Desicritics Category: Media: Journalism

A-vivek of N-Arundhati

Vivek Sharma — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:32:16 EDT

When Narundhati treks through the jungles as a guest of Maoists, her biases
ignore the blisters on her city feet. The mosquitoes that relish blood, heedless
to the age of their victims, serenade to her, in a 'thousand star hotel'.
What Narundhati says is part fact, the part where she describes guns
and explosives in a region termed Pakistan by leaders and policemen --
a Pakistan within India where followers of Mao seek a bloody revolution!

When she quotes a Harvard returned politician or a Naxal leader verbatim, she stays partly
in right, stating their high-headed thoughts about cost of progress and freedom at midnight.
I root for her when she describes the plight of farmers, counterfeited by a green revolution,
or when derides the blind march into globalization or the abject immorality of the corrupt.
When Narundhati asks if a fact is a fact in her fiction, or if our judgment of Maoists is right,
or suggests that India need 'feral poetry', she is enchanted by her wordplay. Her fiction
writer’s instincts laud her, as she pens lines lyrically in a cinematic setting to die for (not in)
and her protagonists are Davids fighting a 'higher caste, fascist' Goliath-state.
In episodes that trek her journey with lilting rhythms, every typed word is paid for, is wanted
by a popular magazine, and she anticipates the applause she will get from the Eastern left,
and the Western right.

She is partly right when she describes how CIA's jihad
of late eighties in Afghanistan finished off Russian communism and spawned
Taliban style communalism in Afghan & Indian territory, bringing Kashmir its tensions
(and some intellectuals their liberal pretensions). She appears partly bright
when she describes the rise of Hindutva as a political force in that nineties disquiet.
Since her writing is tight, she urges connotations to bare themselves and subtleties
of diction in this colonial language, appeased by her 'hysterical rhetoric', look like ecstatic,
climactic arguments, but what interests me always is what escapes her,
or what she omits or leaves out.
Like Kashmiri Pandits, who don't feature in her computation of what went wrong in 1988-
89, though historically speaking, those lands belonged to those hundreds of thousands:
now refugees in their own country, driven out by 'Azadi guns'.
When she forgets is that in this Indian Palestine, the oppressed is the Hindu, whose homeland,
memory of forefathers is being wiped out, and there is no Darwish to sing of this loss!
But her reading of the historic is undone by her histrionics. She ignores
what she dislikes, and in her surreal imagination, Gandhian protest is a vice.

Hinduism, which gives her name, but deserves only her distaste, is the problem she must cite.
Her unintelligent comments about Kashmir or Taj Mumbai siege (as Rushdie called them),
her howl: "justice or civil war" reflect she’s Narundhati: yet her prestige persists in spite of her sleights,
for a country she calls a Nazi-like police state by tolerating her, belies the atrocities she cites:
while she sees only death and shadow lurk on our stage
Isn't she surprised, why she is still unscathed and alive?
Truth is seldom as black or white, but my stanzas seem stunted for I am imitating Narundhati's style.

See I am stumped by her contradictions, though as an Indian, I am deemed capable of reconciling
the opposites. Narundhati, the embedded journalist, describes rapes, arson, murder by police as malice,
yet urges us to sympathize with Maoists who count mutilated corpses as a prize.

Years back, on the shores of Narmada, she cried hoarse with non-violent protesters,
"Narmada bachao, bachao" "Narmada bachao, bachao"
and now in Maoists camps, she despises those methods.
"Lal salaam comrade! Guns uthao, uthao"
She cites Charu's and Mao's affection for gore, and tells us, in her Delhi accent...
O don't be a bore,
look at these tribals dancing, look at their songs and folklore...
who'd think they have killed a score.

When she writes, "I tell them Delhi is a cruel city that neither knows nor cares about them,"
she forgets that the Indian city destroyed the most number of times, never though by pacifists,
is the city of Hindu memories, of Ghalib, Mir and Sufis, of Sikhs and seekers of many faiths,
but our city-girl thinks cities as contraband
and like Mumbai, her 'karmabhoomi' is ostracized from her skies.
Likewise, millions of children born into consumer cultures, are vultures
as per her writing, which insists world markets are ulcers, progress = prosecution,
pro-Hindu idealism = fascism, police = thieves/rapists, leaders = hate-mongers. If her arithmetic of India,
America, World is really that simplistic, and caustic, I wonder, what qualifies her to be a critic?

As a teenager, I volunteered one summer for teaching the slum children in Delhi. As a reward
for my sincerity, I was led into a small, unlit room one afternoon, to talk to a high-ranking Maoist.
"We must rid our nation of these intellectuals, professors, politicians, landowners, high castes,
scientists, and wipe out the rich.
Blood is the only water than can wash the strains of anguish
that distinguish my people," he said. He quoted Marx, Majumdar, French revolution, Russians, Mao.
I looked like an ancient cow quoting Gandhian or Buddhist or Hindu philosophy,
and the forgotten principle of Christian non-resistance: of turning the other cheek.

I tried to decipher why I was an enemy. "You represent the worst of elitists, Sharma;
studying in a fancy engineering college, Convent educated, Brahmin, or course you’re a fascist".
My distinct unease told me I was condemned by the prejudice of this self-appointed jurist!
I lacked potent phrases to debate with him, so I described how I had toiled hard all my life
under extreme family pressure and my success was fruition of the daily, honest sweat
of my parents who had risen from Himalayan poverty, which doesn't ask your caste
when it affects you, though employers cite it when they reject you.
"Many innocents must die too. The fire of sacrifice, the Goddess
calls for a bloody revolution."

That three hour meeting still baffles me. I am at loss for words,
it hurts. For him, Chinese excesses or Stalin's policies are justified. The morbid horror of it,
rages within me, and as I devour literature from all times -- Tale of two cities, If this is a Man,
Doctor Zhivago, Train to Pakistan or Manto's stories -- I realize every activism and ideal
that strives to reverse biases, by justifying repressive policies and atrocities of present day
in the light of past excesses, rationalizes exactly what it criticizes. War begets war, lust, lust,
hate spawns hate. I agree markets lack compassion and conscience, but collectives can be callous
as well, Dickensian crowds can turn into mobs and guillotine,
and Achebe’s tribals are capable of being innocuous or fascist!
If only we had the right acumen, we would triumph over ourselves and turn human,
but we lay down a landmine, we turn our holy lands into Palestine, we outline
new charters of hate, wiping Jews or Tutsis or Hindus or Red Indians or Muslims
or Cambodians, or Tibetians or Armenians, priests and pilgrims, ultra-rich and urchin,
wiping whole generations off our slate!

I don't know why Narundhati's mother thinks India needs a revolution, or why
Narundhati listens to grasshoppers and they speak her mind, about 'democracy
as a demon-crazy'. I lived in Chekovian villages, in beat-up small towns,
in places where people don't worry about abstract isms and nouns,
rather stick to their daily needs, banal fancies and follies, ageless celebrations and strife.
We are the poor or middle classes, our daily living supplies more solace and sorrow to our lives
than the craving rich can conceptualize.

When I read dream-like sequences of rural, joyful life, I realize,
even Tolstoys can lack the facts, and that ignorance leads to lies.
See the Soviet history, witness its birth, youth and demise!
Yes Naom Chomsky's is a learned man, and Howard Zinn knew his People’s history,
but when N-Arundhati talks their language, she lacks their informed gallantry,
their reverence for their national ideals, their ability to denounce propaganda, backed with facts.
Not every ape is a Hanuman, for it takes a lot of spirit, guts, grime and gyaan.
To be a Zola, rather than a bhola, requires more than a kurta and a jhola!

In Narundhati's analysis of India: there is a civil war-like situation
between Muslims and Hindus, tribals and corporations, Maoists and state machinery,
dam builders and those displace by dams. And of course, Narundhati is the liberal star
smug, satiated, saturated by her own self-defined idioms of calamity and causality.
Her writing shows, how she deifies the episodes of carnage, and her urge is to disgrace
the land on which she stays. In her prose, terrorists get rationalized, and as she breaks
into outbursts, aimed at foreign readers, buyers of her books, admirer of her looks,
who lap up what she writes, especially her calling much maligned Hindus -- fascists,
or thinking of Kashmir as Palestine or her support for bloody revolutions. Half-truths are half-lies,
and my lament is... many trust her, and thrust biased policies on Indians using her near-sights.
Her rhetoric: 'Mumbai people asked for it, people who are neither in government, nor rich,
nor Maoists asked for it, Kashmiri Pandits asked for it, Hindus & Sikhs killed in past centuries
asked for it, the children of twenty-first century asked for it, Americans killed in 9/11 asked for it,
the races and regions continuously misrepresented by colonial mentality Orientalists like her
asked for it, asked for it, asked for it".

Why Suyodhan is called Duryodhan, why my write-up is full of A-Vivek, and why N-Arundhati,
who I support for her activism on many issues, is the locus of my ardent criticism?
While Narundhati has a Booker and I haven't even won a cooker, I still am an argumentative
Indian, as Amartya Sen would call me. Trust me, it takes more than a token speech to appall me.
Tell me, if I can be considered discreet if in my words, there is no middle ground, no layers, no gray.
Too much talk, and too little thought, too much debate, that too without consulting the proletariat!
Too many victims, too little praise, too much rhetoric, without perspective of the current or the historic!
Anger is easy, but solutions are harder, and in India, where bureaucratic cobwebs usher
answers at the pace of a lazy snail and facts are files buried in dust or disgust somewhere:
her urging us to burn down our the storehouse and file-keepers too leads us nowhere.

My voice falters in any discourse. My lament: I am innocent. If I cite Hindu philosophy,
I am labeled fundamentalist; if Islamic, labeled terrorist; if Jewish, Zionist. If I state
my thoughts, my name says I am a Brahmin, also my education was in Catholic school.
I am my father's son, so related to the government. I live in United States, so I represent the empire.
I am a poet means I am fanciful; an engineer, which implies I limp in humanities,
and by the sheer luck of being the son of a honest man, and a scientist, after a lifetime of toil,
I am still struggling to earn a foothold on our soil. But while I cannot even represent
my own self, how and why does a Narundhati triumph as a correspondent?
If Maoists win their mineral-rich forests, Kashmir gains independence, minorities and castes vanish,
will we reach the state of param-sukh: absolute solace and prosperity, will it be end of our anguish?
If democracy isn't right for us, how do we know unlike in Russian heydays, comrades will fight for us?
Why don't you forsake it Vivek? You don't know what you don't know. Half-truth only parasites on us!

(Inspired by: “Walking with Comrades by Arundhati Roy”)

NOTE
1. (A-vivek: Absence or lack of the ability to determine what is right and wrong, fact and fiction, fair and unfair, sacrosanct and rubbish, ephemeral and eternal. Arundhati was Vasistha’s wife, and name of a vine; but it also means ‘kundalini‘ or supernatural facility, and N-Arundhati therefore is a negation of the Arundhati; i.e. lack of faculty to look at the factual and at the intellectual, and since Arundhati is associated with fidelity, N-Arundhati also has lack of fidelity as a meaning).
2. Arundhati Roy gave a lecture tour after the article in Outlook, and my poem was written after hearing a lecture at MIT, where it was clear that her content and concern were, for most part, motivated by grabbing attention.
3. The poem like this one is considered politically motivated by most poetry journals. Most newspapers cannot publish it for my own political affiliations are unknown, and I come with no recommendations.

Mr. Prime Minister, You've Disappointed Us Again

Being Cynical — Wed, 26 May 2010 09:09:57 EDT

I was fortunate that this phenomenal event occurred in a working day and more so at a time I and many current affairs buffs like me are busy in their respective offices. The watershed event which finally took place after a long wait of six years turned out to be sheer torture of 1.5 hours for many who were unfortunate enough to sustain the torture on TV. Spare a thought for those helpless seven hundred odd journos present in Vigyan Bhawan to take on the torture head on.

Honestly Dr. Manmohan Singh might not get a better opportunity to set many things straight for once but opted otherwise. Many had thought Dr. Singh would have truck loads of information to share since he last interacted with the media some six years back. Even if we can forgo the amount of information that was expected from him, the least expectation was some excitement, energetic and thumping reaction from him. But as usual he choose to go with his trademark monotonous, emotion and expressionless narration of some pre-decided stanza, which many thought was only copyrighted by Tushar Kapoor. When the brilliant minds of different media houses struggled to come up with a decent headline to publish Dr. Singh's press conference, it is easily evident how non starter the whole thing was. Hang on - I guess I am going away from the topic. I am not disappointed for Dr. Singh's Tushar Kapoor act but the nature, quality and honesty of the response he delivered that day.

There were many questions hurled at him, but let's analyze a few which have some interest for us. Certainly we are not much bothered on the PID issued to foreign journalists on which our MEA and I&B ministry are at loggerheads. When asked about A. Raja's brilliance and his uncanny ability of stocking government booty at his private bungalow, the answer was far from being termed as an answer even. 'Investigation is on and culprits would be dealt with iron fist'. What's new on this, Mr. PM? If we leave apart the investigation, then the second part is very well authorised by our constitution and we definitely didn't need an assurance from you on the authenticity of our constitution for an answer. Rs. 9000 crores for 2G auction and Rs. 70000 crores for 3G. Isn't there a glaring loss for the government in 2G auction? A 2nd standard student can tell this, if he has got some idea about numbers then what and why on earth is some investigation needed to figure this out? The bizarre statement of the culprit would be punished, should go unsaid. The whole answer suggested nothing is going to happen to the culprits as the most visible culprit happens to be a big ally of the running government.

Dr. Singh was at his monotonous best when asked about the security of our country. The same age old dialogue of trust deficit with Pakistan was his agenda. Forget about the deficit or surplus, the idea of associating Pakistan with the word trust is laughable. The example was promptly provided the very next day when Hafiz Saeed was let off before anything could even start. What significance really happened post 26/11 that our whole machinery are running all around with Olive branches and proposal of talks is beyond my comprehensions. If someone asks me on what grounds we scaled in terms of security, I would reply with silence. Many of our states are under Maoist mayhem, our brave Jawans are getting killed on daily basis, railway tracks are blasted almost every alternate day and what our response to all those - A top Maoist leader goes off the hook in West Bengal due to lack of evidence. It is strange, we are ready with our Air force jets to bomb our own people but run around like a bunch of school kids behind a US-sponsored lollipop and go on a hugging and kissing spree at Thimphu. Irony I must say.

His answers on our economic growth are insignificant to me. Touting the upcoming malls, shopping junctions and international airports means nothing when still 40% of our populace struggle to get hold of a decent square meal per day. Don't believe me, then better ask Montek Singh Ahluwalia, who is expecting 2 lakh more families to be inducted into the latest below poverty line list. Is this the 8% growth that we were talking about? All these statistics are jargon best kept in books and reports and go on a chest beating exercise on global platform, giving a scare or two to China and some envious punch to Pakistan. At grassroots they mean nothing.

The only time Dr. Singh was seen excited when asked about Rahul Gandhi's prospect of becoming the prime minister. Come on, sir, ours is a democracy, isn't it? Let the people decide whom they want to lead the country. The very question seems out of context, as the whole press conference was there to discuss the gains & losses till the last general election. When the PM has to say that he would continue his term to completion before a certain Rahul Gandhi can take over or worse is ready to forfeit his post if the party and it's chief wants in between, is quite bizarre. Being an astute politician, you must be aware that it is you whom the country has voted to power not someone whom your party prefers or for that matter your party's chief prefers. Aren't you answerable to the country also, other than your party chief?

Torture or no torture, the whole media briefing needs to be forgotten in a hurry. After a One and half hour circus, nothing significant seems to come out of it. All the issue and the clarity on them remains as docile as they were before the press meet. If not for anyone Dr. Singh could have shown some aggressiveness and settle the tag of him being weak and possessing a media phobia, as attached by the opposition, for once. But instead it all turned out to be a big torture like a One and half hour long Yawn. Don't believe me? then try taking the yawn first.

Tharoor, Sania, IPL, and Other National Distractions

Aaman Lamba — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 05:07:13 EDT

Indian polity can be said to have arrived as it were, on the world stage, with a constant parade of popular affairs for the media and cognoscenti to sink their teeth into, masticate on, pontificate, and then move on to the next grist-worthy scrap. Larger macro-economic and political matters requiring greater cogitation can be deferred to the think-tanks, policy wonks, and 32-page essay types that feel them of greater import while bread and circuses satiate the populace.

The discussions du jour range from the Sania-Shoaib-Ayesha marriage to the recent imbroglio involving Union Minister Shashi Tharoor and IPL impresario Lalit Modi around the ambiguous ownership structure of the putative Kochi IPL franchise. Interestingly enough, each of these seemingly tabloid-themed issues exposes or uncovers larger truths about Indian society and the disequilibrium between our story about ourselves and the emerging social structures. Much like immensely popular websites celebrating exhibitionist small-town bourgeoisie coexist with moralistic panchayats condemning unapproved liaisons, these issues expose changing concepts of conspicuous consumption and alternate choices of lifestyle or mates.

The media, to their credit, makes every effort to appear fair and balanced, following up the Ayesha-Shoaib-Sania or the Tharoor-Sunanda-Modi triangles with Naxal-Nuke-Inflation reports, delivered with equal seriousness and rigor. The scrolling bars and breaking news indicate however the currency of the realm is frequency of updates, which is where the distinction becomes evident. More important than manufacturing consent, it appears, is the need to manufacture interest.

Bread and circuses will ever be popular diversions, especially if, like the IPL, they are larger than life, and spill over from the sports and entertainment pages to the front page. This gives armchair desi critics and the like the opportunity to spout forth while the industrious strivers continue their efforts.

From an informational perspective, matters unreported seem to pause and carry on their activities in a subterranean realm, emerging every now and then like quiescent faults striving to release pressure and divert, if momentarily, from surface streams that bubble their way along. One expects, though, that people in public office focus their attention on matters of public concern, such as foreign affairs, rather than being a constant distraction, twittering their foibles or phoning them in, as it were.

Unleash The Paparazzi Hounds

Priyank Chandra — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:15:58 EDT

I would like to have more active paparazzi in India. I want them to hound and stalk the celebrities. Capture them in their most human state, and make them fight to retain their status of being role-models.

Their opinions do not matter, and count only as any of us, ignorant fools. Yet they blog, they tweet and the newspapers capture every statement they give. These are the models, the item-girls, the actors and actresses. The perfect brushed-up groomed faces that speak to us from advertisements everyday. We live in a society where the intellectuals seem to be forgotten, only to be replaced by meaningless opinions of beautiful people who shouldn't really matter. And I am tired of watching debates getting hijacked by celebrities, who say the obvious things to an audience that has already becoming used to the dumbed down pop culture of the idiot box and tabloids, insulting to the intellectuals who have spent a lifetime working in the field.

If the media wants to give the beautiful the role of the public opinion creators, then I ask them to please unleash their paparazzi hounds which exist only to show the truth, not just the media-op moments of sculpted beauty.

I'm no sadist and I would like people to have a right to their privacy, but I also see the need for truth. You cannot go in one extreme, without a counterweight. If you show the glamorous page-3 parties and the actor's ghost-authored opinions about the Pakistan, war and the Budget, then please let us see their affairs and unglamorous lifestyles.

It is only fair. Journalistic integrity demands it.

Fallen Role Models - Keeping The Value

Somik Raha — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:30:27 EST

The recent happenings with Swami Nithyananda have shocked many. After the infamous video released, there has been violence on the Swami's ashram, purportedly by his own disgruntled devotees. Meanwhile, the ashram has neither confirmed nor denied the videotape of the Swami, while dealing with all the other allegations. The Swami has millions of followers across the globe, who have woken up to disbelief, anger and confusion.

While the truth about the tape and the Swami may take some time to come out, the media brings on all its fury, and uses this as another occasion to berate those who would believe in teachers. This attitude is quite harmful for several reasons, for it makes errors of logic. The first being availability bias. When someone in the monastic order falls from grace, it is big news, and published all over the place. However, for one who falls, the tens of thousands who don't are not big news - that is the norm, right? Thinking that the exception is the norm is a big mistake to make. The second mistake is the bipolar reaction - when things are going well, the teacher is considered God incarnate, and when things have gone wrong, there isn't a drain that is dirty enough to drag the teacher in. This kind of extreme reaction serves no one - not the media, not the people.

But my interest in this post is to reach out to the followers of the Swami, who find themselves in a very vulnerable position - should they defend the Swami, whom they have genuinely loved and respected? Should they denounce him and his teachings, and give up learning from monastic teachers/role models? How should they face their friends, whom they had eagerly talked to about the Swami? It is not easy to be in this position.

Many years back, my professor shared a gem with me, which I feel is my duty to pass on - I think it will help the followers of Swami Nithyananda to reflect on this. The context of our conversation was Ayn Rand, and someone had praised Rand.

Me: I find it very hard to follow Ayn Rand's philosophy, after learning that she died insane. I was very influenced by her writing, but decided to throw it all out after knowing about her personal life.

Prof: I used to know a Buddhist teacher many years back, who was very high up in this country. He used to give wonderful enlightening sermons. Then one day, he was found to be a pedophile. I found myself questioning whether the knowledge I'd received from him should be thrown away. It was clear to me that whatever he had said about truth, compassion and love was invaluable, and had helped me in my own life. Nothing he did changed the value of his message for me, so it made no sense to throw out what he said because he could not live up to it. The value was for me to keep.

This was an eye-opening conversation for me. Prior to this conversation, I was a poor man. The moment I learned of some weakness they had, I'd throw out all the value I had received from them. After this conversation, there was a great sense of freedom. It didn't matter to me what the person had done. We are all human - and we make mistakes all the time. I don't care who is carrying gold in their hands - I will take gold when I see it. I know that my life is so much richer because of this change in my mental operating system. I am happy to learn from all. (Of course, it took some years to format the system, and the work is still in progress).

Stepping it up, this philosophy has big implications. What if someone tells me that Krishna was a mythical character - never existed! Suppose all of modern science backs up this assertion. The real test of whether I've understood the Gita at all is if I can say, without batting an eyelid, "Makes no difference! I have read and consumed the Gita, and it helps me every day of my life. My thanks to whoever concocted it- it is most helpful." This test can be applied to every religion, every sect, every order, and yes, even to science. It should not matter to us if Darwin or Galileo ever existed, or what indiscretions they indulged in.

What they have left behind is for us to experience in our own lives, and if we find value in that, why should we impoverish our lives by throwing it away?

Homosexuality Versus Violation of Privacy

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:04:22 EST

Dr.Siras, reader and chairman of Modern Indian Languages at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), was filmed having consensual sex with a same sex partner in his on-campus home without his knowledge. This video was then sent to his university employees. This likely seems the work of a group of pranksters looking for either entertainment or the settling of some scores. Some media outlets speculate that a local news channel may have been involved in this "outing" which I find bizarre.

Our media is now invested in splashing private sex lives over the news? When did that happen? It is very easy for the decent and thinking ones among us to pick out the victim and the perpetrator in this situation. If a heterosexual couple were filmed having sex in their own home, practically everyone would immediately conclude that the couple were innocent victims of a gross violation of their privacy. Would it matter if they were doing it doggy style or in the missionary position when they were filmed without their knowledge? I don't think so. It would be a slam dunk case where police would have gone after the people who filmed the video without Dr.Siras's knowledge and Dr.Siras would've eventually been able to file a lawsuit against the perpetrators. Right? Well, apparently, our societal morals and ethics depend upon a person's sexual orientation. AMU has pronounced this as grievous conduct on part of the professor to have sex in his own home and has suspended him.

It is an interesting time in India for homosexuality and sexuality in general. We as a society have never been openly homophobic or openly opinionated at all about anything remotely sexual. We don't talk about it. We just do it and then shush other people when they bring it up. As a nation we are all secretly homophobic, especially the men of our masses, the ones who adjust their crotches in public and molest women in trains as a mark of their machoism. They might not go around bashing homosexuality in public like the right-wing Christians do in the United States but they do their bit. Raani, chhakka, hijhda, all code for eunuch, are the terms they have coined to add to the existing offensive nomenclature for those whose sexual orientation does not quite fit with rigid ideas of who should sleep with who. Our commercial filmmakers gingerly broach homosexuality in films, often doing more damage than good for the LGBT community in India. Gay men are portrayed as weak, overtly effeminate and used mostly as comic relief in films thus successfully reinforcing popular and damaging stereotypes. I have personally witnessed college kids torment a classmate who is not into girls or does not invest into building a macho image. We all watch people being teased or left out but how many of us speak up? I grew up in this very society and yet when I see a gay couple, I see a couple. When I see homophobia, I see irrationality driven by fear of the unknown.

When I first read about this case, I desperately hoped that the story would be about how AMU stood by their professor and how the police immediately were on the case, looking for the people who had violated Dr.Siras's privacy. I set myself up for disappointment. In my mind, academia and media are the the outer, growing fringe of our society's thought map defining how progressive we are as a populace, they make up the forward moving wave on which intellectuals ride out and set themselves apart from the rest of the crowd. In this case, it was television reporters who allegedly filmed a man having sexual relations within the confines of his own home and then a university condoned this by castigating the professor because the form of sex he was having was not appealing to them. When media and academia promote regressive thinking it comes as more of a shock than it would have if it were say a political party doing it to pander to voters or a religious group looking to recruit. This sort of thing could happen to any of us. Even if you, my reader, may not be a homosexual, I am pretty sure you do things in your own home that you would not want media filming and showing to your employers, right? I guess 15th August is just a public holiday then.

History is witness that it takes times like these to brew a revolution. It takes nerve to side with the right kind of morality, the one that does not pause in doubt and morph into something unrecognizable when overcome with prejudice, intolerance or fear. In my opinion, the LGBT community in India needs to empower themselves and be more vocal. A lot of homosexual individuals do not make their presence known. They prefer to lead privately gay lives often offering up the understandable explanation of "My sex life is nobody's business". Sure. And this attitude may afford them a relatively drama free life, but as a community it will not bring them to the status of equal citizens with equal treatment unless they come forward and fight for it. Today in the face of this scandal, Dr.Siras according to a news report is voluntarily leaving the university. There are so many gay individuals who avoid a scandal and walk away from the mess, not demanding their rights or questioning the raw deal they are dealt.

Last year, Chief Justices Shah and Muralidhar made me proud when they mandated that Section 377 was inapplicable to consenting sex between adults in private. They noted that, “Constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.” It was a small, yet mighty step in the right direction. And now, a group of idiotic television reporters and the Aligarh Muslim University has brought us a few steps back again.

Phir Mile Sur or Frivolous Mile Sur?

sufferingsocrates — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:13:19 EST

India celebrated its 60th Republic Day yesterday. A moment every Indian, including I, am proud of. India is expressing itself on the global stage, and Indians are becoming confident, self-assured and assertive, all in a positive sense. Perhaps its this freedom of expression that is running deep in all of India. Especially it would seem, among the emboldened and influential television medium.

This Republic Day was more remembered for the spiced and hyped Phir Mile Sur, a rehash of the 1988 original version by Doordarshan. Spiced, because of a skimpily clad Deepika Padukone and banyan clad Salman Khan amongst other Bollywood celebrities (even Karan Johar found a place!), and hyped because it was apparently 'released' by Amitabh Bacchan. Now, what bemuses me no end is what do these esteemed figures stand for? Are they the epitome of Indian patriotism or Indian achievements?

I wish I weren't cynical. But the way the new Phir Mile Sur has been done up, looks very botched, annoyingly long and at times even ridiculous. It looks more like a marketing gimmick to win TRPs for Zoom television. It was good old Doordarshan days which brought about the original Mile Sur Mera Tumhara (see original below). Zoom has been one of the gossip channels promoting everything from Bollywood to Bollywood (pun intended).

In the guise of a fresh new look for an amazingly original and endearing Mile Sur Mera of the 1980s, the new version has been launched with so much of Bollywood emphasis that the Olympics medal winners have been pushed to the very end of the music video. I wonder what is it that Bollywood has done to represent India, unlike Olympic Champions like Abhinav Bindra? Even in the new Mile Sur Mera, Salman has no qualms appearing in his vest. I am thankful he didn't remove it to show his true patriotic colors!

When A.R. Rehman re-created Vande Mataram in 1997, it was truly a magical rendering which was soulful, fresh and pleasing to the eyes. Rehman had re-done the tunes of the original song, and his mastery was clearly on display. Sadly for Phir Mile Sur, neither is it original, nor does the video look pleasing on the eyes. The music tries to retain the original Mile Sur Mera tune, with traditional music and tunes, but keeps losing track and gets completely boring at over 15 minutes. For me, personally the music and the video look more like an advertisement for Bollywood to promote its patriotic self, and what better a platform than Zoom TV?

Come to think of it, the media seems to be playing the devil's advocate. Times of India promoted Aman Ki Asha, as if this was the only hope left for India and Pakistan. It ran ads and then a music concert to promote its idea of a peaceful neighborhood with Pakistan. While the intentions are right, I can't think of one reason why patriotism would be etched in the minds of those who come to music concerts. Yet again, a hypocritical approach to promote patriotism while on its own channel, accusations from and to India and Pakistan are made literally everyday. I wish there was an Aman Ki Asha mission for these debates.

All said and done, the true sense of spreading patriotism can only come from those who have represented the nation. It can certainly not be celebrities who only want to market their own brand and themselves. They can be enablers for the mission, but cannot be the mission itself. It is sportsmen, and most importantly the politicians and ministers themselves who should go around promoting patriotism. It is important for people to feel that they should be as patriotic as their leaders or sportsmen, not be dreaming about acting patriotism for a music video.

You may now ask if I liked the original Mile Sur Mera. Of course I did, because it was pure, original and very well done. The message and the music was short and crisp. There was no attempt to forcefully include all major Bollywood celebrities individually. Sickeningly, the new Mile Sur does just that, and is very much in the face. It is unfortunate that patriotism has gone into the hands of privately owned channels unlike the fading Doordarshan which created the Mile Sur magic. I wonder where is Shiv Sena to protest the skimpily clad Deepika Padukone in Phir Mile Sur now.

The original:

Book Review: Looking East To Look West - Lee Kuan Yew's Mission India

Linette Lim — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:46:38 EST

A recent book by veteran Indian journalist, Sunanda Datta-Ray, has sparked some controversy here.

In Looking East To Look West - Lee Kuan Yew's Mission India, Datta-Ray proposes that the Singapore's engagement with India is not a recent phenomenon. The Indian fever raging in Singapore has less to do with India's rise as a global power and more to do with India and Singapore's shared history. The India-Singapore love affair, according to Datta-Ray, has had its seeds sown since Lee was a law student at Cambridge. An admirer of Nehru, the young Lee was at that time, also spearheading a political movement to overthrow British rule. P N Balji, reviewing the book in the Singapore daily Today, called this angle 'audacious'.

An audacious angle is always good for getting people to think and discuss what they have never considered before. In this aspect, Datta-Ray has succeeded. But he goes beyond making bold and original claims simply for the sake of raising eyebrows. The book gives a first-hand view into India-Singapore relations, and is peppered with anecdotes from key diplomats. To Datta-Ray's credit, the book also discusses the pragmatism behind the India-Singapore relationship: Geo-politics. Singapore needed good relations with India to demonstrate that the city state with an ethnic Chinese majority, was not going to become a satellite of China.

Singapore is India's second largest investor in terms of Foreign Direct Investments, beating countries with far larger economies, like the United States and Japan. Not many people know this. And even fewer know that Singapore is a net recipient of migrant workers from South Asia. These workers with their blood and sweat, build the modern Singapore that we see today. India and Singapore's destinies have been intertwined since the conception of their national identities and one will not do without the other. Indeed, as Lee Kuan Yew said, Asia would be submerged if India did not emerge.

Haagen-Dazs, Mistaken Cause

mbjesq — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:59:56 EST

Photo credit: Times of India

As I have written in a different context, Indians have a strange love of parsing insults from the innocuous -- or as in this case, the poorly thought-through. Particularly when the phantom effrontery seems to come from foreigners.

The latest uproar involves a newly opened Haagen-Dazs ice cream store, which had the bad judgment to fly the banner depicted above to announce its store opening. It reads:

PARTIED AT THE FRENCH RIVIERA? WELCOME.
Haagen-Dazs

EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS

Access restricted only to holders of international passports.

The reaction began with a sketchily described post by Times of India writer and Chief Editor of Times Internet, Rajesh Kaira, on his TOI blog, Random Access. According to Mr. Kaira a pseudonymous "friend" of his was refused entry to this Haagen-Dazs store for failure to proffer an "international passport."

The story was repeated by the TOI as a regular news story. Both pieces carried the headline, "Sorry, Indians Not Allowed."

Since then, it has blanketed the blogs, generating breathless commentary. Feedback from readers has been overwhelmingly incensed and incendiary, even in response to the commendably even-handed post on Desicritics.

I don't get it. Sure, the banner was stupid beyond belief. But that's just it: who could read it and believe that it intended anything as sensible as an insult?

The promotion clearly meant to create cachet by equating the consumption of Haagen-Dazs with the romance and luxury of international travel. Was this ice cream seller determined to sell only to people who vacation in San Tropez? Of course not. To people who wish to sell us stuff, "exclusivity" means little more than "limited to anyone who will buy."

In Noida, that means Indians. It makes no sense to interpret "international" to mean "foreign" or "non-Indian". How many non-Indians are regularly hanging-out in the strip malls of the heinous suburban dystopia that is Noida? We can agree that the ham-handed promotion doesn't reflect a great deal of business sense in the first place, but was it really intended to exclude 100% of the store's potential customers?

True, the Times of India writer says his anonymous friend was excluded by the store manager (an Indian) for failure to present the so-called "international passport." Is this remotely credible? First, consider the source: TOI. Enough said. Second, doesn't this smack of, "I know a guy who knew a guy who..."? Third, what the hell is an "international passport"? The only thing I can think of is the United Nations Laissez-Passer, issued to employees of the UN and ILO.

The concluding line on the banner, "Access restricted only to holders of international passports" is, indeed, problematic. It is rather artless and seems takes the theme of "exclusivity" far too literally. But the clumsiness of the language also suggests that this was something generated locally and not by the marketing department of the American overlords. Leaving aside the inanity of the "international passport" requirement, what professional copy writer would follow the word "restricted" with the redundant word "only"? One in India, only.

Common sense suggests that (a) this was a dumb-ass promotional idea, (b) to foster the equally dumb-ass consumption of absurdly overpriced ice cream, (c) badly mishandled in the execution by some dumb-ass Indian ad agency, (d) on behalf of some dumb-ass decision-maker either at the franchisee or within the licensor's organization. The interesting issue is the last. Who was ultimately responsible for this idiocy? If there is insult to be found in this fiasco, was it a racist barb emanating from shameless foreigners?

I did a little investigation, calling first to Nestle, which owns the Haagen-Dazs brand, and then to the public relations office of General Mills, Inc., which owns the rights to all Haagen-Dazs franchise licensing outside of North America. The spokespeople at both companies stated that each store is an individual franchisee, with "independent responsibility and control of advertising and promotion." This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that General Mills didn't have a hand in the fiasco.

And which General Mills?

The next morning, I received an email from the director of Haagen-Dazs brand management at General Mills India Pvt. Ltd., Arindam Halder. Mr. Halder is the architect of brand management for Haagen-Dazs in India, and the man responsible for overseeing the opening of franchises like the one in Noida. His note offers some important details, which support my reading of the event as an ill-conceived marketing idea made even worse by incoherent manifestation:

There have been some reports on various online media alleging that the recently opened Häagen-Dazs shop in New Delhi, India, denied access to Indians. We vehemently and categorically deny this. Häagen-Dazs products and our Häagen-Dazs shop in India are and will always be for our consumers in India.
The recently opened Haagen-Dazs shop is open to one and all, and there’s no question of barring entry to anyone on any basis. The preview on Thursday, 10th December had a morning media event which was attended by journalists of repute from Indian media. The same evening we had a launch party for our friends and families, less than 5% of whom were foreigners. Also, during the mock training days at the shop leading up to 10th December, a lot of interest were generated and hundreds of walk ins were given samples of our ice cream. The store is now open to all public and seeing brisk business.

The poster in question was part of initial local store communication at a few locations within the same mall announcing the opening of the new Häagen-Dazs shop in the mall. The message was intended to suggest that you can enjoy, for instance, a taste of the French Riviera without traveling to France – by enjoying Häagen-Dazs. Unfortunately the reference to the international passport holder on the poster may have led to a significant miscommunication. This was completely unintended and we apologize for creating the misimpression that may have hurt our sentiments as Indians.

Regards,

Arindam Haldar
General Mills India

Clearly, there was no intent or attempt to exclude Indians; and we can all agree the brouhaha was the result of what Mr. Haldar euphemistically describes as a "significant miscommunication." But there are two very pregnant ambiguities in his statement. First, the "local store communication" language doesn't make clear who originated the promotional idea or created the banner, General Mills India (namely, him) or the franchisee. It simply says that the campaign was deployed locally, in the mall where the store was located. Second, the last line, in which Mr. Haldar says, on behalf of General Mills India, "[W]e apologize for creating the misimpression", suggests rather strongly that the banner came directly from General Mills India. It sounds very different than, say, "We regret that this misimpression occurred at a Haagen-Dazs franchise."

The concluding apology is also laugh-out-loud funny. So eager is Mr. Halder to self-identify as Indian, he essentially begs forgiveness for an Indian company having offended itself.

What conclusions can we draw from all this?

I think we can agree that there is no evil foreign hand in this story, no American or European racist out to mistreat Indians in their own country or determined to slight them. Indeed, Mr. Kaira of TOI got it exactly right (in his original essay, not the subsequent, abbreviated news item), even if he failed to look at the contribution of the licensor:

Whatever it is, it is idiotic. I checked later and found that the franchisee is an Indian company based in Delhi and the man incharge [sic] is also an Indian. I have often maintained that we ourselves are our biggest enemies. Our mentality is that of slaves and we think anything is good only if its approved by foreigners, or the “holders of international passport”. This is all about how India and Indians see themselves. Foreigners have nothing to do with it.

I don't necessarily fault the bloggers fanning the flames of this supposed outrage for failing to take the 15 minutes Mr. Kaira and I did to pick up the phone and get the facts. It is slightly disappointing, however, that the online commentators have almost uniformly ignored the obvious lack of malicious intent behind the fucked-up promotion. And there is yet deeper culpability in repeating only the tastiest, most shocking morsels of this story, in complete disregard of the basic fact that the errors in judgment were made not by foreigners, but by Indians -- even though this was reported and thoughtfully analyzed in Mr. Kaira's original story. This episode presents a cautionary study of how untrustworthy and manipulable online information can become as true journalism cedes way to what passes for "citizen journalism" in the blog world. It is always tempting to tell the story, not according to the facts, but according to the sermon one wishes to preach. The art is to tell a morally compelling story within the bounds of the evidence.

To her credit, and as we would expect, Deepti Lamba's Desicritics essay tells the full story -- as it was revealed in the original TOI piece -- and doesn't shy away from noting Indian responsibility for both the debacle itself and the underlying attitudes which engendered it. Yet, even Dee reaches the abrupt and slightly ambiguous conclusion that "racist brands" should be chased from India. Brands aren't ethical agents. People and corporations are. And those at the heart of this story were Indian. Perhaps Dee's intended plea is to abolish self-loathing; but somehow the anti-foreign implication creeps through.

There will be some, of course, bitterly disappointed that there is no longer a foreign scapegoat by whom to feel insulted; but they will have no difficulty transferring their ire to me for pointing this out. And it will feel just as good, since I am a foreigner.

If Indians want to salvage some national pride from the situation, they can always take encouragement from the fact this crazy promotion could happen in Mother India, but could never have occurred in the United States. After all, most Americans don't have a passport and have not heard of France.

Media - The Sure Race to Stupid

Ruchi — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:29:13 EST

Headley, Copenhagen, Liberhan, Telangana have dominated the news for days, weeks interspersed with some impassioned rhetoric on Naxalism, regionalism, and whatever trivial comments Rahul Gandhi makes at some university or about landing his chopper in poor visibility etc. Is it really possible that a country of India's size, diversity and development challenges, will have such paucity of newsworthy events/issues that we would need to devote primetime news to watching a tour of Headley's mom's bar in Philadelphia? No, of course not. Neither is the Indian viewer so obsessed with the above that any addition to the meager portfolio will irritate. The real reason is that focus on limited topics and their endless regurgitation is the lowest cost business model for all news media.

All news channels do the following: report event; interview main protagonists; discuss event to death with talking heads/public. Given that all news channels will report the same 4-5 events, the first step requires no intellect. The latter two require little money or preparation - generate programming on the fly with precious little waste in editing. News channels like to differentiate themselves on the last two, by calling it "analysis". And the public is so appallingly ill-informed, that we actually welcome the 101 fresher course with background information and basic interpretation to help talk pseudo-intelligently about reported events. For the idiot savant public, not only will they tell us the topics to think about, they will also tell us what to think about said topics.

Cue the shepherd; the sheep are ready.