Chieftains descend to take pride in their ‘ass’ slur

Abusive Election Campaigns: I vividly remember the lively intra-collegiate debates during my college days.
Akhilesh Yadav during an election campaign
Akhilesh Yadav during an election campaign

Abusive Election Campaigns: I vividly remember the lively intra-collegiate debates during my college days. The debaters had recourse to pungent language without being abusive, unlike some of our politicians who apparently believe that freedom of expression is absolute and ‘gali galoch’ is not only permissible but constitutionally mandated.

Lalu Prasad likened PM Modi to eunuchs and said he keeps clapping his hands like them during his speech. He called Amit Shah a rhinoceros. Rahul Gandhi shrieked that the voice of our prime minister is not of a roaring lion, but even feebler than that of a mouse.

This inane remark prompted former chief minister Sheila Dikshit’s statement that Rahul is not yet mature and needs some time, which led Amit Shah to retort with a question: “If he is not mature, then why has he been enforced upon Uttar Pradesh? Is this a political laboratory or learning ground for someone?” Mayawati jumped into the fray and called Amit Shah a terrorist.

Akhilesh Yadav also made derogatory remarks about the PM by comparing him to a donkey. The PM’s response was swift. He retorted that “Akhilesh Yadav was afraid of the donkeys of Gujarat and his contempt for them reflected his casteist mentality”, and that he (the PM) drew inspiration from the ‘loyal’ and ‘hard working’ donkeys. Phew!

Why are animals dragged in election campaigns? I object to the expression ‘horse trading’. The horse is a noble animal who would spurn political machinations. And donkey is lauded by G K Chesterton in his poem The Donkey in these lines: “Fools! For I also had my hour; One far fierce hour and sweet: There was a shout about my ears, And palms before my feet.” This is an allusion to Christ riding a donkey.

Therefore, likening a person to a donkey should be considered a compliment, and not an insult. The Banning Itch: The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has denied certification to Prakash Jha’s movie Lipstick Under My Burkha. According to Jha, the film is a very beautiful story about women living in that section of society never told or heard of by the people.

The CBFC’s version is that “the film is lady-oriented and that there are contentious sexual scenes, abusive words and audio pornography”. Jha has the option of approaching the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.

It is hoped that the tribunal will keep in mind that one of the grounds on which a film can be banned under our Constitution is ‘decency or morality’. Our Supreme Court judgments have ruled that vulgarity is not obscenity, and that use of random four-lettered words is not a ground for totally banning a film. There must be regard for the main theme of the film.

In case of some scenes or words which are inherently indecent, the same may be deleted. However, wholesale banning of the film is unwarranted. Dealing with the author Samaresh Basu’s Bengali novel, Prajapati, the Supreme Court had ruled that the novel was not obscene “merely because slang and unconventional words have been used in the book in which there has been emphasis on sex and description of female bodies”.

We await the tribunal’s decision. Quaint Swedish Proposal: Politicians are known to make outlandish proposals and that problem is prevalent not only in our country but also elsewhere.

It is reported that a local councillor in Sweden has proposed that Swedes should take a one-hour paid break from work to go home and have sex with their partners.

According to the Swedish councillor, his proposal was aimed at improving personal relationships. He maintains that there are studies that show sex is healthy and that couples were not spending enough time with each other in today’s society.

It is reported that after the Finns and the French, the Swedish full-time employees worked the least in Europe—with only 1,685 hours on an average in 2015. On the other hand, the British worked an average of 1,900 hours, and the Germans 1,847 hours the same year.

There is no authoritative study about employees in India spending their time during time-break. Perhaps, a PIL may help in this regard. You never can predict what judicial orders may be passed in a PIL by some publicity conscious and hyperactive judge in our apex court. solisorabjee@gmail.com

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com