Of shoes and insults

Both President George Bush and the Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi who threw a shoe at him deserve global gratitude for having started a worldwide debate whose ramifications neither could possibly imagine. The incident proved what was an open secret journalists are extremely bad shots missing a substantial target from 12 feet away. No wonder so many press reports are way off the mark.Bush, who fairly and constructively divided time between the White House and the local gym, demonstrated the best presidential reflexes by ducking an incoming missile effortlessly. He thus became the envy of politicians around the world, since a lifetime's training to duck issues, electorates and critics has not given them the same dexterity.
Displaying grace under fire, Bush joked about the shoe's size. His self-congratulatory comment of having established a "free society" in Iraq was lost on al-Zaidi who found himself accused of a widely-worded and subjective offence under Iraqi law "aggression against a foreign head of state". I wonder which clever lawyer will reconcile freedom of expression with the statutory offence of aggression! Strangely, the Iraqi prime minister was shown standing unmoved and expressionless next to Bush during the entire incident. There is speculation that such courage under fire is possible only with advance knowledge about the attack.
Neither Bush, nor the Iraqi PM nor al-Zaidi demonstrated wit under fire though. There are some from the legal world who have done so. When the legendary Lord Denning was hearing a case, he sat slouched low down in his chair while the case droned on. An irate litigant threw a book at him, which narrowly missed him. Denning immediately sat up straight and said unblinkingly: "Thank God I am not an upright judge."
Bush has unwittingly done more against global recession through this one incident. A cottage industry, gradually assuming the proportions of multinational commerce, has been spawned, with shoe manufacture, shoe auctions, shoe fairs, shoe festivals and anti-Bush cartoons, images, and advertising doing brisk business. State support and subsidy to such industries in many parts of the world is expected to be announced. Those who voted the Republicans out might make hefty contributions out of the US bailout package to such enterprises. To a lesser extent, even the marriage industry may have got a boost: insult Bush and get a good bride (including substantial dowry) is now an attractive package on offer.
The extremely useful but frequently insulted shoe along with man's best friend, the dog are back in the news. (While launching the former, al-Zaidi equated Bush with the latter.) But insults are culture specific. Much of the eastern hemisphere shares al-Zaidi's derision for the shoe. It covers the lowest part of the body, gathers all the dirt, dust and grime and is normally excluded from places of religious worship. That is not necessarily how Bush or the West would view it.
Al-Zaidi forgot that different things have different meanings in different cultures. For example, a thumbs up gesture, signifying all is OK in the West, has a fairly abusive meaning in Brazil and Turkey. Similarly, two horns held up behind one's ears is considered a harmless joke or prank but in Italy it would imply that one's spouse is cheating on him.
The best insults are those that are most subtle, like the witty barb. Winston Churchill and Bernard Shaw excelled in the oxymoronic insult. Churchill referred to Atlee thus: "An empty taxi came to 10 Downing Street and Atlee got out." Shaw criticised a play by saying "It is greatly to Mrs Campbell's credit that, bad as the play was, her acting was worse. It was a masterpiece of failure." When Ireland's De Valera died, a critic wrote that half the large crowd at his funeral came to confirm his death and the other half to ensure that he was buried! Al-Zaidi should have realised the higher potency of subtle or verbal forms of insult.
The writer is a Congress MP. The views expressed are personal.