Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

Now that a few days have passes since my last post (#286) on this article, and having cooled down a bit, I would like to admit that I have used strong words in that post. I am sorry, Farzana, for using those strong words.

As is evident, Farzana never responded to the questions I brought up a couple of interacts ago – except indirectly through an i-log dated June 30, 2005, entitled “Mere ghar ka darwaaza koi nahin hai...”. The following are excerpted from there. Her portions are enclosed within brackets. The rest are my comments on those excerpts.

[Every couple of months or so, there is an attempt made here to ‘expose’ me. How can anyone expose someone who bares herself, whose headlines and blurbs leave no room for any confusion, who has, despite being hauled up for stating certain things, not turned to spineless jelly although that would be so very convenient?]
Ma’m, its true that you have written and continue to write a lot. Thank God for that blessing. And obviously you are anything but spineless – when did ANYBODY say that? However, it IS possible for relative newcomers to remain unfamiliar with some of your older articles and opinions. It’s time-consuming enough for many people just to keep pace with what’s coming from you and others NOW. Besides, many older articles (especially the Civic Center variety) deal with contemporary political topics of their times and there is little reason or interest on the part of some people (like me) in THOSE types. And yes, not every Chowk reader knows an equal amount of information about your own history, etc. There is just no way someone like me would understand your personal sacrifices, travails, etc. (to the same extent as somebody like, let’s say for discussion – “temporal” who has had a longer-term presence) unless they can go back and can read every little post of yours and connect all the dots – somewhat impractical for most people.

[And yet I do not want to be called “spunky”…that is eminently suitable for sophomores, the receivers of such ‘compliments’ and the givers too.]
Those who understand the context of this statement would immediately realize that this statement is eminently unfair – especially with respect to the “receivers”.

[I merely have an opinion (it is never projected as a judgment writ in stone). Others are free (and often wantonly misuse such freedom) to express theirs.]
Considering how little your “opinion” on the plight of Kashmiri Pandits has changed over so many years, I think I could be forgiven for thinking that indeed it WAS a “judgment writ in stone”. Also, I believe you have the same access to resources for expressing YOUR opinions this time around, but have CHOSEN not to use them.

[Later, another person “demands” to know if it is true! I post it myself, I expose myself…and then the person wonders whether I have something to hide]
I guess the “another person” refers to me. I appreciate the fact that you posted that letter from Asian Age – a paper I do NOT read. If you take a minute to go back to my interact #269, I never said that you HAD something to hide – only that THIS discussion should not be hidden by putting it on outdated and deeply-buried pages, unless you want to create the ``hiding`` impression.

[…for god’s sake, the newspaper is an open forum, people do read it…and the fact is that for three days running there were letters responding to me. To a letter, not a column or an article. ]
I’m sorry to say Ma’m, not everybody reads everything (surprise, surprise!) and indeed it’s possible for people to be “absent” (due to travel, etc.) and miss out. I have even known some AUTHORS to do that, even some good ones!

[We have been through this so often…create a demon out of me to come out smelling of roses yourself.]
Ma’m why would I try to create a demon out of you? Did the possibility occur to you that my questions may actually be well-intentioned? As far as the “smelling of roses” is concerned, I KNOW that I stink in most interacts – are you happy now?

[No one remembers what I had to say about the Quran desecration, about Indian POWs in Pakistan…well, if someone can go and post on the page, they obviously know what I have written.]
Although you may react based on your own experiences which may (as I am now finding out) have been bitter, is it not possible that not everything is about “making a demon out of you”? If you indeed YOURSELF go and look at those two spaces that you mention, it may become apparent that at least THIS interactor never made it to them.

[Would Sri Ravi Shankar be called a jihadi? Would it be said he is letting down Kashmir Pandits by hobnobbing with a militant?]
I certainly never said any such thing about him or you, but I did point out that not responding can make you more open to such charges (the “no show” outcome)!

[In my earlier piece when I wrote in my post “This piece is not about Jinnah”, I was told it was a cop-out. The whole article discussed the RSS-BJP link; I wanted people to stop discussing Jinnah, as hero or villain. My views on Jinnah are already there in an article. Nothing hidden. ]
I do believe that Jinnah is a legitimate topic for this forum, since the controversy started with Advani expressing his opinions on the man. As I pointed out in #155, it’s interesting to compare Jinnah and Advani side by side and see the analogy, yet you seem to come to different conclusions with respect to each. This reason of this inconsistency is indeed “hidden” from me, so it’s legitimate for me to ask.

[And then there are people who tell you what you should find funny, what you should think, how you should feel…few go beyond the obvious. So, when I ask questions (with utmost propriety) about the lady writing about the darzi and the shoewalla, I find myself being baited on that board.]
Ma’m you are well aware that the article you refer to was a humor piece and most of the responses (including those that responded to your interact) were done in humor! Isn’t it okay for people to be FUNNY once in a while – even on a humor piece?

[For me it is more important to raise these points out in the open than to wonder about multiple nicks and fight such ‘imaginary demons’…we do not know who most are, so I don’t exercise my mind, though others have their point of view; I let them be, wish they’d leave me be too… I stood my ground where it mattered to me – where I could be seen.]
Ma’m you are very well aware that it’s not possible or practical for every one to use their actual names and that’s why MOST people on this site do use nicks – some perhaps several. I have no problem with multiple nicks as long as these are not used in a dishonest manner by purporting to carry out a conversation with each other. I have NEVER accused you of doing that! And yes, I believe that you DO have more credibility in my eyes because indeed you do stand your ground.

[I am just glad that I do not see Chowk as a playground, or a place to network, or a friendship circle, or a boxing ring…and most certainly not a place to find a soulmate. Yes, for me it is always in the singular.]
Every one has a soul! People who may identify with some of your thoughts and feel an empathy with your soul based on them are not always looking to be a “mate”. Why does it have to be about being one? And you may be right in what you say about playground, network, friendship circle, or boxing ring; however, I am reasonably sure that if one were to dig through some of your responses, they can prove you wrong on ALL of these, especially the last one.

[I just don’t have the ‘talent’ to multitask, or the energy.]
Somehow, I felt that you did NOT believe in reductionism.

[I am happy with the feeble and sometimes febrile connections I might make with a few words.]
Your words do carry a lot of power, ma’m!

[My silences are my own. They are much too precious for public consumption!]
I am unsure if this refers to this article or not. If it does, then I would like to point out that when a question is asked and you chose not to answer it, you essentially let the other side’s point of view stand, except in the eyes of those who already know your track record and history in detail over the longer term and choose to look away from some of the inconsistencies they might think themselves. When they do so, aren’t they being patronizing, and are you comfortable with such patronizaing?

Again, I am sorry about my “janitorial” words. You and other interactors who have watched me over the past few months ought to be able to easily figure out for yourself whether a real “punch” was intended or not. Now, PLEASE stop pretending to reel from them! Thanks.