As if on cue...

A story from South Africa: Divorced over phone, Muslim woman moves court.

If you read that article, be sure to note the efforts of a Mr. Sulaiman Dangor, a university professor who is attempting reform. He is a good man. Note what he says in the last paragraph of that article.

I idly wonder how a reformer such as he would be treated in India. And how would an Indian court rule in such a case, if it happened now? Would Indian politicians influence that ruling? Should we turn to the Shah Bano case to answer some of these questions? Or have times changed since then? I am not being sarcastic here, just wondering about the what-ifs. I hope the answers will be in line with my strong faith in the secular credentials of the Congress government.

You know, it occurs that I may have lied about the sarcasm bit, because that last sentence there just might have been sarcasm.

And Meanwhile, Down Under...

The following story appears in the Adelaide Times: Women take stand on sexual attacks.

The summary is that a popular Islamic cleric in South Australia has recently weighed in with his considered opinion on why assaults against women occur. His opinion is that the victims--namely, the women--are to blame because they invite the assaults by being dressed inappropriately. He drives home that point with a nice fond analogy that compares women with meat. Real classy stuff, if you happen to live in the 9th century.

Here's a quote from the learned cleric:

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cat's or the meat?" he reportedly told his congregation. The uncovered meat is the problem," he said. "If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred."

So the solution is simple, women. Stay at home, if possible in a single room. And preferably with a blanket wrapped around yourself, exposing only your nose so you can breathe, and your mouth so that you may ask for food. Because of course the sight of any other sort of skin might trigger an assault by incredibly aroused drooling men. Wait...speaking of drooling, the cleric might have a problem with the mouth bit too. So let's take that off the list. Sorry.

Also, don't talk to any grown men other than your husband. That might be dangerous.

The men of course are pure snow and not to be blamed. After all, who can fault them if they can't control their Allah-given libido and therefore feel free to violate women as they see fit.

I wonder. What exactly does this sort of an Islamic worldview offer women? Do any women go to this mosque that the cleric preaches in? If so, why?

Oh, I do understand that all this is a sweet deal for men. Consider some of the perks for men in strictly Islamic societies:

(1) They have the religious sanction to take and discard spouses as they please. Alimony? Pish-tosh. 

It is my understanding that in Malaysia, it is permissible to divorce your wife via text-messaging, as long as the message is clear (da fuck?). In other words, e-Talaq.

(2) They are often absolved by their religious leaders such as the cleric above from the burdensome task of reining in their libido. The onus is on the women to not tempt them.

(3) They have disproportionately less chances of being stoned to death even though it takes two tango, so to speak.

(4) They are free to marry women from outside the religion, especially if she belongs to a category known as "People of the Book", but a Muslim woman is not allowed a similar courtesy.

So my question must be: I understand why men of whatever faith defend Islam, but why do some women jump to defend it? Are they just incredibly stupid, or simply don't want to acknowdge that it is ultimately self-defeating to defend a philosophy that treats your kind as chattel?

Here's my gentle and respectful personal opinion. Any society that considers gender as sufficient grounds for disrespect of an individual and thinks that it is a bright idea to keep 50% of its population oppressed, confined and pregnant is brimming with shit. Any individual who does the same is a fucking moron.

Hallelujah

I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played and it pleased the Lord
But you dont really care for music, do ya?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing hallelujah.

Your faith was strong, but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew ya
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the hallelujah.
...

Maybe there's a God above, but all I ever learned from love
Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew ya
And it's not a cry you can hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah.

-- John Cale, Hallelujah

---

The original song was written and sung by Leonard Cohen. The above is the version by John Cale. Jeff Buckley has a version too. I have never been able to listen to that song without something twisting itself into a knot inside me.

If you have iTunes or Napster or Yahoo! Music, I can think of worse ways to spend 99 cents. You should definitely get both versions--Cohen and Cale. They are different and both are uniquely beautiful.

If You Must Point, Make Sure your Nails are Long and Shapely

An extremely cute person sent me the following story about India's intent to share evidence with Pakistan on the recent bomb blasts on Mumbai trains:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3815302a12,00.html

For those pressed for time, the story is headlined "India to share Mumbai bombs evidence with Pakistan", and says that India has strong evidence linking Pakistan to the Mumbai train explosions and will present this evidence to Pakistan.

Why are we doing this?

It does not come as a surprise to me that Pakistan is involved in terrorism. But presenting Pakistan with hard evidence of their own shittiness will serve very little purpose as long as the United States continues to be Pakistan's sugar daddy. It is a waste of time. What India should do is articulately present said evidence to the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD in the distant hope that at least some countries are embarrassed into distancing themselves from Pakistan. It is a distant hope, but it is at least better than presenting some sort of evidence to Pakistan in the even fonder hope that we will embarrass Pakistan.

I would like to stress the fact that we need to present the evidence articulately because as with most other things, international diplomacy is very much about good form. Also, it so happens that this evidence needs to be presented to the Western world primarily, for no other reason than the fact that the Western world pulls more than a few strings, and that a lot of those strings are attached to Pakistan.

But the attention span of the Western world is about two minutes when it comes to matters involving third world rabble such as India and Pakistan (unless of course the matter involves caste wars, religious decapitations, incineration of widows, or cows walking the streets) A few hundred Indians who ended up dead when their train went boom don't bother the average American or European much.

This is where the good form comes in. Style and drama are as important as content when presenting a case. Put a pretty face on the screen, for chrissakes, and have her describe the horror. Hire a bloody Miss India if need be. Those people must be good for something besides mouthing inanities about "franship" and "world peace" and selling two-rupee shampoo satchels. Recruit them and press them into service for a good cause. Since the Western world's attention span goes up dramatically in proportion to the amount of cleavage presented on-screen, that should be an attention-getter.

We talk loudly about globalization. Why not globalize a case against terrorism?

Yes, it should be targetted to a global audience, not a subcontinental one. And it should preferably be done by a well-dressed, well-spoken diplomat; not by a Natwar Singh clone. 

No frothing at the mouth, no wild-eyed accusations; just damning evidence presented with a certain flair. Have you seen Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu in action? He is a former Prime Minister who later served as Israel's Foreign Minister under Ariel Sharon. He was, and still remains, an articulate and sharp spokesman who lays out a case and pulls no punches. That is the sort of person we need. This link: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/video/, contains an interview with Mr. Netanyahu. It is about fifteen minutes long, but I think you should watch it. What Mr. Netanyahu says at the end of the interview about "perfect victims always being perfectly moral" is strikingly true. You may not agree in the entirety with what he is saying (or even at all), but just note how well he says it. Unfortunately, given the general shallowness of this world that we live in, that counts for a lot. The Indian government needs to understand this.


Postscript: Here's a late thought. We have a thriving, mammoth movie industry that can be lucid at times. Movies like Monsoon Wedding, Bend it Like Beckham, and Fire seemed to get some international play. So why can't we leverage that and increase awareness of terrorism through Bollywood? Where are the Deepa Mehtas and Gurinder Chadas? If a movie about some random Indian wedding is worth making, then so is a movie on Pakistani terrorism. If a Monsoon Wedding's time has come, surely a Bombay Mayhem is overdue.