Much as I’d like to accept the compliment (this comment has been posted in response to my views on someone going all sugar and marshmallow on Amitabh Bachchan), I do have a problem with the inherent dispute between the two terms.
To fart is to break wind, which conveys release; by that token, it is a successful attempt. Frustration is to hold back or be denied; whatever has been attempted is thwarted. Therefore, technically, you cannot be both.
Even metaphorically the image it conjures up does not work. Like a still windmill, it is pretty harmless.
However, since somebody has taken the trouble to pen his thoughts in a flush, I shall happily send across this:
- - -
Regarding Mr. Bachchan, I have already said I do not agree with Raj Thackeray’s point of view about immigrants. But on the MNS assertion that he has done little for Mumbai, Mr. B comes up with a ridiculous one:
“I do not hold any public office, I am not a minister, not a government servant. You cannot question me...I am not answerable to anybody.”
What does this mean? A minister or a government servant has equal right to stay in another city. And as a celebrity who uses public space, who is the ambassador of Uttar Pradesh, whose wife is a Rajya Sabha member, he is answerable.
As a public figure, he is being asked why he is doing more for the place of his origin rather than the city that gave him so much. It is a fair query. Just being a legend is not enough.
Dear FV,
ReplyDeleteI have no love lost for AB.I think he is an average actor at best, with moments of brilliance.
However, I disagree with you when you say he is accountable just because he is a public figure. And his wife is a Rajya Sabha member, he is not. I don't think he is accountable to anyone. At least, No One can demand that he explain himself. He is as free as anyone else, so if he wants to work for Mumbai or UP its really upto him. Its like asking SRK to quit smoking because he is famous. how silly is that. We live in a free country. Lets not punish the celebrities just for being famous.
Vikas:
ReplyDeleteNo one was "demanding" explanations from him; an accusation was made and he started playing victim. (This is not to condone the behaviour of the MNS goons.)
His quote is most patronising. He is conveniently conveying that one can and perhaps must question those who hold public office but not him.
You and I would make those who hold such office answerable and many of them are celebs in this Page 3 world. So, why not him?
He has a right to defence, and he uses it to the fullest. The fact that his words get more mileage should mean something.
His working for UP has got him rewards and that is a disturbing trend.
Yes, we live in a free country where ordinary people are now being told how much alcohol they can drink.
Your SRK analogy just does not apply here. SRK endorsing smoking would be wrong because of our stand on smoking; SRK being a smoker is not being questioned at a larger level.