Big Book of Malice

by Khushwant Singh

  Bapu was horrified. ‘This is wrong. You will bring a rebellion on your head,’ he protested.

  ‘I’ve taken good care of that eventuality,’ replied the over-confident Indira Gandhi. ‘I have put the langotee round their necks and shoved the danda up their bottoms.’

  On the last Gandhi Jayanti, I pondered over what the successors of our first three prime ministers would have said in answer to Bapu’s questions—Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao, Atal Behari Vajpayee and the present prime minister, Deve Gowda. Apart from the sanctimonious Morarji Desai who was at least truthful, the rest destroyed the Gandhian legacy with methodical unconcern for Gandhian values. Truthfulness gave way to trickery and lying; simple living to opulence; merit to nepotism. The truth of the adage Jatha raja tatha praja—as the ruler, so his subjects—was proved with a vengeance. Corruption seeped down from top to bottom. We became a corrupt nation. The one thing that Narasimha Rao did to fulfil Gandhi’s wishes but not in the way that Bapu wanted, was to destroy the Indian National Congress. Another thing that Hindu fundamentalist parties, Bhajpa, VHP, Shiv Sena, the RSS and monkeys of the Bajrang Dal are hoping to achieve is to subvert Bapu’s ideal of Serva dharma samabhava (equal respect for all religions) by trying to turn secular India into a Hindu Rashtra. It would be best to give up the humbug of celebrating Gandhi Jayantis.

  In defence of Husain

  I am truly pained to see the beginning of a wave of persecutions against our most revered painter Maqbool Fida Husain. I have seen almost everything he has painted: from horses, bulls, cows, Ganpatis, Hindu goddesses, Bajrang Bali, Indira Gandhi and Mother Teresa to the lovely Madhuri Dixit. I have detected nothing obscene in any of them. Naked, yes; obscene, no. But then we have so many naked representations of our gods and goddesses in paintings and temple sculptures. Nobody has said anything against them. You can see vivid portrayals of Parvati, Durga and Kali in copulation (Maithuna) with Lord Shiva; also pictures of Radha and Krishna in amorous intercourse in Pahari and Rajasthani paintings. Has anyone sought to have them burnt or destroyed? And what nonsense it is to accuse Husain of hurting the feelings of the Hindus! Are you picking on Husain because he is Muslim? It is time men like Pramod Nawalkar and Digvijay Singh (when did he last visit Khajuraho?) grew up and stopped pandering to the susceptibilities of the stupid masses. Husain is a great painter who has brought credit to his country. His works can be seen in art galleries and private collections all over the world.

  19 October 1996

  Maligning the Mahatma

  Bal Thackeray is by no means the first and the only person to use abusive language for Mahatma Gandhi. Many of Gandhi’s contemporaries, Indian and English, accused him of being devious, self-righteous, cunning and downright dishonest. His detractors were silenced by the exemplary courage he showed in his last days by bringing communal violence to an end in Calcutta, Noakhali and Delhi virtually single-handedly and paying the price for doing so by laying down his own life. One prayed and hoped that his critics had been silenced for ever. Alas!

  Let us examine what some of his detractors had to say about him, and if there was any substance in what they said. There was, of course, Winston Churchill who called him the wily naked fakir. He can be forgiven because he did not know the man. Less known is what Lord Wavell, who was the viceroy of India (1943-47) before Lord Mountbatten, had to say. Though he concealed his hatred for Gandhi in public, his revulsion for him is expressed in his personal diary which has been published. In an entry dated September 26, 1946, he wrote: ‘Gandhi at the end exposed Congress policy of domination more nakedly than ever before. The more I see of that old man, the more I regard him as an unscrupulous and old hypocrite; he would shrink from non-violence and blood-letting to achieve his ends, though he would naturally prefer to do so by chicanery and a false show of mildness and friendship … His one idea for forty years has been to overthrow British rule and influence, and to establish a Hindu Raj; and he is unscrupulous as he is persistent.’

  If Wavell had used the words ‘Hindustani Raj’ instead of ‘Hindu Raj’, I would have forgiven him as well.

  Wavell’s favourite epithets for Gandhi were ‘malignant’ and ‘malevolent’. He continued: ‘He is an exceedingly shrewd, obstinate, single-minded politician; and there is little true saintliness in him.’

  Once again, Wavell could be pardoned because he was an imperialist who was convinced that British rule was the best thing that had ever happened to India and could not understand why any Indian would want to get rid of the British. But it is difficult to understand Indians criticizing the greatest son of India of our times. They have tried to damage his statues; they have tried to make his private life appear scandalous (as Bal Thackeray has done), and they have vilified him. Those of us who still believe in him have kept silent in the conviction that this is what he would have liked us to do. However, on the anniversary of his assassination, let us reaffirm our faith in our Bapu. And let us assure the Bal Thackerays of this world that abusing Gandhi is like spitting at the sky; their spit will only fall on their faces.

  18 January 1997

  Republic Day 1997

  My days of getting up in the early hours of a winter morning to occupy my seat in time to watch the Republic Day parade are long gone. For the past ten years I’ve watched the parade on TV. It’s much the same thing year after year and my enthusiasm has declined with age. Also, I am not sure if we have very much to celebrate about. I won’t go as far back as fifty years since we became independent to make a balance sheet of our achievements and failures, but only to the last twelve to draw your attention to the major trends which are shaping our nation. Three stand out on the debit side: increase in violence, corruption, and religious intolerance. And only one on the credit side: liberalization of economy leading to marginal decrease in poverty.

  In 1984 Mrs Gandhi was murdered. Thousands of innocent Sikhs paid for the crime committed by two members of their community with their lives. Then came the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991, followed a few months later by the destruction of the Babri Masjid and violence against Muslims wherever they protested against this form of medieval vandalism. Much of this violence was the outcome of politicians plotting to gain votes by playing one community against the other. Inevitably there was resurgence of religious intolerance. A perfectly valid judgement by the Supreme Court granting maintenance to Shah Bano was cast aside by an Act of Parliament to appease Muslim bigots. Religious fanaticism took its toll with the murder of, amongst others, Safdar Hashmi (January 1989), and last year, in the destruction of the paintings of M.F. Husain.

  The single most sinister development of the past decade was the steep rise in corruption in high places involving a former prime minister, many ministers of his cabinet, chief ministers and senior bureaucrats. With the executive paralyzed by inaction and the legislature by wranglings of factions, came the increase in the role of the judiciary. The Supreme Court led by judges like Kuldip Singh and Varma pronounced judgements on matters which should normally have been the concern of the administration viz. forcing men in power to vacate houses which they had no right to occupy, preserving the environment, and protecting ancient monuments.

  The one redeeming feature of Narasimha Rao’s tenure as prime minister was his support of Manmohan Singh’s liberalization of the economy, and giving free rein to private enterprise. It yielded handsome dividends and earned credit for the country and the finance minister who won acclaim for his ability and integrity. How many trends of the recent past will continue in the years to come is beyond my comprehension.

  25 January 1997

  Shobha De and gender wars

  Shobha De has had the best of everything any Indian woman would wish for in her life. Daughter of a commissioner of police, ravishingly beautiful, two rich husbands with a French diplomat sandwiched between them, editor of three journals, author of eight books, every one of them making the bestseller list at the time of its publication. An
d now living in considerable splendour in a large apartment in Bombay with her second husband and six children—his, hers and theirs.

  She is not the kind of sourpuss you would think of spewing venom in a long, bitchy thesis on why all men are bad. But this is precisely what she has done in her latest book Surviving Men: The Smart Woman’s Guide to Staying on Top. It is the first non-fiction book she has written, but it also promises to become another bestseller because its theme, like the themes of her novels, is sex, with obscene four-letter words strewn liberally across every page. She also makes the most outrageous statements on male chauvinism that I have read. I would have dismissed it as frothy rubbish. I cannot because it is also irritatingly thought-provoking and highly readable.

  Let us examine some of De’s assertions: ‘Sex appeal lies in the wallet of her beholder,’ she writes. There may be some truth in that. We have always been told that money makes the mare go. But it applies equally to men and women. If a fat, rich man is more attractive to a woman than a handsome pauper, so is a matron loaded with diamonds more attractive to a man than a pretty Cinderella in tattered rags.

  De goes on to assert that men should pay more attention to their teeth and oral hygiene—bad breath kills romance. ‘Couples who floss together stay together,’ she writes. I go along with that.

  She may be right about men being unsure of their potency in middle age. But so are women beset with fears of losing their looks after menopause. Are men more mean than women? Or have less feelings than them? De thinks so. According to her, men have as much feeling as dogs or earthworms. What draws them towards women is their smell—not the perfume they wear but their body odour which is like Chinese sweet-and-sour dishes. What men like about women is not their looks but their availability. The more willing a woman, the more men are drawn to her like flies to a pot of honey.

  ‘Most men are unfaithful to their wives or mistresses,’ she asserts. They will play according to the rules of marriage ‘till they discover the unadulterated joys of adultery.’ How then can women love men? It is easier to love dogs and even plants. Men in love are tiresome. Another myth she seeks to explode is that ‘couples who sleep together, stay together.’ She advises separate bedrooms, bathrooms and vacations.

  De maintains that there is no such thing as a platonic relationship between men and women. ‘The only person ever to believe in platonic friendship was Plato.’ Money and more than money, power makes men irresistible to women. Rajiv Gandhi, despite his good looks and power, did not pass De’s test, as he was ‘a softie with spaniel’s eyes.’ To evoke women’s admiration, a leader has to inspire fear. Gandhi failed to do that and hence lacked sex appeal. Jinnah, because he was stern, aroused women much more. Clinton passes De’s test with flying colours as he has good looks and power which he uses to bash up his adversaries.

  All men are of course, mother-fixated. De advises women never to take on their mothers-in-law. They will always lose the battle. However, she grudgingly concedes that women need men. She advises her sisters to treat them like donkeys, with carrots and sticks. All they want is food, booze and sex—in that order. When he becomes too obstinate, say ‘no’ and he will come round begging with his tail between his legs.

  That is Shobha De for you. You can’t do without her. You have to read whatever she writes.

  8 February 1997

  Authors and publishers

  A lively, at times acerbic exchange of views on the relationship between authors and their publishers has been going on between Ashok Chopra of the UBSPD on the one side, D.N. Malhotra (Hind Pocket Books) and Narendra Kumar (Har Anand) on the other. All three are publishers. I am constrained to enter the fray as I am both an author and closely connected with three publishing houses, Penguin India, Orient Longman and my son-in-law’s own, Ravi Dayal Publisher. I have not the slightest doubt that Ashok Chopra is right in saying that many Indian publishers do not give their authors either money owed to them in royalties nor the respect due to them as people who make publishing a profitable business.

  Readers may not know that authors are rarely entitled to more than twelve per cent of the price of their books. Usually it is between five to ten per cent. Many publishers do not pay a single paisa of what is due to their authors. They do not render accounts of their earnings and think that authors should be content to see their names in print. There are quite a few of this tribe who instead of paying authors royalties, actually charge them the costs of printing in advance, and make them buy copies of their own books. Some render false accounts and compel authors to buy unsold stocks. If provoked, I will gladly furnish names of these publishing houses to publishers’ organizations. I will not do so in the press lest I be involved in tiresome litigation. All I will request publishers to do is to examine their own consciences and ask themselves if they are being fair to their authors. I do not consider people who pay for the publication of their books merely to give them away as presents to their friends as being authors in the proper sense of the term. An author is one who lives on his writing. To deprive him of his dues is robbery.

  My friend Arun Shourie has found a way to circumvent publishers. He has his books printed and bound himself. A distributor lifts his entire stock. Arun earns sixty per cent in royalties in one transaction. I, and authors like me pray that we get our meagre royalties spread over the years in time. We who generate books get the smallest share of the lolly. Publishers, distributors and bookstore owners divide the rest of the loot between them. Is this fair?

  15 February 1997

  There is more to life

  I should be writing about the budget session of Parliament, about politicians and about corruption cases in the courts. But like the rest of you, I am bored stiff reading about them day after day for weeks on end. There is more to life than the doings of crooks and criminals. It is much better to turn one’s gaze away from these things. There are, for instance, changes in seasons and renewal of life. It is springtime, and with spring, hope of better things to come.

  Come Basant Panchami, and the winter’s cold loses its sting. The paalaa (cold) is really urant (flown away). How much closer our desi calendar is to the changes of seasons than the Roman calendar: Sarson (mustard) flowers have withered; the mulberry tree outside my window is in new leaf; kachnars (bauhenias) have sprouted snow-white and pink blossoms. In another few days, the tesu (flame of the forest) will usher in holi. The all-too-short spring will give way to the all-too-long summer months.

  Songs of new life can be seen everywhere. Cock sparrows fluff out their wings and hop around the hens with lustful chirpings. Crows can be seen on the lawns tempting possible mates by presenting them with twigs to make nests. Koels keep a watchful eye on the crows’ possible nesting sites where they can deposit their eggs and have a good time while the crows are cuckolded into nursing their young. Barbets call from dawn to dusk. The papeeha (Brainfever bird) announces the onset of hot days with Paos-ala! Paos-ala! (summer is coming) also rendered as Pee kahaan? Pee kahaan? (Where is my beloved?)

  With so much that is beautiful going on around us, do we have to ruin our moods and appetite by dwelling on dung heaps piled up by dirty politicians? Let them squabble and make more money. Let them go to hell.

  8 March 1997

  It will not work

  By now our rulers should have learnt three things from experience: one, that enacting laws which cannot be enforced will expose the law-embracing agencies like the police and the judiciary to ridicule and temptation; two, that banning something is the surest say of increasing its demand and encouraging people to devise ways to get round the law. And finally, there are things that are better done by persuasion than by force. The best examples are attempts at prohibiting drinking and smoking. Prohibition has proved to be an expensive flop wherever it has been tried. Alcohol has always been easily available in prohibition states like Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. At the moment, it is risky drinking in Haryana, but within a few months after the administrative enthusiasm to im
pose prohibition has cooled, it will go the same way as Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. As for the ban on smoking in public places, I cannot think of anything sillier than the Delhi Government trying to enforce it. Do these fellows apply their minds to problems before coming out with foolish answers? Have they nothing better to do than interfere with people’s personal lives?

  Mr Chandrababu Naidu of Andhra Pradesh has realized the folly of enforcing prohibition and has been wise enough to modify the law by maintaining a ban on spurious hooch and arrack but allowing wholesome liquor to be sold openly. The enormous loss the state suffered through the loss of excise revenue and futile attempts to enforce prohibition will be made up by the reopening of breweries, vineries and distilleries. Chaudhari Bansi Lal of Haryana should learn from the experience of Andhra Pradesh. Like the late N.T. Rama Rao, Mr Bansi Lal cashed in on the votes of battered wives and deprived families of irresponsible drunkards, but like Mr Chandrababu Naidu, he will understand that he cannot offload his state’s debts on the centre. By all means teach people that alchohol, drugs and tobacco taken in excess are injurious to health and the well-being of one’s family; by all means send do-gooders like Swami Agnivesh to preach against the evils of drink, but a blanket ban on alcohol will not work. That is quite clear and plain, simple commonsense.

  5 April 1997

  National Natak Mandali

  I have come to the conclusion that our politicians are better actors than our film stars. They do not need scriptwriters to tell them what to say, they do not need directors to tell them how to say what they have to say; they can lie with such straight faces, that we who watch them on TV or read their statements in newspapers believe every word they utter. It takes us a long time to realize that they take us for a ride by lying to us all the time. Unfortunately no democracy can function without politicians. So we have to resign ourselves to our fate and hope that some miracle will throw up a new breed of political leaders dedicated more to their country than to themselves, and that lying to the people amounts to letting down the people.