Lust property

Two days back, the back page of a daily had this rather huge picture of a woman’s back side that said “WHAT AN ASS” in all capitals. The woman in question was showing off her ample rear for a jeans brand that incidentally also doubled up as a writing board for the copywriter’s rather trite one-liners. An example of one of the patronisingly sexist taglines: “The idiot who refused me a ride home.”
A few days back, there was a news story about Air India’s decision to clear its stock of “matron-like” air-hostesses and replace them with the young, alluring ones. The national carrier, it seems, has had enough of plain Janes adorning the aisles; it now wants to add chutzpah to its flights of fancy. It wants to follow the success route of other airlines, whose USP is not their fleet of safe aircraft and sober pilots, but its flock of hot, attractive air-hostesses. The news story also had a table on the list of airlines that had the highest BQ (beauty quotient). Needlessly to say, Richard Branson’s Virgin topped the list, followed by Singapore Airlines, Air Etihad, Emirates, Aer Lingus (all in the UAE area), Lufthansa, cathay Pacific, TAP and KLM. A predictable observation is that all these airlines’ air-hostesses are (by default?) fair-skinned (by the sheer nature of their origin). India has been attempting a befitting reply to this “international look” via Punjab and Delhi, which breed the maximum number of air-hostess training institutes in the country!
Now what is the scale that measures beauty? Fair skin, tall and slim frame, and…what else? We do not know. These air-hostesses are expected to be turned out exceptionally well during each flight. They are given warnings even if their nail polish is chipped by a fraction of an inch, or their hair clips move by a few centimetres; they even face salary cuts if they weigh a few grams more. Basically, they have to sell cold sandwiches and colder juices using their bewitching smile to the starved passengers.
But does the air-hostess carry an airline’s success on her pretty shoulders? Probably. Considering a poll, in which travellers across the world preferred to savour those airlines that had the maximum DQ (drool quotient).
One can blindly credit the entertainment industry, cutting across the globe, with this large-scale commodification of women: from creating the voluptuous pin-up girls to the anorexic ramp reeds.
In the Indian film industry, female actors seem to prefer the “item girl” sobriquet after filmmakers set the trend of showcasing the bosom-heaving, cleavage-baring item girls breathing out raunchy numbers to tease the male libido. And, these show girls have created an iconic status for themselves, and are proud of it.
The Indian film industry is known to be canning this heady concoction of the “bad” woman (the I-dare-to-bare types), and her fully clothed and servile “goody” counterpart (the bejewelled and beclothed ones), to fan the flaming male fantasy. But, ultimately, both this good and the bad represent the ugly face of the raw male authority that crushes the feminism with its six-pack muscle power.

I want to believe you, Mr Modi

Narendra Modi joins the swelling bandwagon of satyagrahis.
The man who has nothing but the state (and language) in common with the original script-writer of satyagraha, M.K. Gandhi, has decided to sprinkle some saffron strands to this cauldron that has stirred the imagination of the burgeoning middle class urban India, courtesy Anna Hazare.
He plans to go on a three-day fast to give peace a chance in Gujarat.
A very novel gesture, Mr Modi.
There is a saying in Tamil which roughly translated means “rocking the cradle after pinching the baby”.
Sorry, Mr Modi. Am I alluding to a sticky past?
The Gujarat Chief Minister today finally broke his “silence”, apparently buoyed by the Supreme Court directing a trial court in the State to take a final decision on the complaint filed against Mr Modi by Zakia Jafri, wife of former MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in the Gulberga Society carnage.
Mr Modi said he believed that the Supreme Court's Monday order had ended an “unhealthy environment” created by the “unfounded and false allegations” against him and his government.
Have you and your government been given a clean chit, Mr Modi? The highest court has only shifted the case.
He then came up with this emotional masterstroke: “For the past 10 years, it has become fashionable to defame me and the State of Gujarat.”
We are in tears, Mr Modi.
He plans to go on a three-day fast to “further strengthen the State's environment of peace, unity and harmony”.
I am overwhelmed, Mr Modi.
“These elements who could not tolerate the positive developments in Gujarat have left no stone unturned to defame Gujarat.”
I have read reports, Mr Modi, about the modus operandi your government has been adopting to usurp farmland in exchange for the attractive industrial climate you are offering.
Are they also false campaign, Mr Chief Minister?
“But even amid these lies, false propaganda, conspiracies and allegations, the State has always marched towards peace, harmony and progress, and it will not waver from this path.”
"It is the responsibility of the people of the State to strengthen unity in social life. We have got an excellent opportunity to proceed with a positive attitude. Let us come together and contribute to enhancing the dignity of Gujarat.”
Wow! The state’s environment of peace, unity and harmony! Please, Mr Modi, I honestly want to believe this.
But just one question: Fear can also spur peace, unity and harmony. Right, Mr Modi?

Punishment on democracy

Anna Hazare has made a surprisingly unexpected statement. To quote him: "If any candidate takes or gives money in Vidhan Sabha or Parliament for asking questions or voting, such people should be given severe punishment, in fact according to me, they should be hanged."
His remarks came soon after former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh was sent to Tihar to join the other high-profile politicians. By the way, Amar Singh’s neighbour in jail is Madhu Koda, the former Jharkhand chief minister who is facing trail for siphoning off millions of dollars.
But what is strange is Anna’s demand for capital punishment. I hope he was at least referring to the judicial process of execution, rather than execution by “people’s judgement”. I have this confusion because of his “fast-track” resumption of a Lok Pal, ably fuelled by the electronic media that propelled large-scale citizen participation in a classic film style mass appeal. The Lok Pal Bill had been part of the legislative woodwork ever since Shanti Bhushan introduced it in 1968, popping up into debates subsequently once in a while by our “conscientious” men in white.
Coming back to the demand, it is strange because it came from Brand Anna, who has been portrayed as the post-modern Mahatma Gandhi. His brand positioning has been done carefully on the lines of Mahatma Gandhi and his ideals of satyagraha and non-violence. His Ram Lila fast episode was remarkably advertised by news channels as a peaceful, non-violent, Gandhian method to coerce the UPA government into tabling a “people-centric” ombudsman that will be sympathetic and for real, rather than mere tokenism. And, it struck a chord with the middle class, who were tired of paying bribes for almost every service they expected for smooth running of their everyday lives.
But the point is having carefully nurtured this Gandhian image, why did Brand Anna, who commands a mass hysteria, make this comment? Isn’t this a dangerous remark in a country of human icon-worshippers? Remember the original Gandhi once said: show the other cheek to the one who slapped one cheek?
Capital punishment is a debatable issue. The blast outside the Delhi High Court premises is apparently a message to the judiciary to pardon Mohammad Afsal, or Afsal Guru, the Kashmiri convicted of conspiring the December 2001 attack on Indian Parliament.
Then came the President, Pratibha Patil’s rejection of clemency petitions of three LTTE members, Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan, for conspiring to kill Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.
The rejection acquired a parochial hue with most Tamil Nadu political parties seeking pardon for the perpetrators of the crime. The Dravidian parties are, as always, playing their game of political one-upmanship by lending a sympathetic shoulder for the cause of Tamil eelam. It will help them in their election speeches to draw lusty cheers from the dialogue-hungry Tamil electorate.
But why can’t we do away with capital punishment? Is it fair to practice this in an adolescent democracy like ours, of politicians, by politicians and for politicians?
Capital punishment in India seemed to have become a blatant political tool. So while the presidency is simply sitting on Afzal Guru’s mercy petition, it rejects those of Rajiv Gandhi’s killers. This automatically draws attention to the fact that the President is a UPA government nominee.
Crime has no religion, caste or linguistic identity. Irrespective of the nature of the crime, our country’s leaders, with a myopic wisdom, have no right to decide who can live and who cannot. An impartial presidency is a constitutional truth, but remains only that: a documented fact with no evidence of it being applied.