Twenty years ago, a 27-year-old actress entered the sanctum sanctorium of the Sabarimala temple and touched the feet of Lord Aiyappa, one of the many bachelor Gods in the Hindu pantheon. Women under 50 are not allowed to visit Sabarimala - Lord Aiyappa has personally given strict orders to the fossilized temple priests at Sabarimala that his bachelorhood is in grave danger if a woman under 50 enters his premises - who knows, she might marry Him. Anyway, this woman entered - how dare she - she just materialized out of thin air, got into the sanctum sanctorium, and she touched the idol. That's the only way she could've got past the oh-so-holy fossil who is oh-so-faithfully guarding his Lord. She touched the idol's feet! Blasphemy! At least blasphemy if you did all this without greasing the palms of the fossil who's guarding his Lord. Not blasphemy if fossil sells tradition for money.
The fossils in Sabarimala and some fellow who calls him the "Devaswom" minister in the Kerala cabinet are baying for this actress's blood now - 20 years later. Like the Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" who keeps screaming "Off with her head." How did all this come to light? Because another fossil (in the guise of an astrologer) claimed publicly that Lord Aiyappa is hopping mad that someone has contaminated His aura and He needs to be cleansed (by the fossils who guard and protect Him from things like His devotees). This someone is either a non-Brahmin or a woman - again, this was personally whispered by Lord Aiyappa in the fossil astrologer's ears - all these guys are so holy (and so fossilized) that they have a direct hotline to the Lord...and when they don't they can read His mind.
When the actress heard about this, she confessed her "sin" to the Sabarimala fossils and also faxed an apology (Lord Aiyappa rocks, man. He'd rather have a faxed apology than someone rolling around His premises beating their chest and making asses of themselves begging for His forgiveness. A fax is neat and simple). The fossils assured her that her apology will be accepted by the rocking Lord Aiyappa and her "confession" will be kept confidential.
But you know how irresistible the media can be. Especially if you have one foot in the grave and the other in your mouth. So now we have a raging controversy. Of course, every other problem in Sabarimala has been solved. They just have to get this actress's blood for the "sin" she committed 2 decades ago, and lo and behold! Sabarimala will become...well, God's Own Country.
Lord Aiyappa definitely needs a holy bath to cleanse Him. Cleanse Him from who's touch? That's debatable.
Scream loudly about other people's sins and no one will notice your own. Nice try. Works sometimes.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The myth of fact
In the June 28, 2006, edition of the Deccan Herald, the story titled "US House Panel okays N-Bill", there is a sentence that reads: "The 50-member House International Relations Committee approved by vote of 37 to 5 the legislation designed to make exemptions in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act to enable the US to sell nuclear fuel and technology in return for non-proliferation..."
In the June 28, 2006, edition of The New Indian Express, in the story titled "For nuke deal, India need not sign NPT", there is a sentence that reads: "The amendment to the Bill which seeks exemptions to Atomic Energy Act 1954 to enable US to sell nuclear fuel and technology in return for non-proliferation...(was) defeated in the 50-member House International Relations Committee..."
These are 2 leading newspapers in India. I'm a lay person, but I've been following this India-US nuke deal closely in an effort to understand if Manmohan Singh has grown a backbone of late and I can't decide if he has or he hasn't because these 2 newspapers give me 2 different versions of news. What am I to believe? I have no first-hand information about any of this. I depend entirely on the media to give me "facts" - I didn't watch the news on TV on June 28 to know what THEY were saying - but what's the difference? This already confusing story that I'm trying so hard to keep pace with just got incomprehensible. Have the amendments been approved or defeated? Depends on which newspaper you read, apparently.
What is fact? Fact is what the newspaper you subscribe to tells you.
Moral of Story: Read only one newspaper.
In the June 28, 2006, edition of The New Indian Express, in the story titled "For nuke deal, India need not sign NPT", there is a sentence that reads: "The amendment to the Bill which seeks exemptions to Atomic Energy Act 1954 to enable US to sell nuclear fuel and technology in return for non-proliferation...(was) defeated in the 50-member House International Relations Committee..."
These are 2 leading newspapers in India. I'm a lay person, but I've been following this India-US nuke deal closely in an effort to understand if Manmohan Singh has grown a backbone of late and I can't decide if he has or he hasn't because these 2 newspapers give me 2 different versions of news. What am I to believe? I have no first-hand information about any of this. I depend entirely on the media to give me "facts" - I didn't watch the news on TV on June 28 to know what THEY were saying - but what's the difference? This already confusing story that I'm trying so hard to keep pace with just got incomprehensible. Have the amendments been approved or defeated? Depends on which newspaper you read, apparently.
What is fact? Fact is what the newspaper you subscribe to tells you.
Moral of Story: Read only one newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)