In one place Khushwant Singh seems plaintive in complaining about how his freedom to express his views was impinged upon by Bengal being furious about his very negative views about Bengal in general and their specifically having produced no great geniuses, and even more specifically stating that Tagore's poetry and general literary work was nothing much, nor were other great people of stature from Bengal that Bengalis were so proud of.
This might seem naive on his part, and it would be easy to point out that his right to express his opinion is not curtailed by others' disapproval of it, since they have not lost their right to express their opinions of him when he was accorded by the right by the same constitution.
That would be easy, but naive, since he is not a terrible two toddler even though more often than not his attitude is precisely that of one, including much verbal fondling and exposing of his nether equipment. He has been to not merely the most progressive school begun and sponsored in India by Indians, but also colleges and universities across various nations (that since split in two, and then more parts depending on how one counts them) to study, and then to various other places to lecture and more, all without any merit whatsoever if one is to judge by his writing. He is good at reading, observing, listening and then penning down a summary, by standards more applicable to high school.
In reality the baffled reader at his atrociously bad view of a very talented and prolific people might give it up as a bratty idiot's way of making himself noticed, until one comes across the reasons why
the homeland he had to give up at partition split further into two. And then one realises his posturing is merely copy of attitudes of the worst in the erstwhile homeland where he himself states he and his ilk was ignored and never much part of the general majority who drove them away and massacred millions when the said homeland was designated for faith of the majority.
He and his community of those that had to leave northwest for mainland India at independence due to partition have never given up pining for it, and they have clung to attitudes reflecting those of their lost neighbours no matter how atrocious those attitudes, how racist, perhaps from a perverse loyalty in hope that they might one day be accepted back. That they know this is not likely, and if it were there just might be yet another genocide by the same faith that drove them away, does not deter them in this attitude albeit it makes them silent as to the reasons for the loyalty, and for continuing racism on lines of pak attitudes.
'71 war for independence of Bangladesh was due chiefly to the pak attitudes of racism and denigration of their larger half of nation - larger by populace count - with very frank discriminatory speech that still continues about how the Bengal people are dark, short, unlike the tall and fair and hefty Northwest, and how they are poor and frugal. That the pak leadership was responsible for the poverty is conveniently forgotten - they fleeced the nation and allocated the largest share to Punjab alone, chiefly to capital and to military and a few political leaders, leaving all Bengal then and all the rest then and now in dire poverty - and even post losing half the nation, the same fleecing is applied to other parts of the nation, fleecing of Baluchistan going on since six decades although that part never joined willingly, and of other provinces.
What was worse, and still continues in parts still under occupation by pak military such as Baluchistan and more, was genocide. East Bengal had massacre of three million people of all ages across genders by pak military in the single year of '71 after the cyclones and subsequent famine had claimed a large number already, and this was not all. UN had to open abortion clinics to deal with half a million women of east Bengal raped by pak military, and that was just for vengeance. For use, they had fifty thousand or so women kept chained and naked so they could not escape or drown themselves in any river in the land full of water so much so it is colloquially nicknamed "Jol Baangla" - literally, Water Bengal.
This does not end the list of horrors perpetrated - Dhaka university had a separate genocide perpetrated by the pak military, to finish off a huge number of intelligentsia of Bengal that prides itself on flowering of intellect in every field. Notably, even now the pak attitude is of denigration about Bangladesh expressed in a dismissive "it was only intellectuals, a few of them, who wanted independence". It would be easy to remind them the new nation has been free to rejoin the pak union during the four decades since. Easy, but futile, since they know they are lying to cover up their atrocities.
And Khushwant Singh and his ilk have hearts bleeding for the rapist, massacring brethren of theirs who once did it to their own, before they did it to east Bengal. So their solution is to join in denigrating all Bengal and all geniuses of Bengal. In Khushwant Singh's own favourite imagery, it is a contest of how far can he write his name in sands of his lost homeland.
.....................................................................................................
There are readable pieces of course, and often information one is unaware of about people one has known a bit about or famous ones in any case. More often it is about denigrating those respected and defending some atrocious person or event or action.
One example that comes to mind is about a very respected film producer and director, Chetan Anand, whom this author knew in college in Lahore and was enamoured much of - he never fails to mention his good looks, his fair complexion, and other qualities he was impressed with. One would already conclude he was in love with Chetan Anand, if it were not for the prolific mention of how he took trouble to watch women as and when he could without being caught, including women whom he would normally not get a look even at the face of such as those from household of Nawab of Bhopal (Pataudi?) as they bathed in a spot they thought was secluded.
Even in the first mention of Chetan Anand he takes care to denigrate him with a careless mention of how he became a producer and never amounted to much. In this he mentions meeting him in Mumbai and abusing him thoroughly in public, before his very young and beautiful inamorata the ethereal Priya Rajvansh, too - which one can be sure he took special delight in doing, for the show rather than for any real feeling of injury at being ignored by the man he had probably cherished unknown to the object of cherishing.
One of course can be very sure he never gave this treatment to anyone from across the northwest border post independence, however atrocious their behaviour, but that is obvious. With them it is a slave-like devotion he exhibits even when they are hanged and deserve it for the genocide if nothing else.
Reality is, Chetan Anand was much respected for his eclectic productions, and for his direction of films, in the few chosen ones he worked with, usually under his own banner. He was not prolific in numbers like his two younger brothers, but his work offers some assurance of not being merely for commerce, and his brothers as his colleagues respected him for it, and quite rightly too. His most famous brother kept some of that quality in his own productions, while the middle one was very good making success of a venture in market. When two of the three worked together, it was gold.
But then, Khushwant Singh was in all probability either jealous or was reacting like a lover rejected in favour of a beautiful woman that Chetan Anand chose instead - quite possible, the latter, too, since his extraordinarily prolific discussions about women and nether parts cross all possible borders of decency and even of disgusting and become tedious to the point of boring, not that different from effect of looking out of a train window around early morning in India in overpopulated parts - perhaps he is merely protesting too much, since his faith in all probability won't allow him to acknowledge the real object of his passion, and the faith of his masters would likely stone him to death after having used him to his satisfaction.
.....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
Monday, June 15, 2015.
.....................................................................................................
(Re Maneka Gandhi, Younger daughter in law of Indira Gandhi. Khushwant Singh describes her being thrown out of her marital home after she lost her husband and was made to sign away her rights to her husband's share of property as a condition of her being allowed to stay. Most witnesses and friends including Maneka herself exculpate Indira Gandhi of blame, all agreeing that she needed her elder son and he would have been made to leave his mother if Maneka had not been thrown out without a penny.)
Khushwant was as frank in labeling his malice as he was about copious descriptions of his and other people's nether parts, or his watching various women in various stages of undressing, or worse. A good deal of it is simply provoking by a puck, if one is provoked he has victory and if not he is willing to go to lower levels of disgusting.
But honest or real journalist he was not and if he heard would probably say he did not claim it, and was frank he merely gossiped on strength of his familiarity with so called high society. In this too however, he is as circumspect as any social climber, unlike Tavleen Singh who managed to maintain decency and courage and journalistic ethos and more.
When emergency was declared in mid seventies Khushwant Singh couldn't stop praising not only the then newly dictator but also her younger son and his very young wife, Maneka Anand who was a new addition to the Nehru dynasty of Indira Gandhi family. That this praise might render him slightly ridiculous seems to have bothered him far less than a possible incarceration like others of the time who were honest in disapproval of the times and political measures.
In the series of books with malice in titles where various pieces of gossip about society are collected, there is at least one piece about the finale of the chapter of the young couple, Sanjay and Maneka. This was written post Sanjay's death and he was eyewitness to the events as they unfolded around the exit of Maneka from the home of her mother in law where she had arrived as a bride and lived until then.
There are others who wrote or spoke about it. Pupul Jayakar mentions the event in her biography of Indira Gandhi and it is a very open, honest account of the conversation the two friends had. Maneka herself speaks of this and of her married life until then, in a conversation with the ever elegant Simi Garewal. But this account by Khushwant Singh is notable for a flavour missing from other accounts.
By any standard applicable to the situation, this exit of a poor young woman who had been made to sign away any and every right to share of property due to her husband as a condition to her staying in the home with her son, was a despicable act on part of the in-laws. Both Pupul Jayakar and Maneka herself exculpate the mother in law who was fragile with the loss of support of the younger son that was her chief support at family and in politics, and was dependent on the elder son who never wanted politics and had a wife who was supposedly against it all, their friends all either western or high society or both. Indira Gandhi is quoted by Pupul Jayakar as saying, what could she do, she needed her son. Maneka puts the blame squarely on her sole sister in law for having her thrown out of the home where the two women had an equal right morally, traditionally, and in every other way possible.
Khushwant Singh cannot deny any of it, but would rather play it safe, and most people in the situation remain silent as the party did. Not he - he has an extra point to prove, to claim that in spite of sharing a communal tie and of his having specialised as an academic by translating religious texts of his faith, he was not exactly on side of the young woman thrown out penniless from her marital home.
So he resorts to gossipy account of how she did not go quietly, how she let loose verbally and insisted on having dinner before leaving. All to indicate that she was not pathetic but a fighter, and to perhaps allow a reader to speculate that her character was unpleasant and was responsible for her losing family, rights to property, et al. Total bs of course.
One wonders if he needed to cover up so strenuously only because he was of the same community that Maneka belonged to, or was he afraid he would be targeted by the elder sister in law and mafia to boot, or was it worse? Who knows.
It is always easy to blame a victim, especially a young widow who has signed away her rights to share of wealth, and has a small son to bring up to boot. She is expected to beg and placate others, with the one in power at marital home in position of making her a social outcast.
One expects better of those supposedly brought up in high society with a decent education, however. In this respect as probably in all others the three women - Pupul Jayakar, Simi Garewal and Tavleen Singh - fare far above.
Perhaps courage is a feminine virtue after all. .....................................................................................................
Wednesday, June 24, 2015.
.....................................................................................................
