How to murder our language and get away

We tend to use language in ways most peculiar. Language, with us, doesn’t necessarily have to represent fact. Instead, we use language to spin circles around others, and ourselves. By the end of it, no one knows what’s going on. We rarely mean what we say and we seldom say what we mean.

For example, when you make the statement that the sun is shining, the words should correspond to an external reality: that the sun is actually shining in the sky. But an Indian will make this statement on a full moon night and expect you to believe him. This is pure “linguistic murder.”

Scanner

Last week, I came across six absurd statements, which I would now like to examine more fully. I believe that these words are serious business. Let’s then put these words under the scanner.

The first four statements have to do with the controversy regarding the Jammu & Kashmir DIG of police and the photographs that his son put up on Instagram. The fifth is to do with a coded message exchanged between meat exporter Qureshi and former CBI chief AP Singh. The sixth is a statement made by a Hindu Mahasabha leader about women wearing colourful clothes. Let’s talk about the DIG first. In one of the photographs, an attendant is shown tying the DIG’s shoelaces. In another, an armed personal security officer is playing caddy to the DIG’s "golfer" son. A pillar of society defended the attendant tying the DIG’s shoelaces saying "healthy" people have a problem with bending over, and so it’s natural he would have someone else doing the job for him.

The photograph is not about feudalism but girth. If we take this at face value, this means that the DIG must have a whole battery of "ground attendants". What if he is walking on Juhu beach and spots a beautiful shell. His waistline prevents him from bending over. What does he do? He turns to his shell attendant and says: “Ram Singh usko uthao". Ram Singh crawls on the sand. DIG says: "Arre you idiot, I said that one over there, not this one". Back in office, a pen falls to the floor. Enter the pen attendant. And so on. One wonders what plus-sized people all over the world do when they need to bend. Not everyone can afford a personal attendant who will bend over backwards for you.

The second statement, made by another pillar of society, is about the same photograph. He defended it by saying that the photograph doesn’t make it clear if the attendant is tying the DIG’s laces or polishing his shoes. If it’s the latter, then it’s okay. I say: maybe he was doing neither. Maybe the attendant was a cobbler who was merely resoling the shoes. Maybe the poor man had a shoe fetish and he was merely squatting and smelling the leather.

The DIG put all these theories to rest with a third explanation. He said that he returned from office to find a shoe seller on his doorstep. And shoe sellers do that sort of stuff. They help you try out shoes. This is an excellent idea which should be taken up by Nike and Reebok. Many of us do not have the time to go shopping. And a pair of shoes is something we are wary of buying on the internet because we are not sure if it will fit.

Theories

Enter the nocturnal shoe seller. Give him a call before you leave office and he’ll be at your doorstep by the time you reach home. Yet another pillar of society defended a PSO playing caddie to the DIG’s son, saying dependents are at risk in fraught places like Kashmir. They need protection. But the PSO/caddie in the photo is peering down a hole, looking for the golf ball. A sniper could have easily shot the DIG’s son in the back, there would have been blood on the grass, and the hapless PSO would still have been staring down the rabbit hole looking for the elusive rabbit.

Provocation

The fifth statement is to do with the alleged coded exchange between Mr Meat Exporter and the former CBI head. Denying that there was any code at play, Singh said that when Qureshi asked him if he needed anything from London, he replied, “Just get some shirt from that shop but not slim fit.” In our material age, we could do with more of such sartorial simplicity. I don’t care about the size, colour or brand. Any shirt will do. All I need is a piece of stitched cloth to cover my body. Gandhi would’ve been proud.

The sixth statement was made by a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha in Haryana. He said that girls should refrain from wearing colourful clothes because colourful clothes provoke men. I wonder which colour provokes Indian men the most. Red? Are Indian men really Spanish bulls? I doubt that’s what most women think. We are not known to be the world’s best lovers. By that rationale, Indian women in red gladrags must be matadors. Hold on a sec. Language has stopped making sense to me. Let’s stop right here.