Saturday, August 29, 2009

Monkeying in Mehdipatnam

I thought this piece of news would be just another one of those "See! I told you they were like this" sort of thing to be shoven right up the bottoms of the humanists, communists and other anti-Bharat (i.e., anti-Hindu) elements.

But as it turns out, the whole news is really out of this world, the sort of Rajni-ish "minnnd-blowwinggg I sayyy!"

Where do we even begin!!

1) First of all, what is the definition of a hard-core Hindu college? The way it is put shows that "hard-core Hindu" is something dangerous and best shunned. Creating villians out of your average Indian, that is! Hence, the conclusion:
dont be a hard-core Hindu! Be soft (hence the pink)-- sacrifice religious principles to accomodate 'others'

But will the others reciprocate? We shall soon see!

I now can hear our poor humanists getting ready for their weekly dose of sheer-khurma.

2) The comment the principal had made was
"the students were spending more time in Mosques than with their books".
Now, for a moment, lets replace the word "Mosque" with "Temple". The statement just means what the elders remark the young ones act too smart-- "The Power up there wont help you when you dont help yourself". Studying is as (or more) important that spending time worshipping a deity. I dont even have to say anything about the Goddess Saraswati blessing those who work hard at studies. The implication here is straight-forward and innocent. But you just read the sentence again with the Mosque in it, and it becomes a "religious-discrimination" issue. Amazing how they get away with it.

And I now hear our poor humanists smelling their weekly dose of sheer-khurma.

3) And if a college that is just supposed to offer education for money follows its rules strictly without any affiliation to religion, how should it matter who is the majority? Obviously the management is Hindu because of the name (Vani College). So why should that mean that they would discriminate against Muslims when they are in minority? And Why should that mean that they would bend their rules when Muslims are in majority?

And I now hear our poor humanists licking their lips at the sight of their weekly dose of sheer-khurma.

4) Now this takes the cake surely-- notice the sequence of events and reaction by our very own Hyderabadi-Muslims:

a) A (possibly burqa-clad) muslim girl elopes with a boy (hopefully Muslim.. I would not wish to have Love-Jihadis among us Hindus), and they protest against
"the failure of the college management to react to the abduction of a girl student".
b) And the management reacts, and bans burqa so that its easy to identify and keep an eye on girls. Now, they throw tantrums and charge that
the principal has been berating them for wearing burqa for over a week saying that it did not comply with the uniform (salwar kameez) worn by other students.
c) And when the principal rightfully asks
"why are you wearing burqa when you are not particular about keeping your modesty"
they cry:
"These comments are too much to bear. The principal’s attitude irked us and hence we decided to take help from our parents."
Wow! These "parents" must be the ones who have been feeding sheer-khurma to my beloved humanists. Instead of appreciating the reasons behind the principal's decision, they join in the stone-pelting!

Imagine if you were the Vani college's management-- the first thing you would wonder is--
"what the hell is the core issue here?"
i)Is it about late-comers throwing tantrums?
ii)Is it about a girl eloping with a guy ?
iii)Is it about managment's reaction to an abduction that allegedly took place in college premises ?
iv)Is it about 300 people gathering at a college and indulging in stone-pelting?
v) Is it about minority-discrimination in our country?

Notice how the issues mentioned above are in an ascending order of complexity and gravity. How did an issue that started off as i and ii end up at v in just a week? What sort of an event would make you (yes, I mean you personally) to gang up with others, go to a college and pelt stones at it?

Now, for a word about our "anal"yst friend of the last paragraph:
"girls are girls, Hindu or Muslim. Their aspirations will be the same. Young girls will want to mingle with young boys, whether they wear burqa or not. Obviously, the principal is unable to appreciate this. She wants to say why are you friends with boys when you wear a burqa? This is the genesis of the trouble."
Sooper no! Now, lets think about it--
To stop girls eloping with boys in college premises, I can do two things--
i) Either completely isolate boys and girls while on college premises, which our "anal"yst thinks is not correct because we need to appreciate the aspirations of young girls (Hindu, or Muslim-- the bastard has the cheek to bring Hindu girls into this conflict, while totally unnecessary!),
ii) Or atleast ban the burqa so that I can keep an eye on the girls from afar, which is also not acceptable to our "anal"yst because they would still want to mingle with boys, so its useless (I dont understand the logic, but hey, he is an "anal"yst!)

What he doesnt say is what the management ought to do in case a girl elopes with a guy! Will he go and help cool down the crisis? Will he stop the issue from fireballing into a major one?
Or will he continue his armchair "anal"ysis from his, well, armchair ? And by the way, does he also "anal"yse my poor humanists' sheer khurma?

No! That is not the sound of inevitability, but of our very own poor humanists burping after their weekly dose of sheer-khurma...

After reading the whole thing, when I scrolled back to the top, I noticed these words in the very beginning of the article:
"Trouble erupted in Muslim dominated Mehdipatnam"
Yup! Thats it! Thats all I had needed to know! What a waste of time...

No comments: