He is, apparently, a stainless candidate unlike Zardari and some of the other conventional Pakistani politicians, who have been encircled by allegations of subornment and nepotism. Imran Khan does represent a new political fragrance for the Pakistani electorate as he is untested administratively and, hence, bereft of the grubbiness of allegations of corruption. But his standpoints on Afghanistan, on the Taliban, on the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, on the Pakistani terrorist outfits, on the international military presence in Afghanistan, etc. are fundamentally worrisome for Indian interests and strategic wellbeing.

Imran Khan advocates a dialogue with the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban to procreate orderliness in Afghanistan. Talking to these terrorist outfits, which have not hesitated to murder prominent Afghan messengers of peace such as Burhanuddin Rabbani, is a catastrophic idea, which will eliminate whatever democracy and tolerance that exists in Afghanistan today under the presence of the ISAF. Talking to the Talibani outfit will mean compromising with them if success has to be accomplished during the talks. That means that the Talibani demand for political power in Kabul will have to be accommodated. The cultural, religious, sectarian and gender bigotry practiced by the Taliban will come to the fore more openly if the Taliban acquires political potency. The objective behind the justifiable liberation of Afghanistan by the ISAF in 2001 was the extermination of the poisonous infrastructure of the Taliban. To accord the Taliban political power in any form would be to infringe the core principles upon which the invasion of Afghanistan was implemented in October 2001 by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 carnage on American soil that was thickly assisted by the Al-Qaeda leadership safeguarded on Afghan earth by the then governing Taliban.

Burhanuddin Rabbani was the former head of the High Peace Council before he was killed in September 2011 [Reuters] [source]

The Talibani penetration of political potency in Kabul, as a part of any ‘peace pact’ arranged by the Pakistanis and even by the reluctant Americans, would be devastating for the stabilizing Western influence in Afghanistan. The Talibani access to the Afghan governmental corridors would be a blow that incapacitates Indian influence in Afghanistan, which has been beneficial for Afghan infrastructural development since 2011. The Taliban entrance into the Afghan government would mean an increased likelihood of sanctuaries being provided in Afghanistan for Taliban terrorists, who are opposed to the West and to India (non-Islamic India/Hinduism). An Afghanistan without the ISAF, even under a national coalitional administration consisting of the Taliban, will be forced to depend on Pakistani tutelage. Pakistan can take advantage of its meaningful connections with segments of the Taliban (terrorist Haqqani network) to exert considerable pressure on Afghanistan after 2014, 2014 being the year of the intended disengagement of American troops from Afghan soil.

Pakistan will then block any Indian attempt to gain a toehold in Afghani matters such as Indian investment in the Afghani economy, Indian training for the Afghani military, etc. Pakistan will subdue Afghani strategic independence to such an extent that India will be regarded as a pariah in an Afghanistan that is devoid of the ISAF and that is, subsequently, under the coercive counseling of the Pakistani State (ISI, Pakistani military). An Afghanistan, which has a central coalitional government with the Taliban as one coalitional component, will be a nation fractured by political unsteadiness, administrative procrastination and obdurate inter-ministerial divergences. In the event of a coalitional government in collaboration with the Taliban, a few ministries will have to be handed over to the Talibani hands. Such a government will be forever under incapacitating political paralysis of different degrees.

Afghan National Police officers, seen training with mock guns during a session with ISAF soldiers from the German Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) at the German army camp in Fayzabad, northern Afghanistan, Monday, Sept. 29, 2008. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
ISAF benefitted the Afghan police and civilian administration in training activities.

The Taliban, on acceding to the democratic political process in Afghanistan as part of a ‘serenity accord,’ may ensure the temporary deactivation of their armed cadres to gain international succor. However, after the ISAF withdrawal from Afghan soil in 2014, the Taliban, even if it is a part of the political process in Afghanistan then, can effortlessly reactivate the militariness of its cadres as there will be, at best, an inconsequential global military presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Reactivation of its armed cadres will not be difficult for the Talibani political wing then.

After the ISAF disengagement from Afghanistan in 2014, the whole geopolitical and geo-strategic scenario vis-à-vis Afghanistan will alter. Pakistan, through means such as its endorsement of the deadly Haqqani network, may become the major foreign player in Afghanistan and the weary West may relent. This means that anti-Indian Islamic terrorist factories could reopen in Afghanistan after 2014 and function more freely. Terrorists could be pushed from Afghanistan to Pakistan, their border being unmanageably unlawful and unruly. These terrorists could then infiltrate Indian Kashmir from Pakistani soil i.e. vintage cross-border terrorism. Anti Western terrorists could house themselves in Afghanistan after 2014 with the guarantee of receiving safe havens from the Afghan government, which has the political Taliban as its part. If the moderate pro-Indian Afghani parliamentarians protest against Talibani dictatorialness, then the Taliban could disengage from the Afghani political process and threaten to instill anarchical bloodshed on the streets.

Will the West intercede militarily then to terminate the Taliban threat?

A Taliban blast in Kabul (source)

Another full-fledged Western military intercession is highly improbable considering the Western tiredness on account of the current Afghan conflict. Pakistan will be the only country that will then trumpet to the world that it has the power to stabilize Afghanistan and kill the prospective anarchy there. This will mean, at least, that Pakistan will ‘arrange’ a very strong Talibani presence in the national Afghan government, which will represent the sidelining of other relatively broadminded Afghan political parties, with strategic conviviality towards India. Pakistan, in order to assert itself in Afghanistan, may desire and come up with a heavily Talibani Afghan government. This will typify the termination of the meaningfulness of the Indian diplomatic presence in Afghanistan as the Taliban will not aspire to do any business with India.

Pakistan shares a border with Afghanistan and India doesn’t. India currently doesn’t have a military existence on Afghan soil. It will be difficult for India to penetrate Afghanistan militarily after 2014 if the Talibani virulence for India manifolds. India will be a tragic loser.

This is the reality that Imran Khan desires, despite knowing the thick connections between Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other Pakistani Islamic terrorist groups. Negotiations with the Taliban represent a core strategy of Imran Khan to heighten the Pakistani influence in Afghanistan after 2014 and to decapitate Indian influence there after 2014.  [Photo:"By 2014 Afghans will be fully responsible for their security' [source]]

Imran Khan aspires to see the ouster of a constructive Indian presence in Afghanistan. His sugarcoated talks about Indo-Pak peace being one of his primary goals must not make India position blind trust in him.

His alliances with the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, who have zero respect for India, his advocacy of discussions with Pakistani extremist groups to create orderliness in Pakistan and in the lawless Waziristan, his disparagement of the stableness that the Western military presence and the Indian diplomatic presence have brought to Afghanistan, etc. embody his political personality, which is unpalatable and indigestible for the idea of peace in South Asia.

He has not spoken at length about the measures that he would take to dissect the Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. He probably never will speak at length on this matter since he doesn’t intend to do anything of this sort. India, at this stage, can derive no comfort from the electioneering and sloganeering of Imran Khan and his allies.

Ananth Venkatesh

Pakistan is unable/unwilling to stop the mushrooming terror camps at home, though their leader speaks of mutual peace in India. In this multi-part series on India-Pakistan relations, Ananth Venkatesh talks of the condition of peace in Pakistan, the threat to their populace from home-grown terror groups, the effects of America’s troop withdrawl from Afghanistan on India, and the need to be wary of Imran Khan’s peace talks.

“If the American troops and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) withdraw from Afghanistan as planned, 2013-14 are going to be crucial watershed years for India as far as the security of our western border is concerned”  -  Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne

“It is Kabul now we are dealing with. The moment we resolve that, we will take over the next phase to liberate Kashmir from Jammu & Kashmir state” –  Hafiz Saeed

The recent spiritual voyage of the Pakistani President, Asif Zardari, to India recently, which also had a Pakistani political presence enmeshed in it, epitomizes yet another measure in the tempestuous diplomatic history between India and Pakistan. In his journey to the respected Mohammedan shrine in Rajasthan’s Ajmer, known as Ajmer Sharif Dargah (ASD), Zardari had company in the form of his young son, Bilawal Bhutto, who is, at the tender age of 23, the occupant of the post of chairmanship of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), despite having exiguous active political experience. But possessing the Bhutto surname and having the Late Benazir Bhutto as your mother unburdens Bilawal from the requirement of hands-on political experience in Pakistan’s stormy, sectarian and toxic politics in order to become the chairman of the PPP. Zardari arrived in India with the prominent Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, who is quite adept at offering the Indian political media access to him. Zardari sought connection with divinity on arriving at the ASD, which was, by then, surrounded by a high hill of security presence. Zardari’s fairly substantial grant of $5 million to the ASD, seemingly for the welfare of the ASD, was a gesture that must have been heartwarming for the ASD’s management.

There was a get-together in the Indian Prime Ministerial residence between the Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, and Zardari while the latter was en-route to Ajmer. As has become customary during such visits, the statements by the two leaders and the two nations’ delegations were symbolized by insipid and docile declarations of tranquil intentions. The two leaders pronounced that they had congeniality in their minds and hearts for the Indian and Pakistani populace. While such proclamations of warless intentions are indeed welcome from the Pakistani State’s head, one needs to refrain from forgetting that such idyllic pronouncements have been uttered in the recent history by Indian and Pakistani leaders.

There has, however, been no extermination in the Pakistani terrorist infrastructure despite these rosy and blissful statements of peace emanating from the Pakistani governments and political parties in the recent past. In fact, the numerical and infrastructural strength of Pakistani terrorism has only strengthened in the last few years, with a miscellany of outfits sprouting on Pakistani soil.

Pakistani school girls and pedestrian move away from the site of a bomb blast in Peshawar on January 3, 2012. Two separate bomb blasts in Pakistan’s troubled northwest on January 3 killed five people and wounded 26 others, police said. (1/3/2112) AFP/Getty Images 

…Sunni-Shiite bloodshed

‘Organisations’ such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahedeen, which are conventional and ill-famed, have been joined by other Islamic fundamentalist outfits such as Sipah-e-Sahaba (SeS) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ). Each of these is characterized by virulent inimicalness towards India, towards non-Muslims in India and towards secularism in India. The aspiration of these Sunni terrorist outfits is to ground an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate in India with the decapitation of non-Islamic religions in India. The lethality and depravity of these outfits are so copious that they have limitless hatred for Shiite Muslims’ ideological structure as well. They regard the Shiites as unworthy heretical Muslims, who deserve the kismet of subjugation and extinction. The long-standing and grisly history of the massacres of the Shiites in Pakistan has been caused by militant outfits such as SeS and LeJ.

Afghani Shiites too have not been spared by these Sunni terror groups. The LeJ is strongly believed to have been involved in the terrorist assaults on Afghani Shiites on December 6 2011, when three macabre terrorist atrocities demolished Afghani urban areas simultaneously on the auspicious Shiite Ashura, which terminated 63-80 Shiite pilgrims. The frequent murders and pulping of Pakistani Shiites, more so during the Shiite sacred ceremonies in Pakistan, is a testament to the sectarian murderousness of these outfits’ philosophy. These terrorist organizations are there intact and are mushrooming, with charitable arms sprouting out of these terrorist outfits (Jamaat-ud-Dawa). The robust popular presence at the rallies of the Pakistani Islamic extremist leaders in different Pakistani cities demonstrates their healthy base. India can’t ignore this gruesome and insidious reality in the name of peace. India can’t let ignorant, self-destructive and illogical emotionalism dictate the course of her relationship with Pakistan.

The organized systematic genocide of Shiite Muslims in Pakistan
has claimed 58 lives and injured 67 during the month of January 2012 in 32 attacks. (source)

The perilously ultraconservative Islamists in Pakistan, with political ambitions, are led by the likes of Hafeez Saeed, against whom the Indian government and the convicted terrorist, David Headley, have presented intense evidence in relation to the insidious role of Saeed in the mastership of the Islamic terrorist atrocities in Mumbai in November 2008. The Pakistani ultra-conservatism is recognized for its straightforward and tacit compassionateness for the additional terrorist outfits like the Pakistani Taliban.

…leaders themselves under threat

The Pakistani ultraconservatives have even declared their antipathy for the likes of the former Pakistani autocrat, General Musharraf, for his ‘strategic proximity’ to the West in the ‘global conflict against Islamist terrorism.’ Musharraf is despised by the Pakistani Taliban and other acidic Sunni (Punjabi) terrorist outfits for various reasons, one being that he is a Mohajir i.e. an Urdu-speaking immigrant with Indian birth, who then migrated to Pakistan in the aftermath of the horrific British Indian partition. Of course, Musharraf’s dexterous positioning of Pakistan in alliance with the West in the ‘war on terror’ generated vitriol for him in the minds of these Pakistani terrorist outfits. Musharraf did cooperate, to a certain extent, with the West by handing over certain sinister anti Western terrorists to the Western authorities. These terrorists were related to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No meaningful action was taken by him, however, to oust and cripple primarily anti-Indian terrorist outfits on Pakistani soil. Also, the substantiation that is emerging gradually demonstrates that the global Islamic terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, could have been dwelling in Pakistan from as early as 2005-2006 itself, at a moment when Musharraf was in power. Musharraf, being the dictator and the lord of the Pakistani army, ostensibly failed to notice the presence of this terrorist monster on Pakistani soil.

Hardline Islamic opposition against Musharraf (source)

The Pakistani espionage and intelligence community also failed to detect bin Laden hiding on Pakistani territory. It is difficult to swallow this proposition for many observers. Musharraf and his government repetitively assured the international community that bin Laden was not present on the Pakistani earth. But that was the case in May 2011, when bin Laden was liquidated on Pakistani soil by an outrageously gallant operation implemented by the American special military forces, much to the dismay of Pakistan. The operation to extinguish Laden was a surreptitious one.

Next Part: ‘Chartable Outfits’ or terror groups? Plus, Imran Khan’s plans analysed.

Kartikey Sehgal

Critics who point out that Sachin Tendulkar is ‘selfish’ in his desire to want to continue are spot on, except that this quality of selfishness is what we ought to emulate and instill in our self. Or rather not. That’s how we are naturally.

Deriving from Darwin’s theory of evolution – whose ardent proponents hold intra-special instead of inter-special competition as more relevant – intra-racial competition is more important to us than inter-racial competition. That is, we compete and fight more with people who are closest to us than with people of other races. The road to growth and victory is actually associated with outwitting people who are more like us. This is our true nature. Even among animals, a lion will not accept another lion in his territory. He will be keen to kill him, rather than share and prosper together. Or sacrifice his position as the master.

What many of Sachin’s critics are tending towards may be termed as “group favouritism”, which puts forth the theory that animals function according to the interests of the group; they put group ahead of the self; the individual’s self-interest is kept secondary. This theory was put down several decades earlier but finds a place in modern parlance. It manifests itself as sacrifice – and holds that man is essentially a team player. It further argues that even though ‘some’ humans keep self-interest over group interest, the quality of ‘humaneness’ makes them sacrifice.

However, it is to be noted that sacrifice, in actuality, is a quality that is best performed for the world, by which I mean that sacrifice is also a selfish quality. We sacrifice for self-fame. We give up to get more.
Thus in the immortal tale of Heer-Ranjha, Ranjha sacrifices comforts to get his beloved Heer. And thus the televised drama of a certain politician sacrificing the prime-minister’s chair in ‘national interest’.

Sacrifice and group favouritism are not base human qualities, no matter what we have been fed by our school textbooks. As such, those aspiring for sacrifice are actually selfish and manipulative. Exceptions occur always among people who quietly sacrifice, but these do not form the rule. And as individuals we rarely seek out such hidden gems.

Therefore, It is perfectly fine for Sachin to want to continue playing cricket. Even as a pure desire, free from the question of form and fitness, it is perfectly ‘human’ for him to want to continue. That he keeps playing well is a quality that we must admire and seek in ourselves.

Kartikey Sehgal

A woman, who breathes in and out the concepts of feminism and equality, is unable to apply them in real life. Interestingly, we don’t question the ideal; we just want to hear the sob story.

Meena Kandasamy, in her article in Outlook dated March 19, 2012 (I Singe The Body Electric), gives an account of the abuse and torture she faced at the hands of her lover, who beat her, whipped her, forced her to perform fellatio, among other atrocities. She cites the inability of law to help her, “When I press for his punishment, the police speak of jurisdictional issues. You lived elsewhere, they say. Lady justice does not serve displaced women.”

If she has been wronged, then we wish the best for her and ask that the perpetrator be punished after proper investigations. However, the ordeal Meena has undergone is a crime. It has no connect with patriarchy, or with nature of men, or with oppression by men. All of which seem to be Meena’s pet topics in her literary career.

It is only a crime. And an unproven one. Yet.

Let us trace the time-line of Meena’s ordeal as stated by her in the Outlook piece. She moved back to her parent’s home in January/February, after her four month stay with her lover. We can assume that she moved in with him by August/September last year.

Meena was already a feminist before her recent affair commenced. She had already published books and essays on oppression and feminism. In May 2011, she had published an article in Tehelka titled, “Celebrating the loud slutty sensibility“, in which she talked of sexual harassment and prejudice, both of which she claims she faced in her stay with her lover.

I would like to point out that her understanding of the world, of feminism and women rights did not prevent her in her relationship. Second, she was not forced into the relationship, and could have, in any of the preceding months before the fourth one, sought help from law, friends and police (in another state).

I reiterate that she ought to be given justice if her claims are true. However, her writing is not an encouragement for women to walk away from abusive relationships. Instead, it brings out their weakness and failure of logic. it promotes the idea that women are not good decision makers. The patriarchs, whom feminists detest, could simply quote Meena’s “It appears that there is no escape from this unending cycle of abuse, remorse-filled apology and more abuse” to make way for their philosophy of righteous upbringing of women, and make the claim that women, like men, ought to be guided by a male.

I firmly hold the view that wisdom is no guarantee of personal happiness. This goes for Meena and her feminist ideals, and is apt when you read her Twitter byline, “My Kali kills. My Draupadi strips. My Sita climbs on a stranger’s lap. All my women militate. They brave bombs, belittle kings, take on the sun, take after me.”
None of this ‘fashionistic’, provocative and ‘brave new women of modern world’ ideology applies to Meena herself. This is not a comment on her but the fallacies of holding invented ideals as truer than actual human behaviour.

After stating that she deserves justice if her claims are true, I ask you readers: despite the assumed truth of her abuse, is over exaggeration not a possibility? “It becomes a bargain, a barter system. For the sake of survival, I surrender my space.”

Until her charges are proven, we cannot condemn her lover as so many of the respondents to her story have done. Has the magazine sought to get the lover’s point of view and cared to provide it to us? Or any notes from the police? The paramilitary personnel that she quotes? Doctor’s? Maybe it is sufficient to take the woman’s word for it. Or we are only interested in words and phrases of pain and misery.

Until these questions are answered, we have to consider the possibility of her story being a plug for feminism and ‘women abuse’.

I ask these questions because I have met acquaintances who have contemplated suicide because of failed marriages. They are men. And they are battling charges of abuse and threats of charges of abuse. And no magazine will pick their versions of marriage as sacrament. No matter how romantic and prosaic they make them sound.

Kartikey Sehgal

I hope you enjoy listening to this nazm as I have enjoyed composing and singing it. The Lahori audience was refined and appreciative. From an official source:

Kartikey Sehgal sings his composition of Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poem, “Jab Teri Samandar Aankhon Main” (In Your Ocean Eyes) at a concert in Lahore organised by Moneeza Hashmi of ‘Faiz Ghar‘ and recorded by Hum TV.

This is an audience recording and the actual recording would be available soon, including all ghazals/nazms sung by Seema Sehgal.

The cd would contain all credits.

The Poem’s Translation (original poem below)
source here

This edge of sunlight, as evening descends,
the meeting point of dark and light,
‘fore tommorrow begins and this day ends:
a pause between the day and the night.
Eternal for a moment,
Transient in a moment,
on this edge of sunlight, for a fraction of time.
the impatience of lips; arms in contact;
our union needs not to attest, misbelieve
or blame, what need is there to deceive?
The evening sun sets in the depths of your eyes
as in peaceful sleep the homedweller lies
and the traveller takes to the road with a sigh.

Original Poem

Ye dhoop kinara, shaam dhale

milte hain dono waqt jahaan

jo raat na din, jo aaj na kal

pal bhar ko amar, pal bhar mein dhuaan

is dhoop kinare, pal do pal

honton ki lapak

baahon ki chhanak

ye mel hamara jhoot na sach

kyon raaz karo, kyon dosh dharo

kis kaaran jhooti baat karo

jab teri samandar aankhon mein

is shaam ka sooraj doobega

sukh so’enge ghar dar wale

aur raahi apni raah lega

Kartikey Sehgal

There are other heartaches in the world than those of love – so said poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, from his poem “Mujhse Peheli Si Mohabbat Mere Mehboob na Maang” (Don’t ask me for the love I once gave you, my love).

I have set this and other poems to music and they shall be sung by Seema Sehgal (blog link). I may sing two self-composed nazms.

The program is this Saturday (April 7) in Lahore, Pakistan. You are welcome.

This evening of poetry and music is hosted by ‘Faiz Foundation Trust’ and the family of the renowned Urdu poet.

A photo from a much earlier program.
(Source: The Hindu)

Kartikey Sehgal

Present day girls are lonely, alone. Vultures, with cultivated despondency and measured smiles, feed on the girls, – adopting themselves to emotions of deceit, forsaking masculinity.

It is the test of a girl to adapt to cold mountains and narrow roads, or perceptions of hollow people dancing under bright lights. It is the test of her growth, her family, when she refuses charming propositions of misery, thereby, saving herself from that which is turning common to women – bleakness. 

Bleakness – the once bright eyes of childhood are skeptic to happiness, so that, there is confirmation in misery. And this sense of confirmation, of misery, is best left for artists, or higher souls, who learn from it and pass on their messages.

When a woman says no to misery, she affirms her self, her femininity, her family, and most of all she affirms, the man in her life. 

But misery is not for girls, who are feminine – and instinctively seek the artist. And are a counterpart to his night – light of his day. 

The vultures feed on the weak feminine. Words and moods and images are mere constructions to her heart. For the vulture does not create, he borrows. He borrows and uses that – that her soul lacks. He borrows the worst.

Woman is bleak, and society is bleak in the rule of the vultures… 
Artists pass by, as her eyes are fixed over the cold mountains and narrow roads.
The artists are lonely, women are lonely, and trees swirl in whispers of sorrow.

Know that:

Artists can guide a woman, and in turn are softened by her.
Vultures are lesser men. 

In response to a query on the condition of ‘modern’ women and her relation to the breakdown (and bleakness) of modern society.

The Young India

‘The Young India’ writer Shaival Thakkar is an aspiring song-writer and composer. You have read his stories (List here), now listen to him hum his songs. A big admirer of alternative music, he looks upto the erstwhile band R.E.M as an inspiration. Till you read his next story, listen to ‘Wait for no one’ and ‘Not a love song’ by clicking on the photo below.