Desicritics Category: Media: Magazines

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?

Glorifying the Hack Historian

Sandeep — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:24:17 EDT

A rather rather aptly-titled piece, Lunch with BS: Romila Thapar brings forth much joy, annoyance, and consternation in necessarily the same order. BS stands for Business Standard but from the tenor and content of the piece and the person it eulogizes, it richly deserves the other pejorative substitute: Bull Shit.

The article's structure is quite fascinating: an extended review of an exotic Japanese meal interspersed with liberal doses of undisguised fawning over Romila Thapar.

Romila Thapar was never really a historian. Post Eminent Historians, she became history. Romila Thapar is one of the reasons why ancient Sanskrit proverbs like Vruddha nari pativrata (An aged woman is always faithful to her husband) are still relevant. But the secular Indian media loves anybody who doesn't make it take foolish risks.

The piece begins with a mention of blogs critical of Thapar.

Entire blogs have been devoted to Romila Thapar describing her as, among other things, the High Priestess of Indian Marxism and flat-earth type and a deeply mendacious enemy of the Hindus.

Now, I've never taken any pride in my blog nor do I harbor fancies that I'm doing some noble service to a cause through my blog. But to my delight, I notice that this article mentions a label I applied to Romila Thapar five years ago: The High Priestess Speaks Again Either my blog is that popular (which I seriously doubt) or it is a tribute to the blog-unearthing skills of the Business Standard guys. Lest we be misled, the authors add a quick but mandatory clarification that most of these blogs are "of a saffron shade, about Thapar's "pinko" views on ancient Indian history.."

There! The saffron shade explains everything. It actually does more. It shows her in an almost angelic halo--the harsher the Saffron criticism, the greater she must be is the default conclusion.

Business Standard is fully within its rights to slobber over Romila's greatness as an alleged historian. Yet its readers deserve--at the least--a balanced picture of a historian. This isn't a gossip magazine where the only intent is to only elevate a person to Godhood. Unfortunately, History is a serious affair, and if Business Standard means business, it needs to stop reducing itself to the level of Filmfare or Stardust or Savvy . The authors seem to be on a warlike mission to highlight Romila's "achievements" like getting the Kluge chair, and simultaneously, take the shillalahs on her behalf by belittling "communal" historians. In this ludicrously vain attempt, the authors descend to ridiculous depths like calling the Kluge prize "...a sort of "Nobel" for disciplines such as history, philosophy, politics, anthropology, sociology, religion and so on." The Business Standard is not alone in this. Most Indian media houses seem to have assigned for themselves a God-given right to assume that their readers are ignoramuses by default. The onus is on Business Standard to show exactly one evidence that proves that the Kluge prize is a Nobel equivalent. Or perhaps it seems to suggest that it was transformed into a Nobel equivalent after Romila Thapar won the prize.

This piece carries sufficient evidence that Romila Thapar is only an alleged historian. A few examples are in order.

Her regret, she says, is that so much emphasis in modern times is put only on the Valmiki version both in India and outside, that we've forgotten the fact that there were and are multiple versions.What is interesting is not just that the Valmiki version travelled all over but how people varied the story to express their concerns in their own versions.

I've already spoken about the hollowness of the claims of "different versions" of the Ramayana. While it is commonsense that when a popular epic sweeps across geography and culture, the latter assimilates it and gives it its own form, shape, colour, and content. Because there are multiple versions doesn't mean that the original is no big deal. Would these versions exist without the foundation of Valmiki's original? But such is the insidious nature of Thapar's ilk, who want us to believe that the original itself is insignificant.

No Romila Thapar Encomnium is complete without her "expert" pontifications views on the Aryan Tourist Migration Theory. Once a fierce proponent of the Aryan "Invasion" Theory, her gigantic ego must've been irreparably ruptured after she found that it was counterproductive to stick to the AIT. Hence the Aryan "Migration" Theory. But it is also a testimonial to the ignorance of the journalists who wrote this piece de disgrace when they uncritically quote her

Thapar was among the first, for instance, to counter the conventional oriental despot view of Indian monarchy and demonstrate that the Aryan was a linguistic grouping, not a fair-skinned master race, that migrated to, and did not invade, north India and occasionally ate beef (this last point exercising Hindutva votaries the most).

Note again how the H word automatically proves Thapar's thesis? An eminent linguist, Sanskritist, and scholar par excellence, the late Sediapu Krishna Bhatta conclusively proves how even Thapar's wishful linguistic theory actually proves the opposite: i.e. there was no invasion or migration.

Then we arrive at Exhibit 3:

The problem began with the British periodising Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and British and maintaining that Hindus and Muslims were always antagonistic towards each other. This cannot be sustained historically.

This is another favourite Marxist construct, which conveniently blames the British for every real and imaginary communal conflict that existed historically. Also, she interestingly doesn't give us one evidence to show how "it cannot be sustained historically." If anything, the peaceful living conditions of Muslims under Hindu kings should be attributed to the tolerance of those Hindu rulers. On the opposite side of the scale, every Muslim king who conquered a Hindu kingdom first broke all its religious institutions, and symbols and enslaved its Hindu population. But we're talking to a person who advocates that Aurangzeb was the primogenitor of secularism. Here's the deal: I challenge Romila Thapar to prove using the rigors of the scientific method that there was at least one period in Indian history that witnessed the Hindu-Muslim bhai-bhai phenomenon.

Exhibit 4 is more fascinating and revealing:

Which raises the issue of her rebuttal of the Golden Age theory another point that rankled with historians of a religious nationalist persuasion. Golden ages all over world in various histories were a fashion among nineteenth-century historians. Most historians of present times have given up the idea. Nationalist thinking didn't pay enough attention to the implications of the description nor was any attempt made to define it in detail. They just went on saying it was a marvellous age of harmony and prosperity. It's like today when one hears talk about India Shining; few analyze what it means and what the implications are for the Indian citizen.

Another tired tactic to dismiss genuine achievements of Hindu history. But this tactic serves an agenda. Look at what we lose when you dismiss the Golden Ages.

* The Mauryas, a period close to 150 years of unparalled achievement
* The Guptas, a period of roughly 300 years, perhaps the greatest empire under whom most of India rose to stupendous heights in all fields of human endeavour
* The Chalukyas, again, about 200 years of accomplishment in art, music, poetry, philosophy, commerce and military
* The Rashtrakutas--ditto as Chalukyas
* The Cholas and Pandyas, between them more than a thousand years of development, prosperity, art, temple constructions, commerce, and high culture
* The Vijayanagar Empire--perhaps the real reason for Romila Thapar's angst against the "golden age" theory as she calls it. I leave it to your knowledge of the Vijayanagar Empire's achievements.

And so, in a line, you are asked to discard all of this because most historians have given up this theory. Yet, she doesn't name even one such historian. I suppose we should believe it because she says so. So what does that leave Indian history with? No prizes for guessing the correct answer. But the real clue lies in these words: "religious nationalist historian (sic)." This choice of words automatically implies that the non-religious non-nationalist historian is the only "true" historian. In other words, the only historians are the Eminent Historians with Romila Thapar as the head honcho. But she's too modest to say it in so many words. So, let's see what a commonsense definition of a historian is. JK nails it in one of his best posts till date:

Any historian who identifies himself with a label - Orientalist, Marxist or Nationalist - has already pigeon-holed himself. They are bound by dogma and cannot accept any evidence which goes contrary to their predefined concepts. At that point they cease to be historians and become politicians. Historians like Upinder Singh now perpetuate such labels, implying that a historian has to belong to one such fraternity... We cannot live without historians and our choice is not between Orientalists, Marxists or Nationalists, but between good historians and bad ones.

Memorize these lines. It is evident which light this shows her in. The problem is Romila Thapar's bullet today has to take a circuitous route to hit the target. She can no longer openly call herself a Marxist historian because Marx's theory of "history" has so miserably failed his followers. She can no longer repeat the lies about Babri Masjid and Muslim atrocities and historical evidences. That leaves her only with impotent invectives against a faceless beast called Hindutva, which she hasn't managed to clearly define. But she is a past master of labelling and that's what she does here.

Since she's a controversial historian in a country that is witnessing a resurgence of muscular patriotism we feel compelled to ask her views on India as a future superpower and the rise of Hindutva. On the first, she says, I think we've got a long way to go. But more to the point, America has behaved so outrageously in matters concerning the rest of the world that if this is written into being a superpower, one would not wish it for India.

And yet, she had no qualms accepting the Kluge prize and serving on its chair. Nice. And therein lies a hint at the real problem as we shall see.

It is now time to remind Business Standard that it does its readers tremendous disservice by choosing selective facts about Romila Thapar and omitting the mountain of evidence that shows her in less than flattering light. By dismissing genuine criticism against this alleged historian as the rants of "saffron" bloggers, Business Standard actually insults the efforts of the really eminent men like Arun Shourie, Sita Ram Goel, and Koenraad Elst. Arun Shourie stands tall in this list because his book more than anything else, exposed the Marxist misdeeds in the ICHR. Does Business Standard have a factually convincing response to Arun Shourie's expose before pretending that Thapar is all milk and honey?

This prima donna of Marxist history-writing now speaks about her own victimhood at the hands of the dreaded Hindutva votaries. Yet, in her heydays, she and her clique routinely spat fire at everybody who had a different--not just opposing--view. Monomaniacal, Communal, Nazi, Neo-colonialist, Laughable, Garbage, Bullheaded, Brawler, are but some of the fine terms her gang applied to those to "dared" to differ.

That this proud, card-carrying Marxist expounded her rehashed trash over a Rs.3400 meal shows what she really is: neither a historian nor a Marxist but a self-serving fraud academic who made it big by latching on to the political fashion current in her youth.

It's time Business Standard renamed itself.

Was Vanity Fair To Freida Pinto?

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:52:14 EST

Let me just start by saying how very pissed I am that Freida Pinto looks like a fifties pin-up model on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Let me correct that. A white, fifties pin-up model.

No matter what one thinks of Slumdog Millionaire, we can all agree on one thing: little La Pinto is a darling. She has beautiful kohl-lined brown eyes and a slender figure. And have you seen the legs on that woman? Now when the ample award nominations have inspired movie theaters to start showing the film again, fresh trailers appear with Rahman's upbeat score, the screen lit up with her smile. At the Golden Globes she wore a golden gown. How cute is that? At the Baftas she dazzled even more and the list of best-dressed included her name.

I waited through a string of commercials just because Access Hollywood mentioned Freida Pinto before they cut to the advertisements. They called her "the new star" and even discussed her couture for a total of 7 seconds (yeah, I was counting). Indians might find Freida Pinto a little skinny for their taste. I can already see the South-Indian film industry demanding that she wear a push-up bra before she ever decides to act again. But America seems reluctantly smitten with this debutante. I admit, it makes me happy to see a familiar brown face on the mostly color-blind American television. The only brown I get to feast my eyes on is Fareed Zakaria's and Asif Mandvi's. Anoop Desai was voted off Idol this season and so I am back to taking naps in place of evening television on the respective days.

The last time I saw desis on Access Hollywood was when during an interview with George Clooney, the "Water" team consisting of a saree clad Deepa Mehta walked the red carpet unnoticed a safe distance away from the camera's focus. I was momentarily excited by the sight of a saree on American television. This why Freida Pinto's 7-second appearance on AH made me a happy in an odd sort of way.

So now you can understand why I was miffed when I heard online rumors that Vanity Fair might have whitened La Pinto when putting her on their cover. I took a look at the said picture and whoah! She is as pale as Conan O'Brien. Her magnificent cheekbones have been flattened and the brown in her eyes no longer visible. She is wearing a red, bra-like top and what looks dangerously like a yellow slimming underwear. Her legs still look gorgeous but the glow that was so apparent on her brown face has been replaced by a white-out effect. So lets review what this means for those of us who felt a certain childish pride in watching an Indian person's face flash on American TVs. Her name is not suggestive of her heritage and now that she appears almost white, there is practically no way to tell if Pinto is from India or Sweden. I suddenly realized that the prophecy of this happening was clearly etched out in the name of the magazine itself. With a name like Vanity Fair, what were we expecting, inner beauty with brown skin? That would be such an oxymoron.

Through Access Hollywood, Vanity Fair clarified that the "whitening out" rumors were absolutely untrue and it was just "lighting". Well, in that case other magazines should take swift notes. Apparently, there is a quick tip Vanity Fair has to offer that may save them several touch-ups. You don't need to Photoshop or air-brush pictures to make dark people more appealing in America. You can just take care of it with a little bit of lighting.

Barkha Dutt And NDTV, The Joke Is On You!

Sandeep — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:54:51 EST

So Chyetanya Kunte is the latest victim of media intimidation. I'm not going to rehash the same excellent points made by other bloggers. Here's a partial list:

NDTV's Assault on Free Speech (the best)

When 'free speech' bears a price tag

Shame on NDTV and Barkha Dutt

A bedtime story about blog freedom

Throw the Constitution Away

The Indian media--specifically, television ranks at the top for its King-sized conceit. It bulldozes its way into people's tragedies and increasingly, sees itself as the final arbiter of national justice. Its anchors assault the ears 24/7 with nothing but meaningless shrillery under the illusion that loudness=news. Its talk shows are crude exercises in self-aggrandizement. However, all these traits don't even measure up to even a knee-length of Barkha Dutt epitomizes. There's no better proof for this than the fact that a Facebook Group (Can u please take BARKHA off air!) is dedicated to her. It is by far one of the most popular groups there with over 4500 members and about 900 posts in just over a month!

Barkha Dutt owes her heady taste of fame to her "reporting" during the Kargil war. Ignoring the controversy surrounding her actual role in the reporting, she was made out to be a bigger hero than the valiant soldiers that fought in the war. I recall reading some review that Preity Zinta's unconvincing histrionics in Lakshya was modelled after Barkha. However, for Barkha, there was no looking back after Kargil. Today she stands almost unchallenged in both fame and skill at compensating incompetence with loudmouthedness. She spins self-righteous yarns about free speech and media-professional hazards when her nonchalant reporting style is criticized. You tend to normally ignore such yarn because she has to defend her actions, etc. But then, you should sit up and give it back when she goes beyond that. In a shocking display of arrogance and strong-arm tactics, she has threatened legal action against blogger Chyetanya Kunte for voicing his opinion about her "shoddy journalism" which is what her antics on 26/11 were. Chyetanya was forced to take down his post thanks to NDTV's threat.

Neither is this the first instance. Remember Mediaah, which was shut down thanks to a similar legal threat by TOI (aside: read an excellent piece on the whole episode). Or the infamous IIPM online hooliganism that threatened to choke Rashmi Bansal's (also Gaurav Sabnis') right to freedom of speech? Despite all this, the Indian media just doesn't get it. Here's the thing beautifully articulated:

The success of [The Times'] case depends wholly on the hope that Maheshwari will not fight back against a gargantuan media conglomerate," said Rohit Gupta, a freelance writer and engineer in Mumbai. "That's where the Times of India reveals its ignorance of changing times and the nature of the blogosphere. Maheshwari does not need to fight this himself -- this concerns the freedom of all bloggers from Indian origin, so we will fight the battle for him."[...] "The Times of India has simply shown how far they've come from being a respectable newspaper to being a common school bully. If bloggers can collaborate to provide humanitarian assistance for the greatest natural disaster the living world has seen, they can certainly tackle the Times of India, a man-made ethical disaster.

Which takes us back to the same question: why do they hate us so much? From India Today to TOI to Outlook and now NDTV, the media has on numerous occasions ranted against bloggers with undisguised contempt, which stems from their appalling ignorance of what blogging is all about. Their typical terms for bloggers: brash, 20-something, angry, furious, seething, venting, cyber-Cinderellas, pretentious, and the like. Is this because they feel somehow threatened? Or is it because some bloggers write far better prose, articulate opinions way better than many so-called mainstream observers and columnists? Or is it because bloggers are unconstrained by word-limit, editorial stance, or business interests? For all their ire against bloggers, the media doesn't hesitate to steal content from bloggers. Here's a lovely post that chronicles this plagiarism (scroll down till you reach this: Indian Media Plagiarizing from Bloggers [or, bloggers highlighting cases of MSM misdeeds]). TOI leads the pack in this plagiarism, the selfsame TOI that sent the self-righteous legal notice to Mediaah didn't seem to examine the crap in its own backyard. There's yet another angle to this. In the breath that they rant against bloggers, most of these media houses have their own blogs, or have set up a blog service on their sites--TOI, IBN, Indian Express, and the now-defunct blog service from NDTV. The main reason I think, for the Indian media's angst against the blogsphere is the fact that till blogging caught popular imagination, media houses were used to their monopoly over news and opinion--they were virtually unchallenged--any "letters to the editor" that didn't toe their byline were simply not published. Now that bloggers on a colossal scale have begun to call their bluff, their fragile sensibilities have taken a severe blow. While they strut around invading people's privacy, and making grand pronouncements at random on everybody, they need to understand that freedom of speech is not their exclusive privilege. People will exercise the same right upon them. Patrix puts it beautifully:

When the reporter becomes the reported, it is usually time to take a closer look at your life and wonder what happened.

However, if bloggers can sit alone at their keyboards, type out their honest opinions, and network with each other on noble causes, they can also fight back against such strong-arm tactics. In this, they're far more courageous than the media, which infamously crawled when asked to bend. I'm sorry, but Barkha Dutt and her NDTV team cannot gag my right to free speech on the pretext of protecting her right to free speech. If I don't like a newspaper, I won't buy it and I'll say why I don't like it. The newspaper cannot sue me for that. While we're on the subject, since NDTV is listed on the Stock Exchange, how about selling its shares if you have bought any?

What's next, Barkha Dutt and NDTV, are you going to sue the entire Indian blogsphere, and Facebook?

Technorati Tags: Barkha Dutt's Strong arm Tactics,NDTV's Strong arm Tactics,Bad PR for NDTV,NDTV Threatens Blogger,Chyetanya Kunte is Threatened,NDTV tries to Gag Freedom of Speech,Media Watch,Indian Media,Media Tomfoolery

Kindling The E-Book Revolution

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:53:07 EDT

In the dim and distant past, I have used the Palm Pilot as well as the Sony Clie before as my e-book reader but after having moved to a Blackberry which did my PDA bits, I never could get back to getting an e-book reader. In an ideal situation, if the Blackberry can give me Windows functionality, a very good camera (5-6 MP) and some kind of e-book reader capability, I would be happy. Just one device to carry around, but in the meantime, I either had to read on my laptop or on my home pc.

But recently, on holiday in the USA, I was gifted an Amazon Kindle by my brother-in-law and his sister. This is one of the best gifts one could have hoped for and I immediately started drooling over it.

The Kindle comes in an attractive box, it looks like a book itself. Nice packaging. Something that you can easily plonk into your bookshelf without any issues, looks pretty neat, those letters and symbols floating around?

The package is clipped closed with a rubber band and opening it shows you the kindle on the right and a storage compartment on the left which contains the leather case, the charger, USB cord and the manual.

Took it out, charged it up (see the white charger? shades of Apple?). This was in the USA and I have an amazon.com account. So when I powered it up, it asked me for my amazon.com account, put that in and viola, I was up and running.

Can you see the little round button on the right hand side? looks like a wheel? It is a wheel and click mouse. The lone channel on top of the wheel with a small silver pointer running up and down is the main guidance mechanism. Pressing it brings up a context sensitive menu, you can go to the Kindle Store (I am in the UK, so the wireless network doesnt work, but in the UK, you can subscribe to newspapers, blogs, magazines and the lot, brilliant stuff).

It seamlessly connected to the Amazon.com website via the wireless cellular link, showed me my purchases and recommendations, and so on and so forth.

I did a download for my son and it was again seamless, a chapter came down, he read it and it was quite easy.

As I would be in the UK, I would not be able to connect wirelessly, so have to do the USB business. So I connected to Many Books, a site with free books in kindle and mobipocket format books and downloaded the top 10.

Here's the Count of Monte Cristo e-book. Pretty crisp to read. There are 2 buttons on the right, for next page and back. On the left, there are 2 buttons, back page and next page.

You can change the text size, this is the default big ass size, which I reduced as soon as I could. The battery life is amazing. I have been carrying it around for the past week in India without charging and have read it for about 15 hours now, and the charge meter has rarely shifted. Oh! yes, I did have a problem with it, it froze at one point. But being a good old windows user for a long period of time, simply opened the kindle's back flap, got out my trusted paper clip and gave the reset button a damn good shove. Obviously nothing happened. Still frozen. So swore at it, banged it on the desk, prayed to Ganesh, poked the reset button for 5 seconds and it worked.

I have downloaded the mobipocket creater to convert my e-library to the mobipocket format. The Kindle comes with 200MB of built in memory which is good enough for about 100-150 books, I guess. I have a few CDs full of scanned and downloaded and free and gifted and every weekend, there is a pleasurable time reading and converting those books. There is also a slot for an SD card, where you can store music and additional books if you need, although I dont see the need for it. I use my mobile phone to listen to music.

All in all, a very neat device, very hardworking and rugged (have dropped it, travelled with it jammed in my backpack for 1 week, swore at it, read it in the bog and in the dusty environs of Gurgaon, no problems) and is quite well readable in all angles and lighting.

And yes, you can read this in the bath, you have to be careful, of course, dont drop the thing into the bath, but then, you would not do that to a paper book either, would you? Some drops of water did splash on it, but a simple wipe took care of that. Only quibble? It just doesn't smell the same, but you can annotate and clip away to glory..

Oh!, the screen saver is just brilliant, the images that it throws up are very amazing, old authors, old wood cut impressions of printing presses, exotic and strange word definitions, very good. Good first impression. Anybody who is a logophile and/or a bibliophile would love this.

Technorati Tags: Bibliophilia, Logophilia, Kindle, Reviews

A Weekend With Madhu Kishwar

Siddhartha Shome — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:18:28 EDT

Madhu Kishwar, founder of Manushi, an eminent Indian social activist, and a truly extraordinary person was in the San Francisco Bay Area a few days ago. I had the opportunity to attend a talk that she gave at Stanford, and also have more informal discussions with her over a lunch and a dinner. It was a wonderful experience.

I have long been an admirer of Ms. Kishwar’s work and I’ve been reading her essays for many years. Now that I have met her in person, I can say that she is also a very warm and friendly human being.

I first came to know of Ms. Kishwar when, some ten years or so ago, I read some of her writing on Indian women’s issues. I found her observations deeply insightful, nuanced and profound. As far as I am concerned, Ms. Kishwar’s series of essays (here’s one) on dowry and related issues is some of the best writing I have ever come across on Indian women’s issues. Here is a quote from her.

It has become politically fashionable to attribute all forms of violence and discrimination against women, including female infanticide and female foeticide to the economic burden of dowry that a daughter is said to represent.

Dowry requirements are used as another excuse for considering daughters a burden. The anti-dowry movement, by limiting itself to the constant repetition of ‘dowry abolition’ as a panacea for women’s empowerment and as the primary strategy for ending their oppression, has only helped give further legitimacy to the conventional belief that daughters are an economic liability.

We need to combat the culture of disinheritance if we wish to effectively combat the growing hold of dowry culture.

Though, in my opinion, some of Ms. Kishwar’s best work has been on women’s issues, she has also worked on and written about a myriad other social issues - on communal violence, Kashmir, governance, globalization, farm policy, stifling laws and regulations, and so on. On most of these issues I have found her views to be sensible, and in many cases, very close to my own point of view (rather, I found that my own views were close to hers).

I fondly recall an incident from a couple of years ago. I had written an article severely critical of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (the NBA, the movement opposed to building a dam across the Narmada River). My article was drawing quite a lot of flak from various NBA supporters. As luck would have it, just around that time, Ms. Kishwar came out with her own article criticizing the NBA, which largely validated my own stance.

This is not to say that I agree with Ms. Kishwar on everything. Ms. Kishwar is an unabashed admirer of Mahatma Gandhi. I don’t quite agree with her on this. I greatly admire Gandhi’s non-violence, his humanity, his leadership of the Indian independence movement, and the dignity and self-respect he engendered among so many Indians. However, I have serious reservations about Gandhi’s rejection of modernity and his denunciation of the scientific-technological world-view (for my views on Gandhi, see this).

Ms. Kishwar also appears to hold the view that pre-modern pre-British India was a land of milk-and-honey, a land of all-round prosperity and contentment, conceptually very similar to Gandhi’s views expressed in Hind Swaraj. I disagree. I see the pre-modern pre-British India as a civilization in precipitous decline, one that had lost its vitality and capacity for internal renewal. I agree with author V.S. Naipaul, who says, “the Indian system [in 1857] ... has come to the end of its possibilities, ... that the India that will come into being at the end of the period of British rule will be better educated, more creative and full of possibility than the India of a century before”.

On the whole, it appears that while I have some disagreements with Ms. Kishwar on how we interpret the past, I agree with her on almost everything she has to say about the present.

In recent years Ms. Kishwar has been working with people who make a living in the informal sector in Delhi, people such as cycle-rickshaw pullers, hawkers, vendors, etc. The talk she gave in Stanford was on this topic.

Consider the case of cycle-rickshaws in Delhi. The law holds that no person shall be allowed to ply a cyle-rickshaw unless he himself is the licensed owner of the rickshaw, and also stipulates that no person shall be granted more than one such license. However, most rickshaw-pullers in Delhi are newly arrived migrants from villages, who have neither the money, nor the desire to buy a rickshaw outright. Most rickshaw owners are themselves enterprising ex-rickshaw-pullers who, through dint of hard work over the years, have come to own a fleet of rickshaws. As a result, almost all the rickshaws on Delhi’s streets are “illegal”. So rickshaw pullers and owners, who are after all providing a legitimate service for which there is a legitimate demand, are forced to pay all kinds of bribes to various officials, just in order to carry on with their livelihoods.

Ms. Kishwar asks a question: suppose similarly restrictive laws were applicable to say cars or aircraft? Suppose, the law stipulated that a person can drive a car or pilot an aircraft only if he owns the vehicle, would it make sense? Why should cycle-rickshaws be treated so differently? We all applaud the business success of, say, Jet Airways when they grow their fleet and expand their network. A migrant from a village who comes pennyless to Delhi, becomes a rickshaw puller, and then grows his business to a fleet of rickshaws, is no less entrepreneurial than the executives at Jet Airways. But far from receiving accolades for building a successful business and creating job opportunities, this entrepreneur is hounded by the police and city administrators and is forced to shoulder the huge cost of arbitrary bribes.

Similarly irrational and restrictive laws apply to most other businesses in the informal economy. In recent years, Ms. Kishwar and Manushi have been involved in pilot project in a hawker market in Delhi (read Ms. Kishwar’s article about it here). This project aims to demonstrate what can be achieved by legalizing the status of street vendors.

On one hand this effort has been has been an enormous success. The hawkers have been very cooperative and, together with Manushi, they have indeed converted the area into a clean, attractive, and well-functioning marketplace. On the other hand, this very success has caused problems. Legalization has meant that corrupt officials and the local mafia have not been able to extort money; and the transformation of a slum-like area to a well-developed market has meant that market value of each stall has gone up tremendously, making the stalls targets of the mafia. The hawkers and Manushi activists have been subjected to continuous harassment and threats of violence. Eventually, after a series of life-threatening attacks on Manushi activists and Ms. Kishwar herself, she is now forced to live with round-the-clock police security.

Ms Kishwar’s work with rickshaw-pullers, hawkers, etc., is driven by the foundational belief that poverty is an unnatural condition for human beings, and given half a chance, the poor will be able to overcome poverty themselves through their own enterprise and hard work. In other words, Ms. Kishwar believes that the key to fighting poverty lies in unleashing the talents and energies of the poor that have been kept suppressed by a web of stifling laws and regulations.

It was rather inspiring to hear Ms. Kishwar declare that there is an entrepreneur in every human being - all that is needed is a chance to succeed. Asked what she thoughts would happen to hawkers and street vendors in India if multinationals like Wal-Mart enter the scene, Ms. Kishwar replied that she was not worried. She is of the opinion that as long as there is a level playing field (i.e., if hawkers/vendors don’t have pay a huge overhead in the form of bribes, etc.) they will be able to compete effectively with Wal-Mart, or will at least find niches where they will be able to thrive.

Ms. Kishwar is a strong proponent of economic liberalization for the poor. She points out that liberalization of the Indian economy has given a massive boost to the corporate sector and many Indian companies have now become globally competitive. She points out, however, that liberalization has never reached the poor. In the informal sector, which employs the vast majority of the Indian population, the License Raj still rules, accompanied by rampant corruption. This stifles initiative and enterprise, and perpetuates poverty.

One particularly fascinating aspect that I have noticed in Ms. Kishwar’s positions on various issues is her propensity to take a nuanced and independent stand, taking practical matters into account, rather than a stark black-or-white stand. This is a quality that is unfortunately uncommon in today’s world.

Consider, for example, the issue of multinationals coming to India. There is a strong pro-multinational business lobby that says that multinationals are the best thing that ever happened. At the other extreme there are strongly anti-multinational groups, such as the World Social Forum, who say that multinationals and corporates are the source of all the world’s evil. Ms. Kishwar takes the nuanced view that multinationals are not the solution to all our problems, nor the source of all evil; but economic liberalization, which allows multinationals to operate, is good for all, and should be extended to the poor.

So independent is Ms. Kishwar in her thinking that she states that she refuses to subscribe to any ‘isms’; so much so that she is well known for her essay “why I do not call myself a feminist”. Unfortunately, in today’s world of 20-second TV soundbites, thoughtful and nuanced voices such as Ms. Kishwar’s tend to be crowded out by extreme black-or-white views on most issues.

An Appeal

After being in publication for many years, and after having carved out a special niche for itself, Manushi has now ceased publication because of lack of funds. Plans are afoot to restart publication of Manushi. I, as well as some others, who met Ms. Kishwar during her stay in the U.S. have offered to help out. If you can help Manushi - either financially or otherwise - please do so.

Media Review: Damazine - A Literary Journal From Damascus, Syria

temporal — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:17:26 EST

I came across a new literary journal in English, Damazine, that has just come out of Damascus, Syria. Its aim is to "become the treasure house for quality literature related to the Muslim world."

The Editor-in-Chief for this quarterly is Ms. Serene Taleb-Agha, 34, engineer, fiction writer, mother of three who spent the first 30 years in the U.S. and the last 4 years in Damascus, Syria.

I have seen a few journals and magazines appear with a burst of enthusiasm, survive on momentum and then fizzle out. Anyone remembers Moonsoon? I hope Damazine proves to be an exception. When I questioned her over why a new journal she said:

I started the journal because I didn’t feel there were enough publishing venues for Muslims writing literature, and the few that exist tend to encourage overly didactic writing focused on Islamic beliefs and worship. I believe Muslims have something unique to say about everything under the sun, and we need a place to say it.

Will this be open only to Muslims?

Damazine does publish non-Muslim authors too if the works are relevant to the Muslim world. First, I don’t make it a practice to ask my contributors their religion, and second, sympathetic non-Muslims often have their own valuable ways of describing our world.

In the Winter 2008 Issue there are three stories, an essay and five poems. Contributors came in from the U.K., the U.S., India, Malaysia and Pakistan. I would refrain from commenting on content, quality and direction in detail until we see at least three or four issues.

For those interested in contributing to this journal, you can find further information here

The Marathi Manoos versus the Thackeray Brand

Aditi Nadkarni — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:22:53 EST

On reading Anuradha Goyal's recent article on Desicritics titled Dear Marathi Manoos Thackerays I thought it might be timely to dissociate the identity of the long suffering "Marathi Manoos" from the Thackerays.

Of all the available discussions in the blogosphere, the one I found most interesting about the current Thackeray circus in media was a report by CNN-IBN where Raj Thackeray's mother-in-law claims support for Raj's crusade in the same breath as voicing her concern for Raj Thackeray's son's impending SSC exams. It is ironic that while Raj Thackeray seems to be rallying for the "Marathi Manoos", the "Marathi Manoos" is probably at home doing what Raj Thackeray should be: supporting his son during the notoriously hectic SSCs.

Barring one reported death in Maharashtra and a few customary automobile-burning incidents, the actual city of Mumbai where all Shiv Sena associated drama usually unfolds, was uncharacteristically calm. I am both proud and impressed. The unemployed youth who usually carried out the Sena's antics seem to be more suitably employed at the city's call centers or at swanky malls in upper class neighbourhoods. The country as a whole is moving forward and as part of the nation's commercial capital, these young people probably do not want to be left behind executing the schemes of jingoists who just happen to have political power.

While one Thackeray is engaging in a ridiculous anti-North Indian rhetoric, the other, very senior Thackeray in a laughable attempt at re-terrorizing the city, is now kicking a fit over Valentines' day celebrations. People will exchange Hallmark and Archie's cards, a few may throw a party to rejuvenate schedules lost in the city's bustle and who knows some lovestruck souls may even buy one of those red heart shaped balloons sold at traffic lights. And this, says Mr.Thackeray, will affect our Hindu culture. If we are to believe Mr. Thackeray, our ancient civilization is under serious threat from none other than St. Valentine. Now if only his idea of protest was to not buy the heart shaped balloon, we could have all heaved a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, what Mr.Thackeray does not realize is that the violent rampages he sends his lads out on every once a while are probably more of a threat to the Hindu preachings of non-violence than heart shaped balloons and Hallmark cards will ever be.

It is time to notice however that in recent years the sometimes anti-Muslim, sometimes anti-non-Maharashtrian rhetoric propagated by the Sena is starting to fall on deaf ears and evoking a lukewarm response from a city that now wants to move ahead. People who had once supported the Sena's "Marathi Manoos Jaaga Ho" ("Wake Up Marathi Man") rallies now have sheepishly realized that the Sena has no idea who the Marathi Man really is. Very simply, there is a divide of class and caste under the supposed "Marathi Manus" label itself. Raj Thackeray had once brought with his dynamic youth following, hopes of a new, evolved political party in Maharashtra and instead he too has jumped on the extremist bandwagon. He doesn't realize that the "Marathi Manoos" himself no longer has a singular identity separate from that of his beloved city. This real "Marathi Manoos" does not want skirmishes over Valentine's day and Chath Pooja by North Indians. Like any other conscientious, law abiding Indian, he too wants a decent education for his children and a steady occupation to fund his retirement. In fact, the violence that Thackerays' irresponsible words unleash into the city, robs this weary Marathi Manoos of his peace and does nothing for him or for any other of the city's residents.

The truth is that while the Shiv Sena is trying to rouse the Marathis, the actual Marathi Manoos (Marathi Man) lost sleep a while ago. He first woke up to the Sena's absurd and obsessive attempts at changing the names of roads, suburbs and airports to their original, pre-British, Marathi titles. In his alert wakefulness he also noticed that the Sena somehow forgot to change the very anglicized, "Thackeray" to "Thakray". Since then, the "Marathi Manoos" with the rest of Mumbai residents has been sitting wide-awake, at the edge of his seat, on tenterhooks watching in dismay the Sena's regressive demonstrations, hearing with disbelief Balasaheb's loud claims of idolizing Hitler and suffering in silence the damning economic consequences of senseless city bandhs and violent morchas. These very Thackerays who attack harmless Valentine's Day parties to oppose "Western" influences had once organized a Michael Jackson concert in Bombay that halted traffic and city functioning for days! Apparently Jacko's thrusting pelvis apparently wasn't as threatening to "Hinduism" as heart shaped balloons and Valentine's Day parties.

I would like to add that the real power in Mumbai has and always will rest with the city's youth. Whenever the students have come out and made their voices heard, the law enforcement and the city officials have found it necessary to take a stand. If the Mumbaikers/Bombayites do not want the embarassment of having their city's name be associated with a regressive, fascist school of thought in the 21st century then it is time for the college crowd to do more than just gather around and pass time at local Cafe Coffee Days. If anything, the Marathi Manoos should now stand up only to resist the Sena's claims of being his self-proclaimed representative.

For years, we, the residents of Mumbai have lived like a family with people from all over the nation. The cultural aptitude and tolerance bestowed by the rich experience of having lived in this indiscriminate potpourri come handy today for my life as an immigrant in a foreign country. So to me, when the Thackerays question this indomitable spirit of the city, it only goes to show that their world is really very small - as is the extent of their power.

What Differentiates Journalists and Bloggers - Money?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:59:38 EST

A pressing issue seems to be agitating many people who are in the publishing business. There seem to be two camps, the first camp is the journalist camp and the second seems to be the bloggers. And boyo, do these two camps fight or do they? They fight over who is right and who is wrong, who is going to survive and who is going to die. But for what its worth, here is my take on this rather interesting debate.

Let us define some terms which will be used in this essay. There is little agreement about even these common words. A journalist can be a reporter who writes for a journal but also a person who keeps a journal or a diary, which may or may not be published. A blogger is a person who blogs (writes) about his thoughts on various topics in an online medium. A reporter is usually employed by a media house to report on daily or periodic going ons in the world. This reporting can be online, radio, TV, magazine, newspaper, etc. The reporter is also required or may create a blog or further discuss his/her story online.

Confused? Let me carry on, What about an essayist? Somebody who writes an essay which is usually longer than 800 words (the sort of word count which generally is more than a news story but is less than an essay which can be anything more than 1.500 words or upwards). How about a pamphleteer? It is a word which is not usually used that much these days, but it is also a type of writing on a particular topic. How about a columnist? A columnist is a person who usually has a brand name, writes on some particular topic on a regular basis in a newspaper, magazine, online and/or in print.

What about an author who can write fiction as well as non-fiction? So what’s the boundary between fiction and non-fiction? Very confused boundary indeed. Say a reporter is trying to explain the settings of a particular event such as the state of the nation address by the US President, George Bush. And he talks about “the swirling wintry blowing snow” which he uses as a metaphor to describe the challenges facing the US president. Now what is fiction and what isn’t? I strongly recommend this book which talks about the difficulties that a poet faces in a newspaper. ( W. Dale Nelson. Gin before Breakfast: The Dilemma of the Poet in the Newsroom. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2007).

Do you see where I am going with this as to how difficult it is to categorize people? How about commentators? People who comment on particular aspects? Say a cricket match? Or the results from a conference? Or following a political campaign? Now the only difference I can see is that the person could be commenting online, on radio, on TV, in a newspaper, in a newspaper online, real-time. Now I have thoroughly managed to confuse myself. The only common thing that I can see in all these definitions is that they write for some medium with some expectation of being read. So no, I am not clear about the definitions at all.

Let me expose my personal biases. For what it's worth, I have been on both sides of the fence, and still am. A purist would say that I am not, I am still writing op-eds, so that's not pure journalism, but then which reporter does not write facts with a bias or which columnist does not opine with some facts? Then there is the other debate around reporters and historians and I straddle that fence as well. Goodness, all that straddling fences and my backside is becoming numb. Blogging is something that I have recently picked up and it is an interesting experiment that I have been engaging in, but more about that later on. I also write essays, magazine articles, academic papers, commercial papers and have reported sometimes on certain events. Oh! I am also planning on writing some books. So I am afraid the fence is now dangerously looking like a bed of nails, well, with my heritage, I should be perfectly comfortable, no?

While debating this topic with a journalist friend, the discussion suddenly heated up, and she said that journalism requires passion and that I do not have this passion and more importantly I would not understand this passion. This puzzled me, what exactly is this passion and why is this passion different? And why on earth can I not understand or appreciate it? I write about terrorism, history, military science, politics, children, humour, media, business, technology, etc. etc. Now I don't have a passion for dung beetles, so I do not write about them. I also have a very small readership and I do not charge them to read me, but I am very grateful to them for devoting time to read my twitterings!

Is this passion a desire to report facts? Then I have that. Is this passion to communicate? I would be a poor teacher and writer if I did not have the desire to communicate. Is this a passion to search for facts? Well, I think I do like to check and read up on facts. Me and my sister spend hours debating and delving into the strangest things which nobody else seems to understand or care for. Now besides making us strange, it also makes us passionate. Or is this passion solely restricted to people who work as newspaper reporters? Do TV people not have this passion? How about radio people? How about people who write for charities? Or how about special investigators who investigate war crimes or development agencies who help in the development of famine stricken or medical problem infested areas? Or does this relate to the use of printers' ink, but surely the use of printers ink is sort of outdated anyway. Sniffing glue I have heard, but sniffing printers ink? How about Rudyard Kipling who is famous for his books and stories, but was also a great journalist of his time?

So you might well ask, what DO I think about the future of the media? Well, I have written about this before. Also, here's a classic debate about bloggers and journalists. At a recent Business Week Conference , I heard one of their senior editors say that the line is blurring between the journalists and bloggers. Previously, a story would be filed and they would forget about it. But now, they are expected to defend their stories online in a rollicking debate. So where does one draw the line? And if I am submitting my blog entries to a site like DesiCritics which has an editorial process, is that site a news-site or a bloggers site or what? Life is changing, my friends!

I am also not so sure about this passion for facts. In a debate about MEMRI (I already talked about how none of the media outlets are actually thought to be totally fair and balanced). Even the doughty BBC frequently gets accused of getting its world famous journalistic independence and “lean” wrong. Somebody once did an analysis of the political leanings of the BBC group on Facebook and found that the number of left liberals is vastly and overwhelmingly greater than the conservatives. Take Middle East Reporting for example, whether you are talking about MEMRI, Jerusalem Post, NY Times, CNN, FOX, BBC or Al Ahram, each and every one of these media outlets have made spectacular howlers in reporting.

I mean, when you have a mainstream media outlet publishing howlers such as saying that President Sarkozy of France is a Zionist agent, then one seriously wonders. So while both bloggers and journalists go for facts and figures, both make mistakes and while one has an editorial process to trap mistakes, the line is blurring as bloggers may and do get some comments and feedback about obvious mistakes and different opinions (such as my post about the EU Budget. Where is this desire for facts and freedom of speech when the US Media actively collaborates with the US Government to suppress facts in the name of national security ( which I can understand, btw)?

Bill Keller, executive editor, New York Times, delivering the 2008 Memorial lecture at the Chatham House in London talked more about the challenges facing journalism from new media and Web 2.0, how they have so many reporters on the ground in Iraq and along with the strong sense of standards, that distinguishes between reporters and bloggers. Well, agreed. But how come that this does not explain how most of the reportage which we have recently started to see like Typhoon Sidr, Glasgow and 9/11 Terrorist Attack and the Christmas Tsunami were from bloggers who were using their blog sites, video cameras, YouTube and even uploading into mainstream media sites such as BBC? He talks about how Google never reported from a riot or never stood in the middle of a tsunami. Well, neither did he nor his band of intrepid men. So he isn’t so right about the reporters on the ground bit and not so right about the standards bit (he himself admitted for example that his newspaper ignored the Holocaust as it was happening!!) so I am not very sure what is the difference he is claiming.

Now that I have come to the end, I am even more confused about the difference. Is it the money? I mean, if you get paid and received a fixed salary to write stories, do you become a journalist? How about people who make money out of writing stories online such as through AdSense or some other advertising medium? Or those who are independently wealthy and do not need the money but write as a second career? I just had an amusing thought. Would the ancient world’s town crier and the stone column carver have had a similar debate three centuries ago? So no, this debate is facile, the mediums are changing, the fact remains is that we are all communicating and being social animals. To concentrate on the means of communicating to the exclusion of the content is wrong and misguided.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Technorati Tags: Journalism , Internet

Is The Guardian Seeing Pink Elephants?

Aditi Nadkarni — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:20:13 EST

Raised in one of the most liberal environments that a child could ask for, I grew up not being overtly conscious of my religious sensitivities and consider myself quite open to cultural critique. Even now as an immigrant, faced with intensely curious examination, I have always been able to address some of the more blatantly ignorant questions about Hinduism with a calm front, a straight face and the kind of dignity which only tolerance can bestow. Despite my allowances, there are times, I admit, when my undisturbed exterior of leniency leaves me seething from within. In recent times I have finally come to realize when and how my usually libertarian stance towards religious scrutiny takes a sudden curb towards a rigid and unforgiving disposition.

A recent encounter over the internet has caused me to conclude that my own intolerance towards ignorance and disregard for other religions boils over when it is a popular media form that is propagating the balmy inaccuracies and misinformation. Those in media, I firmly believe, should have the sense of responsibility to know the extent of their outreach. Ignorance is bliss for only those who indulge in it. Which makes it inexcusable when a media form chooses to propagate ignorance.

I come out of my two-month hiatus from DC today and step out from under the tightening noose of work schedule to vehemently criticize "an excerpt" by Chris Madigan that appeared in this month's Guardian Unlimited. Following is the discussed abstract that may leave the culturally savvy readers, completely incredulous and the religiously sensitive ones among us foaming at the mouth:

"Ganesh has always been non-Hindus' favourite Hindu deity, as he is most commonly represented in the incarnation of a jolly rotund elephant boy. He is particularly revered by the gay community in Mumbai during his festival in September, because he represents the removal of obstacles – and it's an occasion for them to express themselves as idols are plunged into the sea at Chowpatty beach. Self-expression for gay Mumbai usually comes – as it does at Mardi Gras and Pride parades worldwide - in the form of outrageous outfits and pounding disco. Only here, the pink pop songs are given a Bollywood cover version treatment."

Mr.Madigan has somehow managed to find a connection between Ganesh Chaturthi and get this, homosexuality. Why, you ask? Apparently, Mr.Madigan, inspite of his credentials and extensive travel history, has a relatively narrow outlook when it comes to the use of the color pink. A picture of Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations accompanies this journalistic piece and is titled "The Pink Parade". Now if this casual connection were to be made in context of lets say films such as Pink Panther or Pink Cadillac, we could've all mustered at least a reluctant laugh at the sickeningly stereotypical humor in this association. However, Mr.Madigan chooses to make this far-fetched connection within the context of a Hindu god merely because the deity in question wears colorful garments and a pink crown. Literacy and even education, I now sadly infer, do not confer cultural sensibility. Mind you, I make this statement not against the alleged homosexuality association but in objection to the false and utterly misleading information being peddled in a unnecessary attempt to sell Mumbai's travel potential.

Picking September as the month to travel to Mumbai (Bombay), India, Mr.Madigan, explains how Ganesh Chaturthi is comparable to Mardi Gras and Gay Pride Parades. And yet, apart from the pink turbans and dhotis worn by the beloved Hindu diety, nothing about the religious festivities of Ganesh Chaturthi even remotely approaches the ambiance of a gay pride parade. While the Ganesh Chaturthi festival can be a culturally uplifting and festive experience for any visitor to India, it most definitely does not need to be marketed as a gay pride parade.

Mr.Madigan's ignorance itself is quite disturbing and yet what is even more reprehensible is The Guardian's complete lack of censorship when it comes to a piece that is not just hurtful towards religious sentiments but is deceptive information. Especially since "The Guardian's editorial code" unequivocally states the following:

"A newspaper's primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted."

It is at times such as these that I wonder what role media actually plays in confirming or denouncing our biases, false prejudices and untrue generalizations. If a popular online news source such as the The Guardian can provide a platform for such a grave cultural misrepresentation, one wonders how educational our search engine exploits over the internet truly are.

As for Mr.Madigan, it may be interesting to note that the euphemistic phrase "Seeing pink elephants" describes drunken hallucinations resulting from alcohol withdrawal.