Bearded Soldier: A virtue whose time hasn't yet come

In a recent ruling, the SC upheld the dismissal of a Muslim pilot from IAF upon his insistence to grow a beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. The reason cited by the court was predictable – an individual can’t be allowed to violate defence rules, which permit beards only for Sikhs, or for others under special circumstances.

India’s armed forces disallow beards for the sake of maintaining a homogeneous, secular atmosphere. Sikhs are an exception because keeping a beard is an “essential practice” of their religion. However, as per the SC, beard-keeping fails the essential practices test for Islam, which is why the man wasn’t granted exception.

Legal scholar Gautam Bhatia, in his erudite blog, criticized the court for applying the contentious essential practices test – so far reserved for communities/groups – to an individual. As per him, the court should have only tried to figure out whether the individual’s belief in his religion was genuine, and ruled in his favour if it that was the case.

Without even getting into the quagmire of how the court could have figured out genuineness of personal beliefs, I disagree with Bhatia’s argument. Judiciary has already invaded the executive’s turf, and it has simply no business dictating terms to armed forces. The armed forces, under Article 33 of the Constitution, are empowered to regulate fundamental rights of their personnel.  Any external intervention would vitiate the sanctity of hierarchy of defence forces, and open a Pandora’s Box.

However, my initial thoughts were sympathetic to the dismissed Muslim man, and probably scores of others who can't practice religion in the armed forces. The rule against beards seemed silly and unnecessary. But running my views past a friend from the armed forces threw up challenges that made me rethink my position.

Initial thoughts

While I'm strictly against judicial interference, I did think it was time for the armed forces to take a look at this draconian rule internally. If the Sikhs can be allowed a “neat, well-trimmed” beard, why should a smattering of heterogeneity harm the armed forces? After all, a lot of army/air force/navy officers do keep neat moustaches, and tribals are allowed tattoos, including on the face. Moreover, the rules against beard-keeping sound arbitrary. For example, Muslims who had a beard prior to joining the defence forces on or before Jan 1, 2002 are allowed to retain it, but those who joined after this date aren’t extended the same privilege. No one is allowed to grow a previously non-existent beard after joining, irrespective of the date. Those who are allowed to retain one can only do so along with a moustache, but never without one. Clearly, this rule is an attempt to eliminate any overt display of religiosity, and might well be inspired from a similar rule of the British army that prohibits a beard without a “full set”. Similar regulations against overt displays exist for other religions too, except Sikhism, though even turbans are strictly regulated for colour and style of wearing.

I personally don’t see why someone can’t be deeply religious and patriotic at the same time. There is a distinct possibility that rules dictating appearance, especially the one against beards, might be keeping certain people at an arm’s length from the forces. Worse, as in this case, it might lead to alienation of those who take a religious turn while serving the forces. For the non-religious, there is that major inconvenience of not being able to look like Virat Kohli. After all, the legendary Admiral Zumwalt of US navy, in one of his orders titled “Elimination of Demeaning or Abrasive Regulation”, said, “I want to restate what I believed to be explicit: in the case of haircuts, sideburns, and contemporary clothing styles, my view is that we must learn to adapt to changing fashions. I will not countenance the rights or privileges of any officers or enlisted men being abrogated in any way because they choose to grow sideburns or neatly trimmed beards or moustaches or because preferences in neat clothing styles are at variance with the taste of their seniors.”

Revision in position

With these thoughts in mind, I had a long chat with a (Muslim) friend from Indian navy. To Bhatia’s blog, his response was, “civilian ne likha hai na?” When I tried moving on to my arguments about the futility of these rules, the response was, “bhai, tum bhi civilian hi ho aakhirkar.”

My first instinct was to dismiss his response as the superiority complex that is known to afflict armed forces, but the issue goes deeper. He mentioned two points in favour of the rule against beards. One, each defence personnel is issued a fresh ID card for every rank he/she occupies, the photo on which remains unchanged for the tenure of the given rank. Sporting a beard could lead to departure in appearance from the photo on the ID card, which could lead to a security lapse. In case one wants to change facial appearance, one has to be cleared by the commanding officer, barring which the change can’t happen. Two, and the larger point, in the current political climate keeping a beard signals strands of puritanical Islam within armed forces, which is anathema to Indian armed forces’ psychological edge over its counterparts. He recounted incidences of Indian navy personnel sailing to far-off shores simply to participate in sporting and networking events – all for the sake of psychological warfare. He confessed to looking down upon navies whose personnel displayed overt religiosity. As per him, similar behaviour by India’s armed forces would be a blot on its professionalism, reputation, and ultimately operational competence. This doesn’t happen due to Sikh personnel because the exception granted to them , by not just Indian but also British and Canadian forces, is well known all over the world. A personal note there – there’s plenty of Islamophobia but hardly any Sikhophobia in the world. It is also noteworthy that Admiral Zumwalt lived in a pre-Islamophobic era and his comments are not cognizant of religious significance of facial hair.

To wrap it up, there are two opposing forces here. One is the obvious sanity of letting people look the way they want to, within acceptable standards. The other, as well argued by my friend, is the security issue and the perceived psychological harm emanating from beards. Maybe India’s armed forces should keep off beards in the current political climate. Hopefully that will change soon.

Trump's victory and NYT's admission: Liberals need to introspect

Just as I finished writing about the imminent shift in global politics, media and academia from the liberal Left to majoritarian Right, NYT – the beacon of ultra-liberal international media – admitted to smugness and incompetence in its election coverage, even if motivated by fear of a reader backlash and concerns about profit. Couldn’t help the “told you so” fist-pump, even as I felt deeply scared about the shift. As an aside, please don't miss the comments on the article hyperlinked above to get a great idea of NYT's bias.

Before anyone dismisses the gravity of this thinly-veiled apology, it should be noted that the last time NYT issued a public apology was for its pro-war coverage of Iraq war. Back then, one of its reporters, Judith Miller, had got sensational stories from a dishonest source, which helped build public support in favour of the war. While NYT’s election coverage might not be as regrettable because it didn’t lead to millions of deaths, the admission does prove more than a modicum of bias and mishandling.   

Before the election, when I raised doubts over NYT’s biased and uninformed coverage of the two candidates, the liberals united in their opposition calling Hillary “a great lady”, “one of the best ever” etc., and that only a tiny section of the population, the deplorables, supported Trump, so NYT was right in its coverage. That debate seems settled now.

Every pragmatic liberal, myself being one, must capitalise on this rarest of rare shifts to burst the ultra-liberals’ gargantuan bubble, and ask questions that they have so far been swept under the carpet by imposing their illusion of moral superiority on the dissenters. 

First and foremost, the ultra-liberals need to realise that everyone voting for Trump isn’t deplorable. 29% Asians and Hispanics, 8% Blacks, and 37% postgraduates voted Trump. People have priorities – taxation, elimination of Obamacare etc. – that figure above those of the ultra-liberals. Just because someone doesn’t rate gender equality and climate change as their highest priority, doesn’t make them deplorable. In fact, it’s safe to say that everyone who voted Hillary isn’t a messiah and didn’t vote her in pursuit of larger-than-life ideals. They had their own selfish reasons. The minorities largely voted Hillary not to eliminate the scourge of racism per se but for the sake of personal security, isn’t that selfish too? Or maybe they wanted her to continue Obamacare, or impose gun-control, or something else.

Secondly, the liberals must introspect. It’s easy for ultra-liberals to preach the ideals of equality from their vantage point – they forget the link between economics and hate. Of course, no one should be discriminated against on the basis of nationality, gender, religion etc. However, do they honestly expect a homeless man to think the same way? Should it be any surprise that to a homeless Hindu in India, a wealthy Christian walking by will appear as someone who became rich primarily because he ditched his original religion? Even if he doesn’t think that way, the politician next door will pose the Christian as an outsider, and the homeless man will be a sitting duck. This is no different from the way Christian missionaries operate – they blame Hinduism for the wretchedness of their targets, provide incentives for conversion, and it works quite well. Now, the educated understand that such an Us vs. Them view is stupid because it goes ad infinitum, but how does one blame the poor Hindu on the street, or for that matter, the target of conversion? This is exactly what has happened in America. Somehow the liberals are liberal only towards fellow liberals. If this continues, they will end up being self-defeating by providing easy targets to far-right politicians like Trump.

Thirdly, there is a need to start slaying the holy cows. Let’s demand end of triple talaq and UCC. Let’s point out reverse-sexism where it exists. Let’s stop taking those hypocritical human rights organisations at face value. Let’s start asking tough questions - Hillary Chameleonton stuck with her serial-cheater of a husband largely because she wanted to further her own political ambitions, so why is she hailed as a feminist? Her ambitions were also the reason why she went about odiously discrediting all women who came forward. When Trump did the same, we all remember the storm that kicked off, so why this bias towards Hillary? Sure, love for her husband and child must have had a role to play in making her stick, but if any liberal ascribes Hillary’s decision simply to this reason, just give that person an “awww” look and move on, but not before you ask them to read William Chafe’s book on the subject. Had she been a true feminist she’d have said “fuck you” in the face of her husband and pursued her ambitions independently.

There are hundreds of such questions on different topics to be asked, the one above only being representative of them. The next time a liberal laments violence by RSS, ask him whether he’s aware of the dastardly violence perpetrated on a daily basis by the Left in Kerala and Bengal. The next time a liberal waxes eloquent about Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s cryptic preaching, ask him whether he’s ever bothered to read Hindol Sengupta and Sanjeev Sanyal.

At the same time, let’s not lose sight of the liberal causes, even if the liberals themselves pay only lip service to them. Let’s stop buying products of companies that make racist ads. Let’s call for the removal of IHCL chief, Rakesh Sarna, for repeatedly harassing a woman. Let’s fight against all those men, like Trump himself, who always got a free pass.

The liberals and non-liberals are too deeply ensconced in their respective echo chambers to hear the other side. This is dangerous for any democracy. A bridge urgently needs to be built. For better or for worse, the liberals must take the lead because, on an average, they’re more privileged and educated compared to Trump-voters. #notmypresident doesn’t seem like a convincing start.

Why spark a gender war, Adele?

Today was yet another day of chest-thumping for the self-congratulatory feminist brigade. 

Adele, one of their icons, apparently has a hair problem since she doesn’t shave her legs more than once a month. On being asked by Vanity Fair whether her boyfriend minded it, she shot back, “He has no choice. I’ll have no man telling me to shave my fucking legs. Shave yours.” 

Expectedly, this was hailed variously as “best reply ever”, “take that, men”, and “Adele will have none of it, and you shouldn’t either” by all those media outlets that find Hillary Clinton to be an angel.

Now, there’s a serious problem with that statement, and even more with the attitude that goes into making that statement. It gives the stench of an uncompromising megalomaniac who lives life all by her rules, refusing to bend the tiniest bit to accommodate what is for most men a biological need, and one that is by no means impossible to meet for a woman.

Scratch that. Adele is none of the above. She’s a hypocrite pretending to be a diehard feminist.

Know why she bothers to shave her legs at all? “Because people in the front row at her concerts might notice them when she runs up the stairs to the stage.”

To me, it sounds like she’s happily complying with (unsaid) requests of all men (and women) in the front row to look presentable. But she has a problem doing the same for her boyfriend, the man who probably sees her naked every day. Why? Because shaving one’s legs for one’s man automatically makes one a submissive sandwich-maker?

So not only is Adele hypocritical but also lazy and arrogant because she doesn’t shave her legs for her man knowing she can get another at the drop of a hat, but does so happily for her fans since she knows their replacement might be harder to come by.

Now, it’s hard to blame Adele for being a lazy, arrogant hypocrite when almost everyone on the planet is one too. The problem is that she’s a hugely influential figure, an icon of female power for the hundreds of millions of young girls and women around the world who adore her. Unwittingly or otherwise, she has added tinder to the already raging bonfire of gender war. Adele just instructed those hundreds of millions of young girls and women to adopt a cavalier attitude to the most basic need of all men that are, or will ever be, in their lives. So yeah, I’ll add “ignorant” to the list of adjectives I’ve used to describe her.

I don’t think it should be hard for any woman to realise that most men find female body hair unpalatable, just like I realise that a lot of men are downright assholes about expressing their preferences to women. It’s possible that Adele has had bad experiences that have left her bitter, and hence her issue with being asked to shave her legs. The problem is that such attitude simply forecloses all possibility of dialogue. Even a polite request at the right time and place will go unheeded. Note that such a request is completely different from lamenting one’s partner’s small boobs or tiny penis, since those are things they can’t do anything about. However, it is no different from a man asking for a blowjob but straightaway refusing to rid himself of the jungle down there. Imagine the earthquake that’d have struck the Milky Way had it been Adele’s boyfriend making a statement on the lines of what she did.

For far too long, we allowed men to get away with making statements (and actions) like that, and now we have this stinking patriarchy. I am afraid feminism is well on its way to the same infamy.

It's perfectly fine to fawn over Chaiwala 2.0

Yet another “chaiwala” is making news, this time from across the border. Arshad Khan, quite literally the blue-eyed boy from Pakistan, has shot to fame courtesy a photo of his instagrammed by a Pakistani photographer. He’ll soon be a model, and might even star in movies. Too bad though that he won’t be able to milk the far richer Bollywood for some time to come.

Reactions to his photograph and the ensuing fame ranged from ecstatic loins to rolled eyes. There was one group though, that of the Eternally Peeved Feminazis, that couldn’t, as a matter of habit, hold back from making a mountain out of a molehill.

These days, whenever anything breaks out, I am only waiting for the pea-brained EPF to invent an angle that allows them to call for mass castration of all men on the planet. So this time, since the photographer was a woman and his subject was a man, I was relieved that the EPF would keep at an arm’s length. My relief was short-lived.

Below I counter the objections to the photograph made by two articles written by EPF:

1.      It is abhorrent to express surprise at his good looks despite his lower socio-economic strata: Ok, this is the motif of all EPF arguments – blind thyself to facts.
In the subcontinent, the poor people look uglier than their richer counterparts in a vast majority of cases. Of course, one can inflict further blindness by saying shit like “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”, but the truth won’t change. So what’s the harm if millions of people are pleasantly surprised at the charm of a chaiwala? Let's hope we see more such mascots of poor people's attractiveness to bridge the yawning gap. 

2.      Calling him “chaiwala” is derogatory: Clearly, the EPF live in a world where they sip tea of all colours except yellow, that too exclusively from vending machines, and go “eww, look at those spots on his shirt” when they see a drops of tea fall on the shirt of a real chaiwala while he expertly pours it from a wide vessel into a narrow glass. In the subcontinent, chaiwala is an important, if not honourable, occupation. During Modi’s campaign, except the one instance where Mani Shankar Aiyar – who clearly sips tea only from vending machines – meant “chaiwala” as a derogatory epithet, it was used only to signal Modi’s lower socio-economic strata, and never to suggest that he had ever been a dishonourable man. In his interviews, Arshad himself proudly admits to being a chaiwala.
The EPF lament that no one bothered to find out his name long after he'd gone viral, instead preferring to call him "chaiwala". Well, I didn't see any EPF approaching him to do this noble deed. After all, it was the very media outlets that they brand irritating and disruptive that bothered to eventually find out his name. If anything, "chaiwala" acted as a catchy slogan to gain him quick and widespread popularity. Does anyone remember the real name of the girl pictured below?

The Afghan Girl

3.    Craze for his blue eyes and light skin is colonial baggage: This is a recurrence of the motif mentioned in point 1. The truth is that blue eyes and light skin look eye-poppingly gorgeous, more so to people from subcontinent because they rarely possess those traits themselves. Several studies done on babies at least partially establish this, though since eugenics is a no-go area thanks to EPF and PC Warriors, much more needs to be done in this area of study. In all my travels through the West, I have not been accompanied by one Indian, and this includes females, who didn’t have their tongue hanging out at the very traits mentioned above. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the presence of these traits in our multinational European colonizers made their job easier.

4.      Arshad Khan could be photographed and his photo circulated on social media only because he’s poor:  Whhhaaatt? Are we forgetting Princess Diana’s death, Deepika Padukone’s cleavage splash on TOI, and countless other instances when the richest, most powerful people on the planet have been clicked without consent and driven to insanity.

5.      It would be better had the photographer tried to engage with the subject, including an “effin selfie” (I don’t understand the big deal about writing “fucking”, but that’s a non-sequitur issue):  The EPF forget that the “effin selfie” is the most heinous way of condescending and romanticising the poor and poverty, something that they warn vehemently against right before they lament the alleged lack of engagement. A selfie with a person of a lower socio-economic strata is nothing but conscience laundry, often used by white people strutting around the subcontinent to embellish their resume. Besides, what do the EPF expect the photographer to do anyway? Go up to the chaiwala and find out his painful life story and pen an op-ed on it? What have the EPF done except, oh, penning an op-ed on him. The EPF also lament that Arshad's fame on social media has unfolded in a language unknown to him. Well, so has their critique. Sadly, Arshad will never know how this bunch of do-gooders tried to fight the injustice done to him.

6.     The EPF don’t like how everything in this episode has revolved around the chaiwala’s “physical features”: Dear EPF, this isn’t 22^nd century yet where the viewers of a photo can dive into it to talk to its subject, and in this case, taste the chai he makes. So far, they can only admire what they see. Moreover, unlike your kind, most humans don’t possess the eyesight that lets them see the misogyny hidden behind the bikini girls printed on a scientist’s shirt.

7.      His fame caused him much embarrassment and disrupted his life: Embarrassment? Dressed in a suave black jacket barely a day after his photo went viral, a beaming Arshad couldn’t stop thanking the photographer and his “fans” for affording him a life he’d never imagined. Arshad was also admittedly overjoyed by those needling him for a selfie or an interview. He did say his business was briefly disrupted, though his main lament was purely economic: “kaam nahi karenge to raat ko le kar kya jayenge?” In that sense, the photo hasn’t disrupted his life at all, instead, it has given it a new lease.

8.     EPF ask a question – how many people would have showed up to meet him had he been a rich man?: This question is best answered by the Khans and Bachchans of Bollywood whose houses are perennially surrounded by banyan-clad idiots who pass for “fans”. In fact, the richer and the more famous the celebrity, the higher are his/her chances of being lynched by a crazy mob.

9.      In one of the articles, EPF say there is no such thing as “reverse sexism”, and only females are at receiving end of all gender-based discrimination: Haha, this is nothing but a manifestation of what Bill Burr said, "Women are constantly busy patting themselves on the back for how difficult their lives are, and no man refutes them because they want to fuck them." I am not surprised EPF think this way, because they're the first to go up in arms when told that a lot of attractive women are hired by big companies almost solely for their looks. Need greater examples of reverse sexism? Ask Brian Banks, the athlete who served five years in jail for a rape he didn’t commit, just because everyone found it too easy to believe the accuser since she was a woman. Judicial bias against men is systemic, and goes far beyond crimes against women. There are umpteen other examples of brazen reverse sexism.


It seems that the EPF, by hiding behind the condescending message of "let him do his job", are not too comfortable with the idea of social mobility - an illiterate, non-English speaking chaiwala breaking the ranks to become more influential than their stupid words.

Godspeed, Chaiwale! 

Possible foul play in 2013 Delhi elections, and systemic rot in Indian elections

I wrote this story for Mint, around the time of last Delhi Assembly elections which were swept by AAP. The story is based on 2013 elections, in which AAP and BJP secured 28 and 31 seats, respectively. It brings out how the party might have lost two seats because of what could have been foul play - in this case deliberate use of an election symbol, named 'Battery Torch', very similar to the party's Broom.

Mint decided not to publish it, so I am putting it here. The peg is India Today's recent investigation (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uttar-pradesh-assembly-elections-dummy-candidates-india-today-expose/1/746207.html) that reveals similar systemic rot. The story below reads very newspaper-y, for obvious reasons.

Below are photos of the two symbols - the fake 'Battery Torch' and AAP's Broom.

   

Story:

If you were an AAP supporter during the previous Delhi assembly elections, you have reason to be worried, for you might just have unwittingly voted your party out of power, in at least two seats.

But how could you have ever committed the grave error of mistakenly voting for another party? It’s because an election symbol bearing uncanny resemblance to AAP’s symbol – the Broom – was doing the rounds in the previous Delhi election. It is noteworthy that the EVM does not carry the name of the party, only increasing the likelihood of such a mistake.

Later, the symbol’s capability to trick AAP voters was taken into cognizance even by EC, which ordered its modification for the upcoming election.

Adoption of the Torch symbol

The fact that this symbol was adopted not by a party but by different independent candidates in as many as 29 out of 70 constituencies in the capital, should raise still more eyebrows. The next most widely adopted symbol - cup and saucer - was adopted in only 12 constituencies. However, before overenthusiastic supporters jump to castigate political rivals for foul play, it is necessary to know how election symbols are allotted to independent candidates. Besides the symbols reserved for national and state parties, the EC has a set of 'free symbols' which are reserved for independent candidates as well as those from lesser known parties. These candidates are then expected to indicate their top three preferences from among free symbols, and in case of clashes, the final allotment is done on lottery basis. Elaborating on the issue, a former Chief Election Commissioner (whose name I've removed because the story isn't for Mint anymore), said that erroneous voting due to similar-looking symbols had indeed been a problem in the past. He, however, added that EC had always been flexible about modifying such symbols on the basis of any genuine complaint received, since not doing so would be an impediment to free and fair elections. Sometimes, EC would also give its nod to symbols demanded by candidates, if these were found acceptable. Talking about the time when over 1000 candidates contested from Modakurichi constituency in TN, he recalled how a judicious choice of symbols could be a real headache for EC. He also mentioned that despite EC's best efforts to minimise confusion among voters, usage of dummy candidates with similar names and symbols had been a favourite modus operandi of political parties to cut into their rivals' vote share. He cited the example of Kuldeep Bishnoi, who, while contesting from Hisar, faced several namesakes.

Why I am a hypocritical liberal

Coming from a deeply orthodox family, I am quite happy with how I’ve turned out as an adult. I am totally accepting of intoxicants, sex, varied sexuality, and political incorrectness – all things I was critical and sceptical of as a child.

Just a few days back though, a phone conversation with a friend shook the firm belief I held in my liberalism. We somehow got on to the topic of transgenderism – a phenomenon I have nothing against but believe has been emboldened by the advent of technology and is too much of a #firstworldproblem to be paid much attention to – and I was quick to express my reservations, saying it was not ‘normal’ for anyone to feel out of place in their assigned gender. Expectedly, there was a strong rebuttal. She argued cogently that diversity was the new normal, and that the age old habit of viewing varied choices as deviations from a preassigned normal was more condescending than liberal.

That got me thinking. This is indeed true – I have indeed looked at varied practices such as homosexuality, transgenderism etc. as deviations from a normal. In my heart of hearts, I am still not entirely comfortable with these practices, and I am only ‘allowing’ them to exist, instead of wholeheartedly embracing them. As a child, I was subtly indoctrinated to believe that the needs of individual had to take a backseat to the rules of society, if ever there was a clash between the two. I always thought I had overcome that indoctrination, but childhood hangovers are not to be underestimated. Sure, my attitude is far better than condemning and actively proscribing diversity, but it’s not ideal. To use an analogy, if my friend views the world as a canvas covered with a random splashing of all colours conceivable, I view it as one with carefully done, linear, monochromatic strokes, interspersed with what can at best be called jarring multi-chromatic irritants. I will never remove those irritants, but I secretly, almost shamefully, hope that they become one with their surroundings over time.

List of people who ought to be killed

King Carlin once compiled a list of people who ‘ought to be killed’. This is one of the greatest acts of philanthropy in human history, for truly there are lots of people who ought to be killed so that the more deserving ones can live in peace. The list was comprehensive for its day, but sadly Carlin died before the internet age, which has spawned scores of other categories of people who ought to be killed. This young Padawan, who hates people as much as the Jedi master did, has taken on the mantle of carrying forward his much-needed work, so that someday it can come to fruition and make the world livable again.

Here’s a list of people who ought to be killed:

1.    Those who suffer from sapiosexuality, wanderlust, or bibliophilia: I don’t mean those who have these traits, but those who use these very words to describe their traits. I was first introduced to these words by tinder bios, so it’s only fitting that I leave a screenshot to explain things better.

I did hate myself a tad more after swiping right on her. She was really hot. I'm sorry.

2.    People who join tinder for ‘friendship’: How sad are their lives, that they need tinder to make friends? And somehow none of these friendship-seekers swipes right profiles of the same gender. 

      Sad and discriminatory – put ‘em down!
Again, live examples help. Yes, I am that bastard who collects screenshots of funny tinder profiles.

I didn't swipe right on her. But then she was ugly.

3.     Pouting mirror-selfie dudes and babes: Ah, I have a special place for them in my dark heart. Nothing would give me greater comfort than taking away their boundless joy when they pose in a mirror, contort their lips, tilt their head to one side, and click. These people need some good old torture leading to death - Scaphism, maybe?

The horrific tale of a Mumbai dance bar

Sometime last year I visited a dance bar in Mumbai. I’d gone in with two friends, with the largely platonic motive of experiencing firsthand the dying embers of a fire that once used to light up the Maximum City every night. I went in expecting nothing too different from a European strip club, maybe something only more tepid. Turns out it is arguably the only act I’ve committed that evokes the emotion of shame in me. It was traumatic, to say the least. The dance bar I visited, Ram Bhavan in Andheri, didn’t remotely pander to the dark, dingy stereotype created by Bollywood. It was far worse.

The description below was written in the immediate aftermath of my visit, and hence carries an emotional, first-person narrative. Of course, the passage of time allows me to restructure it into a more detached commentary, including bits on how bar dancers deserve and need far more respect and positive policy intervention than pity. I should also concede my hypocrisy in taking the moral high ground, but all that would not do justice to what I felt while I was in the midst of it. Read on.

I can never forget those eyes. If they gave off an aroma, I would know what lust smells like.

I tried mustering the courage to make eye-contact, but never could. She stood close enough to tempt, yet far enough to deter. Her gaze was captivating, inviting, and at the same time, puzzling, stupefying, and worst of all, intimidating. No female had looked at me that way before, not even in the most intimate of moments. Yet, I failed to capitalize on her lust. The best I could do, while she peered straight into my flinching eyes, was to watch her ring-laden fingers dance around her bare waist, the motions turning more suggestive as they moved towards the pierced navel, and slowly up to her cleavage-baring bosom. Yet again I tried following the movements of her fingers, hoping for them to lead my gaze right up to hers, almost failing when one of her fingers was juxtaposed with her cleavage, and finally giving up when the same finger brushed against her blood-red lips.

As if sensing my confusion and despair, a stout, bald, thickly-bearded man walked up to the table where I was seated with the two friends accompanying me, and stood right in front of me, blocking her gaze. For a second, I thanked him for taking the pressure off me. But the comfort was short-lived. Dressed in an immaculate dinner jacket, the man stood there silent and motionless, assuming such a wide-legged stance that our eye levels almost met. His aura was disconcertingly jaunty. His face carried a deep cut on the right cheek. It was clear he’d emerged victorious from a bloody battle. My heart skipped a beat as he slipped his hand inside the jacket, but luckily only to fetch a pen and a piece of paper. He sternly pointed to the shabby menu card on the table. Almost thanking him for sparing our lives, my friends and I wasted no time in ordering snacks. We were relieved that we saw him off quickly. His domineering presence had unsettled me deeply, even more than the stare of the dancing girl, which I somehow still craved. His departure gave me another chance to resume the battle between evolutionary instinct and decades of social conditioning.

The rot in Indian media: My (terrible) experiences as a freelancer

Note: I have desisted from naming any individual or organisation in this post, not because I respect them or want their identity to be protected, but because as a freelancer I am a talentless coward with little options but to go back to those very people and organisations whom I’ve criticized in this post.

I quit my first job with a media organisation last year in October. I published my first article as a freelancer in December, and more than 10 since. My profile is quite diverse, both in terms of the topics I’ve written on and the outlets that have run my stories. My experiences below are based on only those outlets that I’ve published with as a freelancer.

Lay readers who suspect Indian media’s standards to be low are wrong - the standards are non-existent. As a freelancer, one can fabricate data, claims, and even quotes (this is most likely true for journalists employed by those organisations as well, but I can only speculate). In the most shocking incidence so far, a piece of mine carried several quotes which can easily be termed sensational, none of which was on record. I was worried about getting the piece past editors at any outlet because I did not have recordings to back up those quotes. To my utter disbelief, the outlet which finally published it did not bother to raise a single query about any of the quotes. “Jesus fuck” - the response of a senior journalist friend when I informed him about this - tells the tale succinctly. This essentially means that one can get away with concocting fake quotes attributed to fake identities. The only problem with that would be when an alert reader decides to do a background check on the fake identity. But you and I know that’s unlikely to happen. In any case, the media outlet won’t bother to play the role of the alert reader.

The problem with Indian media is not restricted to hopeless editorial standards. They’re downright unprofessional in the way they treat freelancers. Big outlets don’t ever bother to respond unless the author’s reputed, or has contacts high up. The smaller, new media ones do so with disdain. Repeated requests might just elicit a response if one’s lucky. If they agree to publish, they will almost always do it at times when the readership is at its lowest ebb - sunday afternoon, and 10 PM on a weekday. Some outlets have horrible social media strategy, they can’t even compose one proper tweet or Facebook update and post it at the right time. Some editors are so callous that they won’t even post a readymade tweet mailed to them by the author.

Going Buzzfeed-y and Scoopwhoop-y on Zakir Naik

It's ban season in India, again. After beef, books, movies, and alcohol, we're contemplating a ban on Zakir Naik, a Mumbai-based Islamic preacher who is barred from holding public lectures in UK, Canada, and even Malaysia, a predominantly Muslims country.

Naik came into the spotlight after some of the Dhaka restaurant attackers claimed they were inspired by his speeches. Naik runs a channel called Peace TV, which is nothing but a mouthpiece for Salafi/Wahabi ideology. He is deeply linked to the Arabic community, and has been awarded several prizes by Saudi. He frequently rubs shoulders with the likes of Shahrukh Khan, and several other bollywood idiots.

Despite all these issues, I really don't think he should be banned. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let that do the talking first.

Skull cap with suit. Cho chweet, no?

And now for the words. Reasons why I think he shouldn't be banned:

1.   He is the clown we don’t deserve but direly need: Look at him. The dude is so stupid that he’s caricature-proof, and yet one can’t stop laughing looking at him or listening to his words. We need him to bring some mirth into our lives. I say we coronate him as the “National Clown of India”. I have a theory: Jyllands Posten made his cartoon, and not Prophet’s. Do compare the photos. I dare not put them here.

2.  It’s the people, stupid: Let’s not kid ourselves. If some 18+ year old dude believes the trash Naik dishes out, he is radicalized (and incredibly stupid) anyway, and is only looking for a final excuse to commit his deed. If his followers were remotely sane people they’d look for a second opinion. They don’t. It’s plain confirmation bias. Few would know that Anders Breivik, Norway's mass murderer, was deeply inspired by BJP and RSS. Should we ban both now? Blaming Naik for radicalizing people is akin to blaming McDonald’s for encouraging gluttony - fatties gonna hog anyway, McDonald’s just happens to be cheap and accessible.

3.  Nab the real culprits: I mean those dadhi-waala mullahs who radicalize young, impressionable minds. Naik is just the rubber stamp. Sure, if Naik is secretly peddling hate to kids, there is a case to chastise him as well, but I don’t see any such thing happening at his public lectures.

A Dark Take on Inequality

I have been hearing a lot about inequality lately. Everyone, and I mean literally everyone, has termed it greatest evil facing mankind. Really?

I say inequality is about as crucial to life as air to breathe and water to drink, but only when you’re on the right side of it. If you’re on the wrong side, you’re fucked. If everyone’s rich and educated, who’s gonna scrape the commode clean when I’m done taking a shit? If everyone goes to McDonald’s to place the order, who’s gonna deliver it to me? If everyone is Steve Jobs, who’s gonna die of heat and overwork at a Chinese factory while making one of his phones that I can use to retweet the news of that very death?

Human race needs inequality to progress. The poor are nothing but the modern euphemistic equivalent of slaves, whom we all must thank for enabling the super comfy world of today. Nothing has changed. Back then, there were chains to tie them up with, now there is hope. Hope that one day they will, too, be rich.  Hope is the opium of the poor. Hope is the dangerous cocktail and it comes packaged in the form of promise of education and equal opportunity, leading to social mobility and eventual richness down the generations. This isn’t too different from how men have controlled women, previously by force, and now by the lure of good looks, big boobs, tight ass, shaved vagina, waxed legs, perfectly-done eyebrows, earrings, nose-rings, big bags, high heels, tube tops, low necklines.

Let’s leave the women for later and come back to controlling the poor through hope. Hope is often considered a necessary evil. It isn’t. It is either necessary or evil, but never both at the same time – necessary for the rich, and evil for the poor. Hope is necessary for the rich to maintain society’s status quo. Hope is evil for the poor because it is a mirage that the poor die chasing, exactly what the likes of Paul Krugman want them to do as they draw six-figure Dollar salaries for researching and writing op-eds about inequality. Hope is Huxley's dystopia brought alive. Hope is the carrot that those on the right side of inequality dangle just high enough to keep those on the wrong side jumping up perpetually without realising how shitty their lives are. Of course, time and again, the carrot is lowered just enough to let a few grab it. That serves a purpose too – of making hope realistic, and making those unsuccessful jumps permanent and all-captivating.

On the nature of Happiness

Happiness, the indisputable goal of human existence. Happiness, the end goal of every human being’s actions.

But, is happiness really all that important? In a recent gathering of friends, everyone except me seemed to agree, to the point that the idea that happiness could be overrated was not open to debate. Not willing to ruffle the tranquility of the gathering, I turned inward and introspected - had happiness been the end goal of all my actions so far?

The question turned out more intricate than I’d thought. Before I could answer it to myself, perhaps for the first time I had to stop and think about the meaning of “happiness”. Of course, we all know it’s a good feeling. At the surface, all actions that I undertake are either for the sake of survival or for the sake of happiness. If I buy veggies, it’s because I need it to live. If I write and run – two of my favourite activities presently – I do get a good feeling at the end of each. That should settle the debate in favour of happiness, right? Nope. Not that simple. The enquiry about happiness has more layers to peel.

As one of the friends in the gathering pointed out, he derived the most happiness from human relationships – from actions such as taking a long drive in a slightly inebriated state with a bunch of friends. Sure, friends make me happy too. But if that good feeling can be derived from such simplistic actions that require nil effort, why do I write and run? After all, both of these activities require considerable heartburn, frustration, and sheer mental and/or physical exhaustion, before the good feeling can be felt.

Writing and running is easy. Why would one perform the unthinkably painful act of summiting Mount Everest, when the same good feeling can be derived from being a couch potato? Or, why would one build Google and Microsoft, when going on a drive with friends suffices? To me, the answer boils down to just one thing – not all happiness is equal. Such a ‘higher form’ of happiness, often derived from goal-setting, toil and accomplishment, is what Aristotle called “Eudaimonia”. Like all things precious, Eudaimonia is exacting and often downright nonsensical to those who don’t strive for it. On the other hand, the ‘lower form’ of happiness is akin to a stroll in the park – easy and devoid of the need for any enterprise, bang in the centre of one’s comfort zone.

I realise I come off pretty judgemental right now, trying to distinguish between the degree and sources of happiness for individuals. But here’s what convinces me of my argument – the gathering unanimously agreed that rarity was the currency that gave activities such as a booze-laced evening with friends its value. Too much of it, and it would get boring.

Fairness creams are fair game

Only Bill Burr can do complete justice to this topic, but I’ll take a shot.

An article in today’s IE (http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/attack-on-africans-ban-on-fairness-advertisements-unfair-and-unlovely-2831346/) pointedly highlights the vicious anti-dark skin prejudice in India. Indeed, that’s true. Mindless beating up of Africans, bullying of dark-skinned kids, preference for fair people in jobs etc. are all reminders of the dark skin-phobia a lot of Indians so dearly nurture in their heart.

But of course, just like racism itself, no admonishment of it is untouched by the obnoxious PC culture – the kind that compels idiots to use the dark thumbs-up smiley on WhatsApp. Inevitably, such articles veer into conflating personal preferences with institutional racism. How is a preference for fair-skinned love interests or life partners any different from that for tall, able-bodied, wealthy, and educated ones?

As an individual, it is my indisputable right to choose who I want to talk to, my friends, and life/love partners as per my preferences. Racism starts where the boundary between personal and public is overstepped, such as in case of discrimination in jobs, and bullying someone for being dark-skinned, since they’re dastardly ways of inflicting personal preferences on another.

If preference for fair skin is such a social evil, why shouldn’t preference for dark hair be? Or for that matter, bigger boobs? And oh, what about the latest fad in town – abs? How unfortunate are those parts of human anatomy that haven't yet had an -ism started under their name. Do I sniff discrimination, PC warriors? So yeah, let’s have hairism, boobism, absism, and what-have-you-ism. But let’s start with the lowest hanging fruit – the proudly brandished about “TDH”. Let’s rechristen it tallism,racism,lookism.

The article calls for a ban on fairness creams. I say, why? After all, what is entrepreneurship but a knack for knowing what people would pay for? It isn’t the State’s job to determine individual preferences, or to have a confidence-building ministry for those rendered diffident by their dark skin. Those who don’t like such creams are free to ignore them, it’s a matter of personal preference. Getting them banned would be, ironically, inflicting one’s preference on another - the root cause of all social evils. If fairness creams are banned, so should matrimonial advertisements and websites, and liposuction and body-enhancing supplements and surgeries. Best solution: stay clear of bans and let the individual decide.

Euro Trip

Quitting a well-paying and comfortable job to travel on one’s own expenses has held an almost romantic charm for me. Ever since reading about a few of these stories (Shivya Nath’s blog is a good example), I knew I would someday make good on this pledge to self.

That I did, in October last year, to tour Europe for a good 18 days. This post is a (not so) brief, overdue record of my experiences of the time. I hope it is helpful to those planning such trips. Of course, I’d be lying if I said this record does complete justice to either my experiences or the uninitiated readers’ attempts to accurately envision Europe.

It won’t be wrong to say that the best perk of travelling is self-discovery. If life is a dark room and one’s comfort zone is the window blocking the light of introspection, travelling is the wind blowing outside that incessantly pushes against the window, letting ever increasing trickles of light illuminate the darkness.

In that fashion, my latest sojourn put an end to the mental debate over whether or not I am truly a solo traveller. I love to go solo for 7-10 days. Beyond that, I’d much rather prefer to have (good) company. In fact, solo or not, I probably wouldn’t like to travel for more than a month at a stretch. No more ruing my career choice when I read about a travel writer. Much to my delight, I still can’t lose my bathroom paraphernalia - a 500ml bottle filled with water to the brim, and a bunch of wet wipes - whenever I’m outside India. More importantly, travelling abroad taught me, yet again, the indispensability of Indian food, and that the best Italian food in the world is made in India.

Itinerary and pointers

Mine was an 18-day trip, during which I visited Italy (4 cities, 10 days), Switzerland (daytrip from Italy), Germany (2 cities, 4 days), Denmark (1 city, 4 days) and Sweden (daytrip from Denmark).

My daytrips to Sweden and Switzerland were largely for the purpose of adding to the list of number of countries visited, a pursuit as noble as any.

Below is the detailed itinerary:

First stop, Rome, Oct 4 (Landed from Mumbai)

Second stop, Florence, Oct 7 (Reached by train)

Third stop, Venice, Oct 9 (Reached by train)

Fourth stop, Milan, Oct 11 (Reached by train)

Fifth stop, Munich, Oct 14 (Reached by plane)

Sixth stop, Copenhagen, Oct 18 (Reached by plane)

Oct 23 (Flew back to Delhi)

I have a lot to say, but if you just need to gloss over the bare minimum essentials needed to plan a trip, the brief version below will help. The longer version, which includes city-wise insights, would be of far more help.

TL;DR version

•  Getting Schengen Visa is a near-certainty, but it’s best to apply around 15 days before you fly. Strictly avoid agents. Go for German/French embassy.
• For money, don’t bother arranging for a travel card. Withdraw from European ATMs.
• For hostel bookings, www.booking.com is not a bad idea. But the best way would be to contact suitable hostels directly and negotiate.
• Don’t bother getting a Euro rail pass unless your trip is really long. Book rail tickets in advance.
• For flights, Easyjet is the best option.
• Avoid spending on water by carrying filling up bottles from the hostels.
•  Bus travel in Italy can be done for free
•  Avoid too many museums and historical sites. Europe is best experienced outdoors.
• Take pay-as-you-please guided tours of every city you go to
• Make sure you read up in advance about the sites you visit, and buy audio guides while touring them
• Climb to the highest point of every city. 

Longer version

Before getting there

The best thing about Europe before reaching the continent is the Schengen visa. You have to be a convicted terrorist to be denied one. I got mine within 2 working days, even though I applied barely a week before Oct 4, the day I was supposed to fly. Unfortunately, due to severe paucity of time, I hired an agent, and the experience has ensured that I never repeat the mistake. I would strongly recommend everyone to self-apply, preferably to German or French embassy.

As far as arranging for Euros goes, don’t bother getting a travel card beforehand unless you’re suspecting a large drop in Rupee’s value by the time you get there. The best strategy is to withdraw in bulk from ATMs in Europe, preferably those situated in closed spaces, for there’s plenty a watchful eye in the streets. In my experience, HDFC charged far less than ICICI did.

For hostel bookings, most people would go via intermediaries like www.booking.com. This particular website is good since there is no payment upfront, and you can cancel for free 48 hours or more before the booking begins.  Cancellation within 48 hours will attract charges, though.

A much better option is to look up suitable hostels (for those seeking cheaper accommodations, try camp sites), and contact those directly. This saves the commission the hostels have to pay to the intermediaries, and allows bargaining as well. Offer to pay in cash so that you can save on credit/debit card fee.

Although entirely a function of the traveller’s budget, 6/8 bed dorms are good because they are relatively cheap, and come with a separate bathroom. If you’re booking a mixed-sex dorm with ulterior motives, keep your hopes low.

Many must be conflicted over whether or not to buy a Euro rail pass. For anything under 6-7 weeks, the unequivocal answer is NO. It costs too much upfront, and you still end up paying full fare for a lot of trains. The best strategy is to book the train tickets as early as possible, which shaves off at least 20-30% from the usual prices. The downside, of course, is that it curtails flexibility. When you can’t avoid flights, go for EasyJet whenever possible. The service is good, and unlike Ryanair, it doesn’t land in the jungle. Keep in mind that they charge extra for check-in luggage, which is an added incentive to travel very light.

Non-Indians, especially white people, have a different (and lower) standard of “delicious” when it comes to food. I almost cried when the mouth-watering Domino’s pizza was reduced to a triangular heap of cheese with vaguely similar vegetables/meats unlovingly amassed over it. And oh, European McDonald’s outlets charge 20-25 cents for each sachet of ketchup! Really no harm carrying a bunch of your own if you plan to survive on the insipid burgers, still the best value-for-money food, all the more due to availability of free WiFi. A lot of money can be saved on water – each tiny bottle costs a full Euro – if you make sure you have a big bottle full of it each time you leave the hostel. There’s no harm avoiding the famed Italian Gelato. I’d any day prefer the thelewala Creambell over it.

At the risk of being judged, I must inform the readers that travelling by bus (except the airport shuttle), and sometimes even by train, in any part of Italy requires no tickets at all. During the 10 days of countless journeys within the country, I faced not one surprise inspection. The experience of other travellers suggests mine wasn’t unique. Not even the locals are too keen on buying tickets, so bloody Indians can certainly be forgiven.

Language problems are aplenty, especially in Italy, but certainly not insurmountable. Make sure you’re good at reading maps and always carry one.

While in Italy, you will face a torrent of Africans literally shoving useless souvenirs in your face to fleece you. Be firm in rejecting all such demands.

General sightseeing tips

Touring Europe is about endless achi khabrein and just one very buri khabar, so I’ll get the latter out of the way first: The fucking selfie-sticks.

While in Europe, and especially in Italy, you will face an avalanche of mostly Asian tourists proudly ganging up behind the most worthless, the most irritating, and the stupidest invention of mankind. God, as if the mobile front camera wasn’t enough. Make sure you practice enough Zen before landing in Italy. You will need plenty of it to not end up in jail for punching that pouting face.

Now, back to the good things. For most of us, a great part of visiting Europe is its history and richness in art and architecture. Europe IS the most artistically and architecturally astounding place on earth, and there can be no two ways about it. But let’s face it. Most of us don’t really care as much about art and architecture as we would like to tell ourselves and others. It doesn’t matter if painter/sculptor A made a brush stroke finer and deeper than painter/sculptor B. This self-awareness is crucial to determining which parts of a city you should visit, for the abundance of such places can easily consume all your time.  If you’re visiting a site known for its artistic beauty, make sure you read about it in detail beforehand. Irrespective of your knowledge, I can’t stress enough the importance of buying audio guides. Trust me, this is money well spent.

I would strongly recommend avoiding too many historical site/museum visits. For example, I found nothing amazing about Rome’s Pantheon, mostly because I knew nothing about it, and it paled in comparison to the jaw-dropping Vatican. Thankfully, it was free to visit. Realising my folly, I skipped the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, famous for Michelangelo’s David. Call me a philistine, but I had little interest in paying 23 Euros and waiting in a 2-hour queue to ogle at a dick frozen in time.

The limited time available is better spent outdoors, which offer great views and a better chance of meeting fellow travelers and locals. Europe is all about its Piazza, Platz, Torg, Via, Strasse, Gade. The ever elusive culture of any city, including Europe’s, is best experienced in these open spaces, where people mingle happily over wine, dance and dinner. The air of mirth, freedom and liberty about these places is infectious, and hard to find in India. 

Rome’s Piazza Navona is symbolic of such open spaces.  Even if you’re alone, get there around 7PM, sit down, observe the revelry around you, eavesdrop on the plans of English-speaking travellers to forsake their countries to settle in Italy, fall in love with that pretty young damsel dancing bare-feet on the cobble path, drop the pretence and tear up at the sight of that octogenarian couple ball-dancing to the mellifluous tune of the cello and the violin being played by a group of smiling homeless people. As I said before, Europe is all about its open spaces. Sites can be seen and captured, cultural experiences can be felt and relived. Choose wisely.

Another great strategy I followed was to climb to the highest point of every city I visited. Besides satiating my love for trekking, it offered breathtaking 360-degree views of the city. Below are photos from some such vantage points. The highest point also allows the traveller to observe a commonality across most European cities – its sloping red roofs.

The sloping red roofs

City-wise details

First stop: Rome

As was not entirely unexpected, the immigration officer at the Rome airport made me aware of my colour and nationality by asking me to draw all my debit, credit and ID cards, taking at least 5-6 minutes to let me into his country, as opposed to the precisely 30 seconds each it took the two white Americans ahead of me to clear the same hurdle.

The first thing every traveller must do is to get the 5 Euro ticket to the airport shuttle bus, which travels to various parts of the city. The airport is situated far away, and taking a cab would be akin to scoring an own goal.

If you’re staying in Rome for 2-3 days, which I did, and planning on visiting most sites, getting the 2-day or 3-day Roma pass is a good idea. It costs high upfront, but allows entry to most of the sites, which would otherwise require costly tickets. Some of the audio guides also come cheaper with the pass. Public transport costs are included, but as stated above, you can always take those for free.

Staying close to Roma Centrale station is a good bet, since Colosseum, Vittorio Emanuele II (a grand monument that can be visited for free) are within walking distance, and a bus would take you straight to Piazza Navona (already strongly recommended above) and Vatican, two of the three best places in Rome, the third being Janiculum Hill. Don’t succumb to the temptation of taking the 7-Euro elevator at Vittorio Emanuele II, since Janiculum Hill is perched high enough to offer the same scenery for free. The Hill isn’t far from the Vatican, but can be slightly tricky to find. It’s an amazing short trek, and offers some of the best views of Rome. Besides these, Spanish Steps, Big Mama (a live jazz bar) and Villa Borghese are also worth visiting.

From Janiculum Hill

The curious bit about Rome is its veritable Bangladeshi population. There are not less than 1.3 lakh of those in this relatively small city. Most of them earn their living working menial jobs, the most curious of which is flying cheap plastic toy planes at tourist spots. Most of them are always up for a chat, and can speak at least broken Hindi, so you know where to go when you crave some good old “aur bhai kya haal chaal?”

To me, the famous Colosseum and the ruins around it felt underwhelming. But I won’t say you shouldn’t go there, since it gives you bragging rights every time Gladiator is being screened. Again, make sure you are thorough with its history, and are carrying an audio guide. Avoid men in gladiatorial attire calling for photos, for you will be paying not less than 5 Euros.

Roman ruins from Palatine Hill

For the Vatican, booking the 20 Euro ticket to the museum in advance is the only way to avoiding the serpentine queue. Please, please buy the audio guide, and keep interacting with the guards present at every step of the way. Inside Sistine Chapel, ask for the window from where the pope-declaring smoke emanates. Do your best to ignore that Asian traveller who turns to face all 4 directions one by one with the selfie-stick in her hand.

From top of St. Peter's Basilica

Second stop: Florence

Like Venice, the city has two distinct parts – old and modern. Accommodation is expensive and hard to find in the old city where all the charm lies, so I stayed in a hostel in the modern part. Buses ply all day and take only a few minutes to reach the old city.

Despite the hype, Florence was the most underwhelming stop of my trip. Part of it was because of my limited interest in art (as mentioned above, I skipped Uffizi without thinking twice).  Besides that, Ponte Vecchio and others next to it just did not seem as scintillating (could be a different story if you manage to boat in the river, which is permissible). Another contributing reason was the sudden and excruciating pain in my right foot – it magically disappeared the next day and never came back - that didn’t allow me to explore fully its narrow alleys. That said, I really enjoyed the bird’s eye view from the top of the Duomo, and trekking up to Piazza Michelangelo, the highest natural point in the tiny city. The whole of Florence is walkable in just a few hours. I did not get to witness the old city in its evening glory. I think it would be a good idea to make sure you do that if you make a stop here.

View of Florence from Duomo

Third stop: Venice

Ah, what do I say about Venice? Can words ever do justice to this most beautiful creation of mankind? Even if you’re alone in this epically romantic city, the romanticism in its air will always accompany you like a loving phantom.

After visiting Venice, I wonder how its name evokes nods of disapproval in some. Maybe they visited it during the peak tourist season, which can be painfully crowded. To appreciate it fully, it is critical to know about why and how it was founded, its fish-shaped structure, and why you should strictly avoid contact with the mesmerising waters (they’re used as sewage). Take a pay-as-you-please tour before starting off. For accommodation, few would have the money to stay in the old city, so choose some place (look out for camp sites, too) in the modern town and take a bus.

Campanile, the highest point in Venice, is a must visit. So is Doge’s Palace, the seemingly inescapable prison that Casanova broke out of. Hiring a gondola is exorbitant, so most would have to settle for the vaporetto (motor boat). Make sure you visit the islands of Murano, Burano and Torcello.

View of Venice from Campanile

The multi-coloured island of Burano

All great cities of the world prove faithful companions in life, providing happiness, opportunities, love, and everything else one could ask for. A visit to San Michele (cemetery island) tells you that Venice will prove to be faithful in eternal death as well. Here, thousands of dead lie in serene graves in a place cut off from land, accessible only by boat. I was fortunate to have a long conversation with a widow who had been visiting her husband’s grave every day for the past 30 years. Moments like these stay forever.

Graves in San Michele

Venice is perfect for all momentous occasions in one’s life: sabbatical, marriage, honeymoon, and getting buried. No matter how hard I try, words can’t fully convey my love for the city. Just go there and figure out for yourself.

Fourth stop: Milan

Milan is not the characteristic destination for my kind of traveller. I have zilch interest in anything related to fashion. But I planned to use it as a base for two daytrips: one to Cinque Terre, and the other to Lake Como. Sadly, only the latter came through. On both days the weather wasn’t suitable for the long trek up Cinque Terre, probably the only regret I have about the trip. The silver lining is that I will go back to complete this trek someday, and I would strongly recommend this to everyone else.

Lake Como is just jaw-dropping. It’s a small town with a beautiful lake in the valley formed by high hills all around. The place houses some of the most famous villas on the planet, including one belonging to George Clooney. A friend later informed me that Lake Como was also used to shoot one of the Star Wars movies.

My daytrip to Lake Como also included spending about 3-4 hours in the Swiss town of Lugano (thanks, Schengen visa). The latter pales in comparison to Como. In case you’re not as desperate as I was for a +1 to my list of countries visited, avoid Lugano and spend the whole day in Como. In fact, this place is such a paradise that it deserves much more than a daytrip. It involves a lot of walking/trekking, and a semi-adventurous train ride up the mountain, so gear up accordingly.

The steep train in Lake Como

View of Como from the top of the ropeway

There’s plenty to see even within Milan. The Milan Cathedral, built over seven centuries, is one of the most awe-inspiring constructions in Europe, both from within and outside. I loved taking a long stroll in the gargantuan Parco Sempione. This website provides some worthy recommendations. If you’re an Indian tourist in Milan, do pay a visit to Aangan, for the Punjabi restaurant offers authentic Indian delicacies that made me cry after a 10-day hiatus from Indian food.

Fifth stop: Munich

It won’t be a leap to say that the bordering countries of Italy and Germany are two different worlds. Except the cost of living, Italy would feel much more homely to Indians – warm weather, road rage, small cars, unpunctual public transport, narrow and dirty streets. Contrast that with Germany’s sparkling clean surroundings, big cars, unnervingly punctual public transport, orderly traffic, and most significantly, a 10 degree drop in temperature, and the unsuspecting Indian tourist, almost beginning to feel comfortable in Europe, is thrown into chaos. On the bright side, Germans are far better at English than Italians.

I used Munich as the base for two daytrips: one to Neuschwanstein Castle (Disney castle), and the other to Nuremburg.

The day I travelled to Neuschwanstein was also the only time I encountered snow during my trip. It’s a slightly long ride to the Castle, so starting out early is recommended. It’s a beautiful corner of the German countryside, and if the weather remains clear, there’s amazing scenery all around. Most would neglect what I am about to say next: skip the guided tour to the interiors of the castle. They’re underwhelming, and the tour involves a long queue and costs 12 Euros. Instead, spend this time outdoors and complete the two-hour walk around lake Alpsee. The walk offers such sights that the day, which had till then been almost disappointing due to the hazy weather and the underwhelming interiors, turned out to be one of the best of the trip.

While walking around Alpsee

Europe's multicoloured leaves are a visual treat

I contributed a Rs.20 note to the local restaurant's collection. The recipient instantly recognised "Gandhi"

Do keep in mind that travelling between Munich and Neuschwanstein is tricky. Make sure you know which buses and trains to change.

The next day I had a choice between a daytrip to either Nuremburg or Salzburg. I chose the former because it involves a cheaper, shorter journey from Munich, and I just had to see whatever little remains of the Third Reich. Nuremburg is a quaint city, but don’t expect it to offer startling revelations about the Third Reich. The museum on history of Nazis is a good visit if you’re deeply curious but only partially informed about them. It didn’t add to my knowledge at all. Hardly anything remains of the famed Zeppelin Fields, but they do offer you a chance to tread in the footsteps of one of history’s great devils.

Hitler stood in this place 

In my view, choosing Salzburg (Mozart’s birthplace and home to arguably the world’s best ice caves) over Nuremburg would be a better option for most travellers.

Sixth stop: Copenhagen

The only reason I managed to visit the exorbitant and far-off Scandinavia is the presence of Neha and Sunil, my sister and jija, in Copenhagen. Besides the sheer joy of meeting them, my happiness was compounded by the offering of delicious chole and a warm bed to sleep in. If you guys are reading this, thanks both of you :’)

With Neha and Sunil

Notwithstanding the awesomeness of the trip, skipping Amsterdam had been playing on my mind every second of my travels till then. But Freetown Christiania, a “You are now leaving EU” hippie hamlet in Copenhagen with its own flag, laws and freedom to sell weed, put an end to any such regrets. Christiania has an interesting history, one which needs to be told to the increasingly jingoist polity and electorate of most nations.

The three rules of Freetown Christiania

From inside Christiania

Till the early 1970s, Christiania was nothing but a bunch of abandoned military barracks, when some homeless buggers decided to occupy it, and soon demanded secession from Denmark. In almost any other nation, they’d have ended up with bullet-sized holes between their eyes. Not in this case. The unbelievably chilled out Danes almost completely agreed to their demands, letting the almost crime-free Christiania evolve into the real world sibling of the utopian world of Swarajya, devoid of the concept of nation-state, property, and imposed laws. Sure, Christiania has its fair share of problems, and has not been left untouched by the Danish government, but a place like this needs to be protected at all costs.

One of great attractions for anyone visiting Scandinavia is the Øresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden. Of course, crossing the bridge also lets you do a +1 to the list of countries visited. Both Denmark and Sweden have relatively bland gothic churches, which are a departure from their mind-bogglingly grandiose Italian counterparts, but are a sight to behold in their own right. Scandinavians also starkly differs from Italians (and Germans to a lesser extent) in their near-monochromatic choice of clothing and home interiors.

Lund University

Just a usual site in Copenhagen

To get a bird’s eye view of this beautiful city, climb up Church of Our Saviour. It’s slightly scary at the very top, and is well worth the admission price. Don’t miss the boat tour, and the amusement park Tivoli.

View from top of Church of Our Saviour

If you’re in Copenhagen for a longer period, use it as the base for daytrips to Sweden, Norway, and other cities in Denmark. Lund is next door, and slightly further away lie Gothenburg, Stockholm, Oslo, and Viking Museum in Roskilde.

Copenhagen also offers crucial lessons in acting against climate change. Except battery-powered cars, all others cars attract huge duties, which means even the richest folks don’t own personal vehicles. Public transport is good, and the city is a cyclist’s paradise.