They stand close together, hand in hand. Feroze lifts the cow’s head gently, picks up pieces of Krishna from the floor. He puts them all on a nearby stool. A wave of excitement rises in him as he does so. He looks at the jagged strips of canvas on the stool. ‘I’ve never attempted a collage before,’ he says. ‘But this might make an interesting one. I can stitch the pieces together, stick other bits in to fill the gaps, paint over them, and call the work Annihilation II.’

39

Janaki’s article about the attack on Feroze’s painting, and similar acts that have been on the increase in recent times, appears on the Sunday following the attack. Besides arguing for the usual freedoms of thought and expression, she has drawn attention to a fact that is specific to the case, namely that the attackers believed Feroze Banatwala was a Muslim. Admittedly, the attack would have been equally condemnable whatever his religion, but the error demonstrated, yet again, that fanaticism and ignorance were bedfellows that fed off one another.

To point out that such attacks are the products of a mindset of victimhood that has been politically engineered would be redundant. Behind each of these acts of vandalism stand politicians who feast on the gains of violence. This has become the signature of our age. There is today a systematic attempt, which politicians do not even bother to hide, to divide society into ‘us’ and ‘them’. Its aim is to sow fear, contempt and hubris in the minds of the majority. As a result, the number of people in civil society who see such acts as justified is growing at a disturbing rate.

The article ends here because the subeditor has put his scissors to the discussion that follows. The excuse he has trotted out to Janaki is lack of space; but secretly he is in total agreement with the owner’s view that the culture page in a newspaper is no place for serious writing.

The MR Party, whose members were responsible for the vandalism, is livid with the article because it exposes their gaffe in taking Feroze Banatwala for a Muslim. In a revengeful non sequitur, they have spread the party chieftain’s word amongst his followers that the article is blatantly anti-Hindu. The chieftain and the owner of the Mumbai Observer have a long-standing friendship. The chieftain has called up the owner already. ‘Our workers are going to riot outside your office. I am holding them back on the assurance that I will force you to apologize to us on page one of tomorrow’s edition. We will not put up with an apology that begins, “In case we have hurt the sentiments of Hindus . . .” That’s your favourite trick. You hurt our sentiments and then pretend to be surprised but offer a generous apology. It will not do. You must state categorically that you have hurt our feelings and offer an apology.’