Can pigs fly?

Can pigs fly? I think not. But how can I be so sure? If I’m pigheaded enough, I can start throwing pigs off a cliff and after an agreed upon number of pigs have turned to pork down below, I can say with almost certainty that porcine flight is impossible. The downside to this method is not that too many pigs are killed to prove a point, but that for believers of flying pigs, too few will have been tested before we, considered as anti-flying pig bigots, come to a conclusion. (‘The next one could have been the pig, you know.’)

Another way to prove that pigs don’t fly could be to read the scriptures, the law if you will. For instance, if those awaiting proof are believing Christians, then the tactic could be to read out Chapter 8 Verse 32 of the Book of Matthew in the Bible: “And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.” Not one pig fluttered to safety there.

The downside to this method is that it’s fundamentally stupid: to gather a fact by what’s simply mentioned in a fable, no matter how sacred and profound the fable may be, is a leap of faith not too unlike that taken by the swine mentioned above.

So what’s with all this pig metaphor? Has the swine flu over the cuckoo’s nest? Or am I reading too much into one of Floyd's most cogent creations? No, it’s just that I’ve been going mad cow trying to figure out why otherwise bright sparks have been going on and on about how abnormal it is for 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab to plead ‘not guilty’ during his ongoing trial. Why would a guilty man, they ask in that gobsmacked way that will become a look by the next fashion season, tell a court that he’s not guilty? Because, honeys, that’s what most people accused of committing crimes do: say they’re innocent.

The smart set’s not only upset by Kasab’s plea of ‘not guilty’ but is also appalled that someone, an Indian to boot, is defending him. Surely, they murmur, Kasab’s (first) lawyer Abbas Kazmi would be just pretending to defend his client and actually hanging out with and helping the prosecutor to nail the bastard, right? Or Anjali Waghmare -the now done with lawyer- secretly be an accomplice in hatching a plot to plot the downfall of one of India's most 'celebrated' terrorist captive. Expectedly, the villagers with their pitchforks are baying for blood. The Islam Gymkhana in Mumbai had expelled Kazmi as he “agreed to defend the most dreaded terrorist Kasab. This is against the essence of Islam”. Will the Koran ever be used to defend terrorism again? Never! Only club rules apply. Just to prove he isn’t above loving ‘patriotic Muslims’, Shiv Senapati Balasaheb Thackeray has endorsed the Gymkhana decision.

Anjali Waghmare was done with, for her apparent inability to comply to court rules or what, one might never be able to tell. In any case, she had her house pelted with stones by a mob. I believe that Waghmare was taken off the case of her own volition and not because of the technical reason cited: because she is also representing a 26/11 victim, she couldn’t be defending Kasab. Hmm. If a lawyer is seen to be professional enough to keep her personal views about a terrorist outside the court and defend him, why is prosecuting and defending the accused in two separate cases such a legal taboo?

So what about the pigs? Well, ‘Is Kasab guilty?’ is as tough a question to answer as ‘Can pigs fly?’ But according to the law, that secular scripture we bow to whenever it suits us, you need to jump through a set of agreed-upon hoops before effectively proving that Kasab is a guilty man. It doesn’t matter a bacon-nibbling rat’s ass if it seems obvious to you and me that Kasab’s a mass-killer who brought India to its knees. A good defendant can upset all expectations by arguing that the prosecutor’s evidence simply doesn’t add up. That’s his job. And that’s what makes a trial in this country legit and not an ‘Off with their heads!’ procedure.

And what about us(who the "usses" really are is open to debate)? Are we being so kind in showing our magnanimity to the 'poor' old fellow who showed just how vulnerable India is? Or are we just procrastinating the inevitable in order to prove just how pro-Tiananmen we are, in the current scheme of things?

We, in my humble opinion as I might add here, are like a pig in the middle, caught between what has been a rigid and redundant labyrinth of procedures and a compulsion to prove how we, as a nation, are prone to bootlick that phrase called 'democracy'. The general opinion(the democratic opinion, if it can be called that) is that Kasab is a mass murderer without even hinting at the literal meaning that his name connotes. Yet, we continue to act like young hypocrites at the DU. I wouldn't want to, but given to my tendency of digressing, I shall. The HT City 'reported' recently that young men joining the DU were planning attend their first few days at college in big, swanky cars and NOx guzzling superbikes, or 'Boy's Toys', as you might like to call them. The concerned females accepted that this does manage to attract their attention, afterall, name and fame corrupt anyone. But she(the individual in question) was quick to add that she would turn down-pretty nonchalantly at that- any proposal if she were to learn that the guy didn't "own" the car/bike but had bought it to impress her. Wanting to hang Kasab without a trial, after we're all human, and yet giving him a fair chance to prove he's not guilty. Fair and square? Surely.

I want Kasab to hang. I hope Kasab will hang. That’s why I’m so keen the trial is conducted quarantined from the pandemic hoopla surrounding it. That’s also why I don’t want the prosecution to screw things up.

Till then, pig it!