February 20, 2006

Dog in the manger

What on earth is this about, anyone know?

I mean, let's see if I'm getting this straight: Times reporter writes a story (anyone seen it?) about a month ago. It mentions the name of the pet dog of a film star. Nobody notices this story, as far as I can tell. Except, some weeks later, a local corporator files a FIR about the (wrong) name of the pooch, saying it "deliberately injured religious sentiments."

The reporter is called to the police station, where she records a statement saying she made a mistake with the name.

On February 18, the paper publishes a clarification (anyone seen this?) saying the reporter had got the name of the dog wrong. But that same morning, the police turn up at the reporter's home and insist on arresting her. Why? Because, says an assistant police inspector, the police "were under pressure to have her picked up."

So the reporter spends the day at the police station, and she's finally granted bail.

What is going on here? The name of a dog, the wrong name of a dog, and it injures religious sentiments?

Besides all else about this that strikes me as obscene, consider one implication here. If it had been the star's child given that name (I don't even know the name! though I suspect it has to be a reference to some God or God-like figure), would it have injured religious sentiments? No, because I cannot think of a single such name in any religion that is not also commonly given to kids (I'm willing to be corrected).

So the apparent outrage is because this is a dog. That's the offensive part. And I would really like to know what it is about dogs that anybody would seriously consider offensive.

More about this if and when I find out. Meanwhile, I'm simply outraged by this report.

8 comments:

Purushottam said...

The ToI report says that the reporter was arrested on grounds of deliberately injuring religious sentiments (Section 295A of the IPC).
I wonder who decides what amounts to injuring religous sentiments? I am sure Section 295A does not enumerate all possible such actions.

k.r.a.k.t.i.k said...

Something to do with La Dame Bedi this?

I definitely agree with your what is so offensive about dogs line of thought ...

Who drags the reporter to court over such an issue? And that corporator's talking about religious incitement - tsk tsk.

Sunil said...

what was the name of the dog, btw. I couldn't find it in the report.

I once saw two sleepy looking, slightly oveweight tigers in Bannerghatta zoo.....called Ganesha and Ali. Now....i suppose that offends some religious sentiments.

Anonymous said...

if the film star actually named their dog with the offensive name, would there have been a case against them? Should I consult the local corporator before naming my dog? I used to only ask the local numerologiest.

zap said...

its a dog's life.

That kind of statement is what makes dog sentences offensive to some. Our language and culture is full of derogatory references to dogs. Blame Dharmendra !

Anonymous said...

Since you wished to be corrected:
"Jehovah" or alternatively "Yahweh".

I have Jewish friends who refuse to say the word, although they do not seem to take offense at hearing it.

Ravi

Rahul said...

Rediff has this article, identifying the star as Manisha Koirala, who has been provided police protection.

"The police, however, said the actress does not have a dog."

Anonymous said...

Well once someone i know was performing religious rites was asked to name their ancestors / pets. And the person named all except his poor little dead dog. Anyways we live in a society where incosequential things are made most noise of.
I think the Corporator should be more concerned if he complies all the duties promised at the time of Elections!!!
And people, please utilise all this energy when your selected minister does not deliver the goods! Stop reacting and overacting to SILLY things.