My experiments with turning `desi'.

A few days ago, HRH the Queen of Kutch told me that I was too much of an `Angrez`. I assumed that the national – anti national – sedition debates were troubling her. So I asked what she meant by the fact that she thought I was too much of an `Angrez`? 

I was witheringly told that my likes and dislikes, such as, dislike for Bollywood movies, Bollywood music, Bhel Puri for dinner and so on and so forth and my likes for all things Western, all made me an `Angrez’.

I was hurt, I was stung. I did not consider myself an `Angrez’ at all. I am an Indian, I love my country, and I will never leave India. I wondered how I could correct this impression that she had. Then, one evening while watching debates on patriotism on TV, during an advertisement break, I had my answer.

Baba Elaichi. This was something that would make me a `Desi’ like all of us. Akshay Kumar endorses the product, and, I like Akshay Kumar. Obviously, products like Baba Elaichi such as Pan Parag, Rajnigandha et al are something that sort of really signify and indicate our Indianness, and these products have a huge market. People are forever launching spoonful’s into their mouths. I decided to buy a tin of Baba Elaichi. What could be better to prove my Indianness?

There was one minor problem. This being the first time in my 52 years that I was buying such a product, I had no idea as to what kind of store does one go to? A street side paanwalla, or a general store or a supermarket? I had no clue. HRH the Queen of Kutch to the rescue once again. Rescue or sheer determination to make me a `desi’ I do not know.

While buying some Samosa’s from the neighbourhood shop she asked the young Sardar at the counter where she could get Baba Elaichi? He beamed and said that he stocked Baba Elaichi. So along with the Samosa, a tin of Baba Elaichi was carried home.

I was overjoyed. I would be `desi’ again.

You may well be wondering what Baba Elaichi is. To answer this, I reproduce from their fascinating website. I offer no comments on the contents.

“BABA Elaichi is a refreshing, exotic and aromatic mouth freshener coated with silver. Blended with the finest seeds from the green cardamom pods, saffron and 999 grade silver, BABA Elaichi is both natural and refreshing mouth freshener whose effects lasts all day. The silver used to coat the cardamom is processed by using German machines making it pure and refined.

Elaichi has been used for generations in India. Every household in India uses cardamom is some manner throughout the day. BABA Elaichi has been at the forefront when it comes to providing the people with premium quality silver coated cardamom. Being a natural product, BABA Elaichi also improves blood circulation, improving digestion, releasing stomach cramps. Being a detoxifying agent, Elaichi also helps in cleaning the body and enhancing appetite.”

This was good. Not only would I become `desi’ but I would have the added advantage of improving my health in ways I could never imagine.

      

I looked at the little tin. It was certainly well packaged. The precious Elaichi was packed in an airtight little tin with a lid like a beer can. You got a plastic lid to fit onto the tin once the metal lid was removed. The tin itself was, shall we say, discrete; it would fit very snugly into a Safari Suit pocket.

It was time for the taste test. I opened the tin. I could see the promised cardamom seeds covered with silver, and, flecks of Saffron, which as you know is the most expensive spice in the world, more expensive than Gold. Wow, this was going to be really good.

Brimming with self-confidence I popped a few seeds into my mouth. Good grief! It was rather strange. Deeply, truly and insanely synthetic, with the strong taste of Saccharine mixed. It tasted like what I would imagine, drinking a spoon of perfume. It really was something, and something not really pleasant. This was certainly not my cup of tea. It was ghastly!

So, at the end of the day, I am Rs 120 poorer and I am not a `desi’. I hope that is not seditious

Spaghetti & Meatballs

It has been almost a year since the `Beef Ban’ for which we have to thank both President Pranab Mukherjee and Chief Minister Devendra Fa(t)dnavis.

Initially, there was no beef [or what is regarded as beef in India] available. Restaurants took it off their menus. There was plenty of turmoil, pro and anti-ban voices were strident. In other words, the same story – screaming, shouting, debates ad nauseam on TV every evening.

You may want to read an earlier blog I had written when the beef ban came into force.

Personally speaking, we did miss some of the beef dishes when we ate out. I did, on occasion, miss buying some tenderloin and making a Chinese stir fry. I suddenly developed pangs for the Tenderloin Burger they served at The Table; it was excellent, by far the best burger in Mumbai, as also the most expensive, by far. I did miss buying beef mince and making up a hearty Bolognaise.

As is almost always the case, things have settled down. Tenderloin is back in the stores (albeit from a Water Buffalo) as is beef mince. Many restaurants have reintroduced beef dishes. Life is not so bad after all.

A few weeks ago I was at our local `cold storage’ which is actually an Indian euphemism for a butchers shop when I saw that they were selling beef, veal, pork and chicken mince. I was most intrigued. Veal mince is certainly unusual. I am unsure if I was merely inobservant earlier and never noticed veal mince on sale, or, if this beef ban has in some way resulted in the greater availability of veal. I know many of you would be appalled at the fact that veal is being sold, and would be up in arms as veal has a terrible reputation as the animals are not treated humanely. Honestly speaking, if being treated humanely is of concern to you, you should not be in India. Forget animals, I am unsure if humans are treated humanely. Have you seen signs in elevators saying ‘servants not allowed’? But that is the subject of another blog.     

Seeing veal mince on sale got me thinking. I remembered seeing an article and accompanying recipe in the Bon Appetit magazine for the `Best Spaghetti & Meatballs’. I recalled that the recipe required veal mince. I set about looking thru the index of every Bon Appetit I had at home and after poring thru many back issues found what I was looking for. Before you ask, yes I did do an internet search on the Bon Appetit site, but could not find what I was looking for.

Spaghetti and meatballs – a classic of American Italian comfort food. If I recall, Archie comics, which we all read as kids, had a character – either Big Moose or Jughead – who devoured platefuls of the stuff. Suddenly, probably a good 40 to 45 years after I must have read Archie comics, seeing veal mince on sale at a butcher in Bandra, I wanted to make Spaghetti and Meatballs.  

Armed with the recipe from Bon Appetit, which promised the softest, moistest, tastiest meatballs we set about making them. We have made them twice. In the past 3 weeks. They are excellent. The recipe is good, it works and the results are everything the recipe promises.

It is a fairly straightforward recipe. 250 grams each of veal and pork mince, some grated Parmesan, a couple of eggs, some breadcrumbs and some flavouring by way of herbs and spice. The first time we used Parsley. The second time we used Garlic, Fennel [Sauf] and dried Italian Pepperoncino. Brilliant.  Once the meatballs were made you could have fried them and added them to the Tomato sauce, or, simmered them in the Tomato sauce or fried, baked the meatballs and poured the Tomato sauce on top. We decided to simmer the meatballs in a Tomato sauce. The result was far better than I expected.

We were both rather pleased with our handiwork. This dish is certainly going to be something we will make more often. The 45 year wait was well worth it. Big Moose or Jughead were spot on. This is a really good dish. 

Spaghetti & Meatballs

Salman Khan - The perfect crime.

On 6^th May 2015, Salman Khan was convicted of various offences resulting from his killing and injuring several men when he drove into them. He was drunk. Of course all of you will be well aware of the facts, and may have formed your own opinions on what happened, on the role of the judiciary, the police the power of money and so on and so forth.

This conviction was appealed in the Bombay High Court, and, by a massive 305 page judgement passed on 7^th, 8^th, 9^th and 10^th December 2015 by His Lordship the Hon’ble Justice A R Joshi, the conviction was set aside. You can read it here.

I have the 305 page Judgement and have read it. I confess, it is difficult to read. First it is in language that is, to put it mildly, challenging! Secondly, I do not practice Criminal law, so my understanding of the technical aspects are non-existent.

Be that as it may, I have read the Judgement, and I believe, subject to the caveats and disclaimers below, that it is by and large, correct.

Here are my caveats and disclaimers:

1.                I believe that Salman was drunk, was driving and did kill and injure the poor workers.

2.                For a conviction, the case against the accused should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I honestly believe that in this case, the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt, as you shall see.

3.                Yes, Salman and team probably used all means, fair and foul to mess up the entire investigation as well as delay the trial. Now let’s be honest, any one of us would do the same, the only question would be how far would we go?

4.                I have read the sanctimonious column written by Julio Ribeiro of how Ravindra Patil a very crucial witness suddenly came into money. Yes, he probably did. My question is that the right honourable Mr Ribeiro knew 14 years ago that Ravindra Patil came into money. Why was Mr Ribeiro silent all these years? You can read Ribeiro's article here.

5.                As I said earlier, on the technical aspects mentioned in the Judgement, I have no view and often cannot understand them. So, forgive me for this.

6.                It is clear that the investigation was botched up [for obvious reasons] the police were corrupt or corrupted as were the prosecution lawyers also for obvious reasons. Could or should His Lordship the Hon’ble Justice A R Joshi taken further steps in his Judgement – passing strictures, ordering enquiries, prosecuting delinquent officers for perjury – is something that troubles me. I believe he should have done something. In fact he has done nothing. Was he correct in simply being a Court of Appeal and dealing with the questions of law placed before him I do not know. In a case so high profile should he have intervened, or is it just too late or not possible?

7.                Please do bear in mind that this Judgement has been passed by a Court of Appeal. The basic evidence and facts have already been disclosed in the trial. Hence giving fresh does not happen in an Appeal. The Appeal Court has to only determine the correctness of the original judgement on points of law, not fact.

8.                The story is probably not over, what with the Maharashtra Government and citizens wanting to take this further. I believe that in light of the evidence, which I am going to give you later, it will be most difficult to change the acquittal. I do believe that on the technical aspects, where there is an interpretation of a cited case law, there may be scope by way of a different interpretation or fresh case law to change the Judgement.

9.                I hope that Salman is jailed.

10.             I apologise for the formatting. I am copy pasting from the High Court Judgement which is in PDF. This causes difficulties in formatting in Word.

Now let me demonstrate to you, how the acquittal came about. I will give you 3 instances. They are simply shocking. These 3 or 4 instances are extracted by me from the Judgement. They are NOT my own work.

Which road was Salman driving on?

Yes folks the very basic issue. This is unclear. Let me give you some background. Hill Road and Turner Road in Bandra are like the two vertical lines of the letter `H’. Manuel Gonsalves and St Andrews Road are like the horizontal line in the letter `H’. Manuel Gonsalves and St Andrews Road are parallel to each other and perpendicular to Hill Road and Turner Road. American Express Laundry which is where the accident took place is on Hill Road directly at the exit of St Andrews Road. This is what the Judgement says:

So far as the route taken by the car, it is an admitted position    and substantiated by the evidence of Investigating Officer and mainly PW­27 Mr. Shengal i.e. the FIRat two places the route by which the car was driven is mentioned as from “St. Andrews Road” to “Hill Road”.

However, it is also an admitted position that the initial words were “Manuel Gonsalves” and these words are cancelled by slanting marks and above these words  “St.    Andrews” is written. It is significant  that though this factual position is admitted by PW­27 there is no explanation as to why this alteration was made though it was the defence that the vehicle took the route via Manuel Gonsalves road and   the vehicle came to the Hill    Road by taking right turn from Manuel Gonsalves road and not from St. Andrews Road.

The Judge returns to this point later in the Judgement. He says:

Again at this juncture it is to be mentioned that there is               interpolation in the contents of the      First Information Report regarding the route taken by the car while    coming to the Hill Road. The earlier written words as to “Manuel Gonsalves” are deleted and the    words “St. Andrews” have been  inserted.

This is done at two places where this reference is coming in the FIR. At the cost of repetition, it must be mentioned that there is no explanation from the investigating agency or by the Investigating Officer or the officer who recorded the FIR as to how the 

change of name in the route has appeared in the First Information Report. This circumstance is to be viewed in juxtaposition with the defence of the accused that the vehicle had taken the route from      Manuel Gonsalves road and then came to Hill Road. Even this is the     substantive evidence of DW­1   as detailed earlier in paragraph­3 of his evidence before the Sessions Court :

“3. I then took the vehicle on Linking Road, then on Gonsalves Road and took the right turn for going to Hill Road. Our vehicle came on Hill Road. Our vehicle proceeded at some distance on hill Road, then the front left tyre of our vehicle burst, thereby our vehicle pulled towards the left side. I tried to turn my steering wheel but it had become hard to turn. I also tried to apply the brakes, but by then the vehicle had climbed the stairs of the Laundry. Our vehicle then stopped.”

So what do we have here? Firstly, the FIR which is the very basis of a criminal investigation is grossly tampered with. This means that strictly speaking, no one knows which road the car came from. Secondly, the Defence Witness 1 the infamous Ashok Singh who turned up 13 years later to claim he was driving, stated in the trial court that he drove on Manuel Gonsalves Road. This evidence is left uncontested in the Trial Court by the Prosecution. So, bottom line which road did the car come from?

What did Salman drink

This problem is totally mind boggling. Do remember that there is prohibition in Maharashtra. No one can enter a place serving alcohol or consume alcohol without a permit. This is an undisputable fact. So, what do hoteliers do? They know most punters have no permits. They serve you alcohol and fudge the bills. This happens even today. Please do bear this in mind.

Our worthy Salman went to the now defunct `Rain’ bar at Juhu with Kamal Khan. There Salman met his brother Sohail and some friends. All the tables were occupied, so Salman, Kamal, Sohail and the friends, all of whom were regulars at Rain, stood at the bar and drank after which Salman and Kamal left and proceeded to the J W Marriot.

The police produced the bills from Rain to try and show that Salman drank at the bar. Much was made in the Press about these bills. In fact, in light of this Judgement, I shudder to think what is going to happen in the case of the lovely Ms Janhavi Gadkar. Our men in Khaki have obtained her bills from the places she drank at. Please see why this is important.

There is one technical matter relating to the bills. Firstly, the bills are generated by a computer. Secondly, the original bill would ordinarily never be with the restaurant but will be with the punter. Therefore it is only a reprint of the bill that will form evidence. Now with respect to computer generated documents – such as restaurant bills - the Evidence Act sets down strict and elaborate rules on how such print outs are to be used as evidence. These provisions to the Evidence Act were inserted in the year 2000. Thus, when this incident i.e. Salman Bhais accident took place in 2002, the Police and prosecution should have been well aware of the mode and manner of presenting computer print outs as evidence. Needless to say, the procedure set out in the Evidence Act was not followed. It was not followed in toto. It was not a question of 9 matters being followed and the 10^th being ignored. The process was simply not followed at all. Therefore, the so called bills were inadmissible in evidence. As I have written earlier, I wonder if our worthies in Khaki have obtained Jhanvis bills as mandated by the Evidence Act? As the cliché goes, watch this space.

Assuming, for the moment that the process mandated by the Evidence Act had been followed to tender these bills as evidence, even then, the evidence would be useless and laughable. Now let me reproduce from the Judgement.

Now apart from the above evidence there is 

another material brought on record by the prosecution 

by way of four bills which are marked as Exhibit­50A, 

50B, 50C and 50D during recording of evidence before 

the Sessions Court.  At this juncture it is to be 

mentioned that the trial Court had marked these bills 

as Exhibits and accepted their  evidential value in 

order to establish that these bills were for the drinks 

and eatables ordered and consumed by the accused 

and his friends.  In fact these bills were collected 

subsequently by the officer and there is substantive 

evidence of PW­9 on this aspect and this evidence of 

PW­9 and the factual position as to the accused and 

his friends not occupying any tables, render these bills 

devoid of any substance. On the contrary, production 

of such bills before the trial Court is in fact possibly an 

attempt to create documents to suit the case of 

prosecution. The reason for this is based on the following material brought on record.  Substantive 

evidence of PW­9 during cross­examination goes to 

show  that  the  bills  were  being  generated  on  a 

computer system and the name of the customer is not 

generated in the bill. Even also name of a person who 

pays the amount also does not reflect in the bill. It is 

further the evidence of PW­9 that if the customer is 

standing near the bar counter then there is no table 

number mentioned or reflected in the bill.  Table 

number is being mentioned only in case of a customer 

sitting at a table. Also code number of the captain or 

steward is generated in the bill when such captain or 

steward serves the order. Further substantive evidence 

of PW­9 is reproduced hereunder in order to see under 

which circumstances said bills were collected by the 

police:

In the light of this evidence, the bills which 

are Exhibit­50A to 50D are carefully examined. Said 

respective bills give the table numbers as under : 38, 

40, 30 and 18. All the bills give the cover (number of 

persons) as one.  The bills give the captain code 

number respectively as 02, 02, 02 and 48. First two 

bills Exhibit­50A & 50B are only for food, and third 

and fourth bills Exhibit­50C and Exhibit­50D are for 

liquor.  The total of these bills is Rs.6376/­.  The 

glaring anomaly is regarding the mentioning of the 

table numbers in the bills.  Four different table 

numbers are given as mentioned above. However, the 

cover for which the bill is mentioned as one. So by plain reading of the bills it can be construed that each 

bill is for one person only and each bill is for the 

person sitting on a particular table number.

Do you now realise the utter madness? Remember what I said, Prohibition. On another note, I hope you realise how utterly useless the entire billing system was at Rain. There was no way the owners of Rain could have performed any analytics on the billing. Was the place doing well, what was the average table revenue, what were people drinking or eating, how did consumption patterns change as the evening progressed. Nothing. With such a meaningless billing system what do you expect. Mind you this is the same situation in all restaurants even today.

With this kind of evidence do you expect a verdict of guilty?

Who was driving

There is a lot of material on this matter. Was it Salman? Was it Ashok Singh? Were there 3 people in the car, were there 4 people? However, one startling passage had me gasping.

After partying at Rain, Salman and Kamal went to the J W Marriot at Juhu. Here they drank some more and exited. The car had been given to the valet to park. As they exited Salman gave a tip of Rs 500/- to the valet at the J W Marriot. On being examined in the Trial Court, this is what the valet stated in his examination and cross examination.

 “ I did not see at what time and in what manner the Land Cruzer left the J.W. Marriot Hotel. Kamal Khan sat in the back portion of the car behind Salman Khan. Nobody sat near Kamal Khan on the left side in the back portion of the car.

Police asked me during recording my statement where Kamal Khan sat.  I was remembering at the time of giving my statement that on which portion of the back seat Kamal Khan was sitting and he sat behind Salman Khan. Kamal Khan sat in the back portion of the car on the left side.” 

By pointing out this admission given by this  witness, learned    Senior Counsel for the appellant  submitted that the seat 

arrangement as stated by this  witness suggest that the

appellant/accused was sitting  on the left side of the front seat   i.e. towards the left  side of the driver's seat as Kamal Khan was sitting  behind him in the back portion on the left side.  Even    after   this   material   extracted   from   his   cross examination no attempt has been made on behalf of  the 

prosecution to get clarification for the anomaly  created in the   answers, one given in the examination in­chief   and   another   at   the   end   of   the   cross examination.  Without confronting this witness with the questions  in the nature of cross­examination,   now  it cannot be accepted on behalf of the State as argued 

that apparently this witness has deviated from his  earlier 

statement to  the  police  and  has partially  supported   the  

defence.  The   foundation   for appreciating this argument has not been created while  recording  the evidence   of   this   witness   by   the  prosecution. testimony.

So here we have contrary testimony given by the same witness in the Trial Court. For whatever reason, now lost in the sands of time, no one bothered to correct this. It took a diligent lawyer Amit Desai to point this out. Kudos to him. I mean this in all honesty.

The 305 pages are filled with howlers like this. I have extracted just a few for you.

To end, I urge you to read my list of disclaimers and caveats again. On one level I am proud that the Rule of Law is alive and well in India. I have faith in the higher judiciary. However, the tragedy is that Salman Khan appears to have got away with what is the perfect crime.

Sad indeed.