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.