archive: The floundering functionary
The floundering functionary
Satiricus
Organiser
July 4, 1999
Title: The floundering functionary
Author: Satiricus
Publication: Organiser
Date: July 4, 1999
Introduction: Soldiers may live or die, Sonia's electoral safety and
security is you-know-whose supreme concern
INDIA's secular intellectuals are a lovely lot. Take many-splendoured
Mani Shankar Aiyar, who is unfailingly described as a "Congress
functionary" with "views of his own" at the bottom of every article he
writes-although how anyone with views of his own can function in the
Congress is plainly beyond a simpleton like Satiricus. His recent
piece "Oh, what a lovely war!" is not exactly an intrepid war
correspondent's despatch from the front, but, at least so far as
Satiricus is concerned, it is a learned lecture on European history
and its Indian edition, illuminated by the acumen and expertise that
only ex-IFS Aiyar can claim. Unfortunately there are ignoramuses other
than Satiricus who do not share the same veneration for this
intellectual giant. Instead of being dazzled by the depth of his
historical knowledge and the height of his political wisdom they are
actually writing letters to newspapers saying they feel nothing but
disgust for this person and this piece. This is downright
disgusting-this reaction of disgust. It shows that these cussed
calumnious communalists are disguistingly disinterested in learning
from this omniscient oracle of the Congress.
After overcoming his disgust for these dimwits Satiricus tried to find
out why they felt their disgust, and their reason has well and truly
astounded him. They say-believe it or not-that at a time when Indian
soldiers are putting their lives on the line Aiyar is spewing venom
against the BJP-led government in an effort to capitalise on the issue
with the forthcoming elections in mind. This is terrible, and
Satiricus entirely disagrees with all this on a number of valid
grounds. In the first place venom is a snake's poison, and would it be
proper to say Shri Aiyar spews it or spits it or secretes it without
first ascertaining the type of reptile he is? Have these
letter-writing louts taken any crash course in classification
conducted by that political poison expert Mayawati? When the lady, in
a most ladylike manner, called the BJP and the Congress a serpent and
a cobra she had not clarified which was which.
Then how can we know if the Congress-or, for that matter, a "Congress
functionary"-is a serpent or a cobra? In the absence of such
information such inaccurate abuse simply does not wash with Satiricus.
Then this business about soldiers' lives on the line on the one hand
and the forthcoming elections on the other. This makes no sense to
sensible Satiricus. How can one talk in one breath about two such
entirely unconnected things? And even if we assume that Pakistan's
military establishment launched this border war in consultaiton
with-and presumably with the consent of-India's Chief Election
Commissioner is it not as plain as the wart on Satiricus' nose that
the exigencies of elections are any time far more important than
soldiers' lives? Soldiers may live or soldiers may die, but the family
fiefdom called the Congress must live on for ever.
And how can the Congress conglomerate of her imperial majesty's most
obedient servants assert the family's right to rule unless Congress
functionaries assert that everything about the Vajpayee government is
wrong? Hence historian Aiyar's historic equation of Vajpayee with
British Premier Chamberlain, who had "blabbered" about peace. Well,
now, Satiricus would not dare to commit the historic blunder of
questioning the admirable Aiyar's understanding of history, but he has
some uncharitable friends who are malicious enough to say that Aiyar's
historical memory is surprisingly selective, because while he quotes
what happened in Europe 60 years ago he conveniently forgets what
happened right here in our country in 1962, when, not "inept, naive
and immature" Prime Minister Vajpayee but "able, seasoned and mature"
Prime Minister Nehru was "blabbering" about "Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai" at
the very moment the Chinese were preparing for a massive invasion of
China, which took away a huge chunk of Indian territory. Personally
Satiricus would not like to be either so malicious or so uncharitable
but would like to look upon Chinese occupation of thousands of
kilometres of Indian land (where "not a blade of grass grows") as a
befitting extension of the noble Congress principle of giving away
Indian territory to foreginers. Neither would he be so impudent as to
ask :
How lovely was that 1962 war, Mr Aiyar, when India was badly defeated
because its Prime Minister was completely taken by surprise? After
all, remembering that history would amount to showing disrespect to
the founder of the dynasty, which would be unthinkable for a faithful
fief of the latest dynast. The other oh-so-secular intellectual in the
midst of us unintellectual Indians like Satiricus is Shri Kuldip
Nayar. Or is it Janab Kuldip Nayar? There are people who call him a
Non-Resident Pakistani. And as if Indians-in-the-Indian street calling
Nayar a Pakistani is not bad enough, even Indians in a New York street
recently held a demonstration condemning this Indian's Pakistanism.
That, of course, is too bad, and it shows that Hindu
communalism-forgive the tautology!-has spread from India that is
Bharat to India that is Maha-Bharat. Anyway, like every worthy
secularist worth his iodised salt seizing the opportunity to advise
the communal Prime Minister Vajpayee, Shri or Janab (as the case may
be) Nayar has counselled welcome for the Pakistan Foreign Minister
because then "New Delhi and Islamabad will be seen indulging in
jaw-jaw, not war-war". Satiricus likes that. He really likes that. But
not being as good at English as Nayar, Satiricus is not sure if
"indulging" in any habit is good, whether it is smoking or
jaw-jaw-ing.
Also, not being good at astronomical arithmetic Satiricus has also
lost count of the number of years for which this jaw-jaw has gone on.
Funnily enough, after his sage advice to have "jaw-jaw, not war-war"
in the very next sentence Nayar says India's priority is to flush out
the infiltrators and Pakistan's to sustain them. In other words this
priority can be served only by war-war, not jaw-jaw. At least that is
the poor understanding of these stupid RSS fellows, who say Pakistanis
do not understand the language of Panchsheel, they understand the
language of Pokaran. So in what language would the wise Shri Nayar
like India to have a jaw-jaw with Pakistan? In his historic letter to
invading Jai Singh Shivaji had declared that his reply would be "Turki
ka jawab Turki mein". So how about some jaw-jaw in
Turki?
Back
Top
|
