The backward bores of the RSS are at it again. The RSS Sarsanghchalak has joined the Hindu-cum-communal chorus against the film Girl-friend, condemning it as an attempt ?by Macaulay-putras to thrust Western values? on our eastern society, and to spread a culture of homosexuality. He went on to add, ?Some people are deliberately trying to take the country'syouth towards permissive Western culture.? And who are these ?some people?? English-language journalist Satiricus is horrified to see that the RSS chief says they include us precious pillars of the fourth and fantastic estate of the secular realm. For he actually says, ?English newspapers are also trying to spoil youngsters by printing titillating pictures on front pages.? And finally he asks, ?Do we wish to create an atmosphere of sexuality?? This terrible tirade against our magnificent modernity deserves a spirited reply.
So it was in the fitness of things that The Indian Express, modern India'sbiggest English-language newspaper, should devote an erudite editorial to demolishing this challenge of orthodoxy. The editorial opens with the dire observation that the continuing communal commotion against such cinema is the dastardly doing of the ?moral police?. How revolting! Only under a police state can a human being be shackled by morality instead of enjoying animal instincts. But perhaps Satiricus is being unjust here?unjust to the animals. For he has not heard of lesbian animals. Possibly (although Satiricus is far from knowledgeable in such matters), lesbianism is an exclusively human refinement. Why else should the Express express its editorial anguish? For it writes that continuing Indian attacks on lesbianism show how ?the chips are stacked in India'sattempts at modernisation and social transformation?. See?
Anything that is supremely true for ancient, outdated Hindus must be supremely obnoxious for modern secularists. All in all, it seems orthodoxy, with an origin that is literally Hindu, must be fought on as many fronts as the forces of modernity can wage their jihad on it.
These petty prudes of the Parivar, these medieval morons of modern times, are preventing India'sattempts to become modern?that is, lesbian. But is being lesbian the same as being modern? Ignorant Satiricus was under the impression that it was not: For the Greek poetess Sappho of the city of Lesbos (from which originated the term ?lesbian?), who was the original lesbian of the Western world, lived in 600 b.c. that is, nearly 3,000 years ago. Then would it mean that we Indians want to become as modern as the Greeks were 3,000 years ago? Satiricus does not know.
But talking about the Indian cinema as a force of Indian modernity, Satiricus recalls that in the very early days of our cinema, kissing used to be shown on the screen?which it is now not. Then how about going back to a secular smooch for starters? In the considered opinion of Satiricus, it could be a good beginning of our journey back to ancient modernity. More importantly, it could be included in the Common Minimum Programme of the new dispensation in view of the fact that during the elections, Mama Mia and her little darlings had berated the BJP-led regime for the ?collapse of the social fabric? (whatever that means). Coming back to where The Indian Express editorial began, it declares in the very heading that ?Cinema is a potent challenge to Orthodoxy?. Well, now, it must be so if the erudite Express editor says so. Otherwise Satiricus would have doubted if this shallowest of forms of our entertainment could pose even an impotent challenge to orthodoxy. Incidentally, Satiricus also doubts if orthodoxy is obnoxious by definition. Journalism being an illiterate profession by definition, Satiricus was not a little surprised to see that the dons of Oxford and the editor of Indian Express very much differ on what orthodoxy means.
According to the lexicographers of Oxford, the very first meaning of orthodoxy is ?right? or ?correct? opinion. Which means, in the eyes of The Indian Express the right opinion is an obnoxious opinion. The Greek prefix ?ortho? in ?orthodoxy? means ?right? or ?straight?. So for The Indian Express it is wrong and crooked. What is more terrible, the very history of this Greek prefix is abominably anti-secular. Now Satiricus knows that no newspaperman?and especially the editor of a newspaper?can spare the time to delve deep into whatever he is writing on, so he begs to be forgiven for recalling that the Greek prefix ?ortho? originates in the prefix ?arta? found in the 4000-year-old language of the Mitanni people of Mesopotamia in the Middle East. And where does ?arta? originate? Alas, it originates in ?Rta?, the Sanskrit word for ?supreme truth?. How terrible, no?
Of course, it goes without saying that anything that is supremely true for ancient, outdated Hindus must be supremely obnoxious for modern secularists. All in all, it seems orthodoxy, with an origin that is literally Hindu, must be fought on as many fronts as the forces of modernity can wage their jihad on it. So what did The Indian Express do? It did not stop at writing editorials on it. Its dedication to modernism and devotion to secularism inspired it to recently print an eye-catching box item titled a certain unknown Western film actress ?says she loves sex?. Actually this is an Indian reprint of an item that has already appeared twice in the foreign press, once in a magazine and then in a daily. Apparently the secular appeal of sex was strong enough for the Indian Express for yet another printing. According to this illuminating item this actress says ?she is happy being single,? but, at the same time, ?I love sex. I?m open about it. It makes you happy.? See? The Indian Express editor is obviously equally happy to dig out this twice-printed news and print it prominently as his very own ?challenge to orthodoxy?. So, coming back to the RSS chief'squestion: ?Do we wish to create an atmosphere of sexuality?? The Indian Express editor'serudite answer is, ?No, we don?t. We don'twish to create an atmosphere of ONLY sexuality. Of course, we meant ?open? (miscalled unashamed) sexuality, but we also want anti-Hindu homosexuality. Long live Lesbianism!?
