Of Monarchies, and Christmas in San Francisco

I totally faded there for almost a fortnight. Work, more work and other chores means that even if I'm glued to the computer half the day, I hardly have time to organize my thoughts into something which could be even remotely readable. Thankfully, the holidays are here and ought to put an end to that! Yayyyy. And I've been bursting at the seams to write *something* - do you know the feeling?!

On the political front, Nepal abolished its monarchy today - hot news as of a few hours ago. I for one welcome that change, given the bloodbaths that have been going on over the last 75 years, the most recent one being etched in all our memories. Hopefully, it leads to a lull in the maoist insurgencies too, if they have a half decent government that isn't hampered by centuries old tradition. That said, its also a sad day in some respects - I've always found monarchs rather romantic, and on every occasion, have read up all that I could find on the two most famous current ones - King Bhumibol of Thailand, and of course, Queen Elizabeth II. Its abolishment in Nepal just means another proud line will come to and end, and at best, be the gatekeepers of palaces and treasures that will revert to a government who may not know how best to care for it.

Which got me thinking about how many such governments are left today. Apart from the UK, its colonies (which don't really count) and Thaliand, the other remaining states are Japan, Cambodia, Jordan, Bahrain, UAE, Brunei, Bhutan, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Malaysia in fact has an *elected* monarch, perhaps the only such system in the world today (or ever?)! The current Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("Supreme Ruler" or "Paramount Ruler") is styled His Majesty, and cuts a pretty impressive figure on his official portrait. Much more so than jowly King Gynaendra of Nepal anyway.

On another monarchial front, QE II recently endorsed YouTube, by launching the Royal Channel. Its got some pretty nifty videos on it, including her first televised Christmas address from 1957 and even the 1923 wedding of HER parents. It was fascinating watching them - televised impressions of London from the early 20th century, and an opportunity to look at people I've only ever seen in portraits as aged royals. Its funny how one never hears of the activities of monarchs from all but a couple of famous countries. The recent death of the Tongan prince and his wife on a Californian highway was heavily telecast in the US itself, but got practically no coverage on the international media. And would we even be able to point the Jordanian King or the Malysian one for that matter, on a photo gallery?

Oh and Merry Christmas to all of you! I’m not even sure how people spend their christmases if they’re not at home eating a family style dinner. Tired as I was of this question, I ended up in San Francisco with a friend for an awesome dinner (Wild Boar with truffle sauce, yummy), finally rode the famous SF cable cars (isn’t it interesting how people who live in a city never actually do all the touristy bits?), watched Beowulf in 3D (Angelina Jolie is hotter than ever), and ended up at a catholic church for a ten minute look at midnight mass.

Ironically, the cathedral of St. Peter and St. Paul in San Francisco is located at “666 Filbert Street”. 666? Really? :) But the church itself is beautiful. Neo gothic (See pic below), and beautifully appointed with colorful frescos, it was very nice hearing a choir sing *live* after such a long time.

St. Peter and Paul's, San Francisco

From the inside

Union Square, San Francisco

Oh, and I finally baked a chocolate cake in honor of the holidays. Turned out prettty darned good too.. :D

Religious intolerance in Britain reversed

Scotland Yard said yesterday that a Muslim woman police who refused to shake hands with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at her passing-out ceremony would be dismissed if she did not "engage" with people as other officers do. Sir Ian Blair personally congratulated all 200 recruits at a ceremony in London last month, but shook hands with only 199 after the woman specifically requested that she should not be required to do so, apparently for religious reasons.

Now this is the kind of headline you read, and think about how society is becoming more dysfunctional every passing day. But nope. Then you read something of this sort,

Massoud Shadjareh, the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said the "overwhelming majority" of practising Muslims would avoid physical contact with a member of the opposite sex unless they were closely related.

What? What kind of B.S is that? I have tons of friends who are practicing Muslims, and not one has issues. Fine, so I'm talking about people who are of Indian origin and live there too. But isn't it a bit ridiculous to accept that once you start living in the west, you become more apprehensive, and perhaps orthodox in your religious views?

On Sexuality in Iran, Religion in India or the lack thereof

An oft repeated quote which a friend mentioned the other day -

"One in 40 American men like to wear Women's clothing"

Hmm. Thats a statistic all right. Especially when you think about the fact that the US has had more than 40 presidents, and going by the simplest laws of statistics, atleast ONE of them must've been sashaying down the oval office in a dress! Oh how easily one can make 2+2 equal 22 :) But the US has generally been liberal in its stance on transgender equality, and cross dressers - more so than India anyway. After all, the sheer number of gay/lesbian bars and drag queen outfits/parades - anyone heard of the San Francisco Rainbow parade? - can confirm this. In fact, an argument can be made about how its acceptance of this quirk in human nature is almost at the same level as it is in Iran.

Iran?! *gasp* Surely not that bastion of Islamic fundamentalists and religious intolerance?

Yes! Iran. Apparently, the country has a checkered history in the state of transgender affairs.

In the pre revolution era, the Ayatollah Khomeini wrote a book in which he argued how a gender/sex change operation was in fact NOT contrary to the teachings of the Koran. At that point however, he was nothing but a radical revolutionary and although this did gain traction amongst the masses, the government still did not have a policy regarding the entire issue. Post revolution though, Iran lived up to its image of irrational behavior by the ruling elite and declared gays, lesbians and transgender persons to be contrary to the tenets of Islam. They became subject to the harshest punishment, which could include Death by lashes under a newly enforced penal code. Oh, how convenient. Its almost reminds me of the witch hunts during the spanish inquisition where any person found acting against the rulers could be easily disposed off by citing him or her as a heretic and having them burned at the stake.

But I digress. An early campaigner for transsexual rights, Maryam Hatoon Molkara, who was formerly a man known as Fereydoon. (Doesn't that remind you of Prince and his nomenclatural escapades!) Anyway, (s)he was actually imprisoned, institutionalized and forcefully injected with hormones by the Iranian government, but kept at it - writing letters to the Ayatollah and using connections to support (his?)/her work. It all paid off when (s)he visited him at the palace - but not before being arrested and beaten by the guards - and was given a letter authorizing a sex change operation. An act in itself revolutionary because it became the fatwa which would open up the flood gates for other such operations in the country and finally give religious and legal status to people who underwent these. Of course, the social repercussions as in any other country are mercurial - some accept it, some don't - but thats humanity for you. All said and done, the level of acceptance of this in Iranian society today just goes to highlight that all is not dark in what is today considered one of the most authoritarian conservative societies in the world.

I am however guessing there won't be too many gay bars or parades in the streets of Teheran any time soon.

Oh, and I'm flabbergasted at the stance of the jewelers in Pune for refusing to allow Burqa clad women into their stores post New Years. The reason they cite is to increase security at their stores, since the latter can be posers with possibly big automatic machine guns under their robes. Which would of course not set off ANY sort of metal detectors or sophisticated door checks which they're sure to have. Duh. Right. What this highlights is not the paranoia of the jewelers at being robbed or worse, shot in such an event. Instead, it does so the dangerously increasing streak of religious intolerance in a country which prides itself at being secular. As some muslim clerics rightly argue, women under the purdah DO in fact show their faces for things like passport photographs. Would it be so much of a travesty to have them peer into a security camera manned by female security guards? Hmm, come to think of it - if you're covered head to toe in a black veil, how in the world do you show off any jewels you buy anyway?