Imprudent Jurisprudence – Foreword

The Glorious Islamic Kingdom of Pakistan was thrown into turmoil yesterday when a fastidiously pious citizen pointed out that the state had not endorsed a religiously prescribed method for the act of urinating. This was encouraging free thinking and spreading anarchy in toilets around the country. He reminded people that not properly attending to their business was grounds for great torment in the grave and that many of them were inadvertently offending the lord every time they emptied their bladders.

This prompted an immediate reaction from the religious scholars who called an emergency meeting of the Islamic Tautological Council and, for fear of divine reprisal, forbade people from taking a leak until it reached a consensus. The head of state officially announced that everyone was to ‘hold it in’ until further notice. Any piss taken during the course of this meeting would constitute a religious transgression, the punishment for which was death by stoning. Though one newspaper cleverly observed that due to the likelihood of bladder urolithiasis, perhaps they could call this death by stones.

A multitude of questions were raised at the meeting dashing all hopes, especially of the presiding chairperson who hadn’t been able to go that morning, of a quick resolution.

How should one pee? Sitting? Standing? How about running? Was that even possible? Where should one pee? Was there any particular direction one should face? North? South? Which hand should one use? How often must we pee anyway? Are there any preferred timings for peeing? Preferred days? Occasions? Should one pee first thing in the morning, for instance? Or save it till we’re at work, as an excuse to get out of a meeting? Can we whistle during it? Hum some particular tune? Or even break out in a full fledged song?

What should one do after one has urinated? Pull one’s pants up of course but before that, should one shake until the last droplets have dangled to the floor? How rigorously should one jiggle?

Opinion was divided on all major issues. A detailed report follows in the next post.

Tagged , , ,

3 thoughts on “Imprudent Jurisprudence – Foreword

  1. gtoosphere says:


    With all due respect, I think the questions you raise are kind of sexist and discriminatory against women. I know you have a vested interest in knowing the new rules of how to pee but in your haste(may be you have to pee :p) you have only raised questions pertaining to men and completely ignored the questions women might have under the new rules. I hope you don’t make the same mistakes in the future again.

    senior feminist issues correspondent

  2. Avinandan Mukherjee says:

    Ha ha ha!
    Looking for the sun under a rock, huh?
    Great article, but I think I am falling in love with your responses too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: