Lion King

Our neighbours are distraught.

They are unable to permit their pet dog, lovingly named Gabbar, to consummate his relationship with a female dog of the same species, also a pet in our housing society, belonging to another resident.

The problem?

Gabbar’s love interest is known as Basanti.

Need I say more?

For people not familiar with Hindi movies, Gabbar was the villainous dacoit played by Amjad Khan and Basanti the female lead played by Hema Malini in Sholay, one of the most popular Hindi movies ever made. It is certainly my favourite.

The interest shown by the two pets in each other over the last few days had not gone unnoticed. As can be expected in a sane, logical world, it hurt the sentiments of Bollywood lovers, a community with a vast membership.

“Basanti and Gabbar? How is it possible?”

“Gabbar? Basanti? How can they even think of it? Don’t they have any shame?”

Such was the tenor of hushed conversations in the corridors of our housing society. The protest march winding around the society corridors was well attended. It is clear Bollywood and logical thinking go together.

When last heard, our neighbours were considering changing the name of their pet to Veeru.

Veeru?

Yes, Veeru.

Can anything be more logical? Who doesn’t remember Veeru of Sholay, played by Dharmendra, and his love for Basanti?

And, of course, as is to be expected, today’s Gabbar and tomorrow’s Veeru is deeply concerned about the developments in sentiment in the human world.

People will get into a huff for anything. Misplaced priorities. That is what it is. No surprise that the common man is the common man.

It is a relief knowing that not everyone is as irresponsible, and that there are organisations that will not be sidetracked by trivial issues. Like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) that stepped up when the hour came and took up cudgels, on behalf of whom is not yet established, when they found that a lion named Akbar and a lioness named Sita had been placed in the same enclosure in the Safari Park in Siliguri in the state of Bengal. Further, they objected to the depiction of the lioness awaiting a mate in certain sections of the media which, according to them, was lewd, further hurting the sentiments of certain Hindu individuals. The VHP approached the court to address what it said was “blasphemy” and “a direct assault on the religious beliefs of all Hindus”.

Sita, incidentally, is the wife of Bhagwan (God) Ram in the Hindu epic Ramayan, and consequently a Goddess herself. She is a virtuous, non-complaining, suffering along with her husband woman, a role model for many, with thousands, if not millions, of girls given her name, apart from tigresses and lionesses and others in the animal kingdom.

It was clear that sentiments were hurt because the lioness was named Sita and not because of her proximity to Akbar, named after a prominent Mughal emperor answering to the Muslim faith, since there have been only over 10 instances of lionesses and tigresses being named Sita or Seeta or Seetha by one or another zoo in Mumbai or Karnataka or Delhi or Andhra Pradesh or Maharashtra or Assam or Punjab or Bihar or Rajasthan or Odisha since 1974, according to a recent Indian Express report, none of which had apparently led to hurt sentiments. The report also noted instances of zoo animals being named after other deities and popular figures such as Ram (here we will refer to him as the husband of Sita) and Tendulkar. For precisely this reason, in their wisdom, the judges hearing the case have wondered at the lack of application of thought in naming a lioness after a goddess. “Did they not know that there were no controversies due to similar names in the past? Yet they named her Sita. How irresponsible.”

The court has recommended changing the names to “uncontroversial” ones and that one “should not name any animals after those who are revered and respected by citizens.” They have also firmly stated that in case an uncontroversial name of today becomes controversial tomorrow, they will not hesitate to pass another judgment castigating the thought processes of the person or group that chose the once-uncontroversial but later-controversial name and wonder afresh why a controversy had been created by giving such names.

Were it not for this active and alert organisation, hurt sentiments may not have been heeded. It is even possible that sentiments may have gone unhurt.

Retribution has been quick. The Tripura Zoo, from where the two had been moved to Siliguri, and where apparently the names had been given, has sacked chief wildlife warden IFS officer Pravin L. Agrawal for not knowing that over 10 lionesses and tigresses had been named Sita or Seeta or Seetha in the past around the country and that names should not have been given based on religious figures or freedom fighters which was never a requirement till date. Guilty as hell!

The judicial mandarins have promised to get to the bottom of the issue. They have asked for character certificates for the millions of girls who are named Sita. Any indication of any un-Sita-like (as generally defined by male minders and influencers) behaviour could mean trouble for them and the naming parents.

More hurting of sentiments is believed to be brewing.

One section’s sentiments have been hurt on realizing that some animals like Sita eat meat, which, in the case of animals in zoos and other protected spaces, is fed to them. Peace-loving vegetarians’ sentiments have been hurt by this practice. A meal plan of toor daal with rice for lunch and aloo gobhi with chapatis for dinner has been ordered by the court for lions in all state-managed zoos and parks.

Meanwhile, an out-of-turn census of the animal kingdom has been initiated. The new database includes a section for identifying the faith of the individual animal.