Radia Tapes: Open Sesame?

We have seen how the 2G scam unfolded. Important people were packed off to jail. The really prominent names were not. No Tata, no Ambani. The role of the lobbyist thawed. Nira Radia became a ghostly figure making court appearances.

Now, the tapes that were at the centre of the controversy have been given a clean chit. I say tapes deliberately:

The Centre has argued before the Supreme Court that the Nira Radia tapes that were leaked to the media were tampered with. The tapes contained conversations between lobbyist Nira Radia and various industry leaders. The government has also stated that the tapes were not leaked by government agencies. The government said there were eight to ten agencies, including service providers, involved in the tapping of telephonic conversation of former corporate lobbyist Nira Radia.

Is this a victory for anyone? Was it not the government that was culpable, to begin with? So, how is the government version acceptable? What are government agencies doing? Why was the inquiry handled by the Ministry of Finance who appointed officers to investigate into the case?

The report says the starting and the end point of the conversation do not match with the original tapes, Justice Singhvi said referring to the report. He said the report also says that officers, who had conducted the probe, do not know who has leaked it."It is quite possible that someone else has done it," the bench said.

This is the SC making such vague statements. Of course, it is possible. We have seen the Shanti Bhushan case; Amar Singh is now a veteran in these false tape cases. Is it not crucial to ask who leaked the tapes and why?

Why should we accept the government statement when we doubt it on almost every other occasion? It is a seriously flawed argument, for the government got trapped in the scams. Why would it leak the tapes, anyway? To clear the main decks?

The other possibility is business rivalry and ego.

I had written the following a while ago:

We are witnessing this farce as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while not yet giving a clean chit to Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani, has been talking about their honesty and how candid they have been. Niira Radia has been called “evasive”.

Ratan Tata, when asked about his letter to the Tamil Nadu chief minister praising Raja’s work in the telecom ministry, with some gumption said, “We had a chemistry problem with (his predecessor Dayanidhi) Maran.” Yet, he claimed, “I didn’t manipulate the system for 2G licence allocation.” Did not Mr Tata file a petition regarding breach of privacy about the leaked tapes? The political machinery does not wish to completely alienate the corporate lobby, so it accused Radia of being anti-national and an agent of foreign intelligence agencies.

Both sides are getting trapped in quick sand and they need to prop each other up without being seen to ostensibly do so. Why did they not produce records of the Rs. 300 crore that Radia had accumulated? Of course, there is every possibility of impropriety, but for whom and for what?

If foreign agencies were involved, how did they pay her so that the authorities would know the amount? Have the finance and other departments tapped those calls from foreign agencies? What foreign agencies have interests in seeing to it that the Ambanis and Tatas get the prime deals? Which foreign agency would be interested in what portfolio Raja got? It might be important to examine how these players then can be indicted for such foreign connections as well as anti-national activities, including the governments, past and present, for accommodating them.

This is a morass. Now, we come to the media. There was a huge noise by those who were acting as whistle-blowers as well as the ones defamed. The strange aspect is that both groups have continued with their work and moved on. Vir Sanghvi had, in fact, sent the tapes to a couple of laboratories abroad that showed there was something amiss. Will the government use this as evidence? What about the magazines that carried transcripts – will the courts file a case against them?

How much of it is fake? If the “starting and end point” do not match, then what happens to the middle? Besides, who will be seen as culprits in these tampered tapes – will there be a hierarchy of favoured ones and those who can be put to pasture? The politicians, the businessmen and executives, the media persons – if some of their conversations have been tampered with, then does it follow that everything is? Does it, therefore, falsify the whole case and we discover there has been no scam at all?

And to think that a whole people’s movement started by riding on this wave. It is the people who will have to live with such half-truths.

Do read The Media as Middleman for a background and more

Fighting Corruption: The Pitfalls of Populism

The Indian youth are out in the streets, in car and bike rallies, to support an aging activist’s fight against corruption. Anna Hazare and Anil Ambani may be on two sides of the spectrum, but even as the inquisition is going on into the 2G scam, we are witnessing a populist version of people’s activism.

Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death started on April 5 to push for the anti-graft Lok Pal Bill. He has called it the second Satyagraha, which is an erroneous usage. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha was battling against British might, not against corruption that involves people right down to the lowest level, including some who may participate in the ‘movement’. I understand that one would like to see it as a practical solution to an idealistic idea, but whose idealism is it?


Hazare’s work through the years has been commendable, but the moment he needs a banner – in this case ‘India Against Corruption’ – the idea becomes a brand. Within three days there are already fissures among certain organisations. Besides, it is not as simple as it appears.

He says:

"We want representation from civil society in drafting the Lok Pal Bill, 50 percent from civil society and 50 percent from the government.”

This is to check on corruption in public life, so it obviously refers to those holding office. The alternative Jan Lok Pal Bill drafted by leading legal experts and personalities, including Arvind Kejriwal, former Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan calls for setting up of ombudsmen independent of government control. Those found guilty would be awarded a jail term of minimum five years and maximum of life imprisonment; the investigation would have to completed within one year.

The government has its own version of a prison term of minimum six months and maximum seven years as punishment for corruption.

Who will foot the bill for the 50 per cent lok ayuktas that come from civil society? Are not politicians also from civil society? We would need a system to proceed against those being tried.

* * *

Corruption is more often a silent crime. There are enough scapegoats who will be made to shoulder the blame in another concept of people’s responsibility, where lok shakti means taking on the master’s problems. It is an ingrained aspect of Indian culture.

We are witnessing this farce as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while not yet giving a clean chit to Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani, has been talking about their honesty and how candid they have been. Niira Radia has been called “evasive”.

Ratan Tata, when asked about his letter to the Tamil Nadu chief minister praising Raja’s work in the telecom ministry, with some gumption said, “We had a chemistry problem with (his predecessor Dayanidhi) Maran.” Yet, he claimed, “I didn’t manipulate the system for 2G licence allocation.” Did not Mr Tata file a petition regarding breach of privacy about the leaked tapes? The political machinery does not wish to completely alienate the corporate lobby, so it accused Radia of being anti-national and an agent of foreign intelligence agencies.

Both sides are getting trapped in quick sand and they need to prop each other up without being seen to ostensibly do so. Why did they not produce records of the Rs. 300 crore that Radia had accumulated? Of course, there is every possibility of impropriety, but for whom and for what?

If foreign agencies were involved, how did they pay her so that the authorities would know the amount? Have the finance and other departments tapped those calls from foreign agencies? What foreign agencies have interests in seeing to it that the Ambanis and Tatas get the prime deals? Which foreign agency would be interested in what portfolio Raja got? It might be important to examine how these players then can be indicted for such foreign connections as well as anti-national activities, including the governments, past and present, for accommodating them.

* * *


How would the Lok Pal bill work in such a situation? There is a trickle-down effect where the tricking is actually going up. Many of those enthusiastic about Hazare’s rally would not have the courage to convict the beneficiaries of those in public office, which defeats the whole purpose. A politician getting kickbacks is one part of the deal – the other is the sneaking in of major players who through corruption will find space to promote their elitist products and ideas.

Hazare is for now being anointed with a Gandhian aura, but most of the Facebook fans of the movement won’t push the envelope. The fact that the mainstream media is giving it importance is precisely because it has the youth quotient. This translates into a larger audience.


Some sample quotes are rather revealing:

“I joined the cause as I feel that corruption can't be stopped till the youth takes part in such a movement. Anna Hazare has been fighting this evil for a long time, but he should be supported by people like us.”

“I realised that it is about time people like me come out and stand up to eradicate corruption. I am going to fast like Anna Hazare and I am even prepared to go to jail for the cause.”

“It is not only for activists and media to keep exposing scams.”

People like us, jail yatra, scams are the buzzwords, not to speak of our own Tahrir Square.

One also wonders what happens if the celebrity activists move out. There will be the chosen ones who will be nominated for the posts to look into corruption. It would work not too differently from an established system.


People have gathered in 400 cities to fight a demon. This is modern-day mythology. Hazare states

“I am not waiting for government, the government will have to bow to the wish of the people.”

The government bows every five years and politicians are known to ‘serve’ the junta. The fact that the Lok Pal will be like the Election Commission is no guarantee that it will be “completely immune to government’s influences”. Prosecuting ministers will not require the permission of the governor or the president. Will it ensure transparency? There won’t be “yes men” of the government, but what of other organisations? Or politicians from non-ruling parties?


Uma Bharti and Om Prakash Chautala may be booted out, but Sharad Yadav, Janata Dal (United) chief, has already offered support. He said:

“Just as Election Commission and Supreme Court are effective bodies, similarly an institution which is to fight corruption has to be equally powerful. I approve of the draft prepared by Hazareji and others. I am willing to back it in Parliament.”

That among the civil society members there could be those with personal interests who would be pushed in as concerned citizens is not an improbability. Or the lure of known names. During the appointment of the person to head the Right to Information Act panel, there was just such a scramble by celebrities to promote their concept of the appropriate person.

Despite his intentions, even Mr. Hazare mentioned the names of Justice (Retd) Santosh Hegde, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and Agnivesh who he felt “were not considered important by the government”.

It is possible that the government might intervene to make him give up his fast, but let us not begin to believe that the fight against corruption is a people’s movement yet. It had already started before the rally and there have been several exposes, public interest litigations filed. It would be prudent to ask whether the youth would boycott the goods and services of those the government has propped up. Or will this be just another ‘Rang De Basanti’ moment where power props up those with testosterone and the impetus is all about hitting the bull’s eye?

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Updated on new post

Shourie's Last-Ditch Hero-giri.. Again!

What should have been thunder is a whimper. Arun Shourie’s accusations against the BJP of which he was an intrinsic part reveal that you can’t be the cat and the cream. He now says he was replaced as a lead speaker in a budget debate because there was fear that he would oppose a proposal that might have benefited Mukesh Ambani. The BJP did not want to be seen as corrupt.

It is 'strike when the iron is hot' time. He did it last year when he called the BJP and some of his party members interesting names (more of that follows). He, of course, was the messenger they were killing. This messenger seems to have nine lives, and maybe more. Some people tend to get blindly impressed by such ‘outings’ without little thought about the machinations at work. Rather impetuously he says there is no difference between the BJP and the Congress. Being no fan of either political party, I would still like to see which way he swings in the near future. Currently he is working on his next book…at Lavassa, I hear!

This was an open letter I wrote to him in August 26 and my stand remains the same. It does not seem dated so am reproducing it in full. Just a small attempt at reviving the messenger to show up the message he did not convey:


Dear Mr. Shourie:

Very impressive performance. But I am disappointed. There was a time when you would quote Faiz and Faraz and not Hickery Dickery Dock…these days you have started quoting damned angrezi fairytales. Where is your swadeshi tongue, sirji? You call the BJP leadership ‘Humpty Dumpty’ and ‘Alice in Blunderland’, the latter is such an overused pun by sophomores. Just thought I’d let you know. You use the term “kati patang” (a free floating kite).

You have taken on the onerous task of becoming notorious. I saw a bit of you on TV last night walking on the green, green grass of Rome, oops, home, in a red shirt. Very fitting, for you have quoted the Chinese chilman, no, no, not the iron curtain but Chairman Mao and said it was time for “bombarding the headquarters. Clean up everybody from top. Bring 10-15 people from the states who are competent and honest and dedicated and reconstruct immediately’’.

I have always maintained that the RSS is the madari (juggler) of the BJP monkey. You have only confirmed it.

A report mentions that you have asked the backstage organisation to take charge, saying that it had been “too democratic’’ and had given too much leeway to the party. You reminded the Sangh that the BJP was its most visible face, its “biggest instrument’’ and could not be left to its own devices. “It should keep an eye on the moral conduct of the party like an eagle.” Then, you challenged the party: “Do what you can.” You have come to believe that there is no space for dissent in the BJP which is being treated like a private property, and no criticism is tolerated or discussed.

This, unfortunately, is double talk. As you know, the instrument, whatever be its size, works on the signals the brain sends out. There is a contradiction when you talk about lack of dissent and at the same time ask the RSS to take charge and do an Operation Expunge. “My prescription is jhatka (one swift execution), not halal (slow execution). Saare, saare (lock, stock and barrel). There should be a transformation.’’

This seems to be your token anti-Islamism. Anyone with some knowledge of biology and slaughter will tell you that in such deaths, the blood congeals and the fright of imminent death poisons the system. You have been a part of it all along.

You talk about “mutual protection and projection’’ within the BJP. Yet, you propped up Narendra Modi as the prime ministerial candidate. Now, because he has banned the Jinnah book, you are on the “it is a scholarly exercise and needs to be seen in that light” trip. For your information, Mr. Modi’s government has banned a few films recently that tackled communal issues; some were art-house types. Did you raise your voice then? It is not as though people were not thrown out of the party before or forced to leave. Remember Govindacharya? Or even Uma Bharti?

In fact, you did not quote any fairytales all these years, and it is not as though the party has overnight had a great fall or blundered through Wonderland. The BJP for most of its life has been in the Opposition. And when it was in power, you supported it with gusto.

If it is the party’s attitude towards Jinnah and why poor Jaswant Singh is being hounded while Advaniji got to sit and play leader-leader, then let me assure you that you can continue to quote Faiz and no one will accuse you of blasphemy. You can even quote Iqbal and it won’t matter.

The current rebellion is also like the mutual protection/projection you are getting ethical about. Watch how the drama is unfolding. Former RSS chief K S Sudarshan has now come to your rescue for handing the organisation the big baton publicly. He said that Jinnah was “a true (Indian) nationalist”. Is this news anymore? But, all those who made these subtle differences between hardline and moderate in the saffron Parivar have been finally outed. The BJP has been soft on you because you have the blessings of the Big Boss. This same RSS and its cohorts treat the Indian Muslims with suspicion. I want to know where is our certificate of nationalism? Not that we need it from anyone, but the blatant hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

You have been a hero. When you exposed that big cement scandal everyone who had never looked at cement beyond what is used for buildings suddenly began to think of it as something very important. A. R. Antulay fell from grace, whatever he had of it. Indira Gandhi, it is widely understood, got a good deal from those deals. You got the smaller bakra. The question is: how much of it was you and your reportage and idealism? You were with the Indian Express, its owner Ramnath Goenka was your guru. He had an axe to grind with Mrs. Gandhi. He had a lot of dope. You got it, did your thing and became history.

Well, these idealistic feeds can be cruel. Goenka was known to not like heroes, especially those he had created. As he had said about you, “But this racehorse will destroy my tonga.”

You were shown the door. It was seen as a huge tragedy. You got to write columns. That is when you became an authority on Faiz etc. Well, your columns were very, very long, so many of us just read the beginning and the end. Some of us discovered Urdu and Pakistani poets because of you. You did this for a while. Then you moved to the Times of India. Imagine that nice little place where every Establishment is ‘mutually protected and projected’. In those days it wasn’t so much about Page 3. It was all Page 1 and editorials. So we still read you because of aforementioned verses, instead of seeing your pictures holding a glass of spiked rooh-afza.

Later you joined the BJP and because you were clean and looked it, we stayed with you. Yet, you never said anything. Now you are doing so. It is difficult to understand. As Alice would say, “I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, Sir, because I'm not myself you see.”

Perhaps a fitting tribute to what you were would best be expressed in the words of the Mughal Emperor, Bahadurshah Zafar:


ya mujhe afsar-e-shahaa na banaya hota
ya mera taj gadayaa na banaya hota
khaak_saari ke liye garache banaya tha mujhe
kaash khaak-e-dar-e-jaanaan na banaya hota*

Yours with hope,
Mad Hatter (“No wonder you're late. Why, this watch is exactly two days slow.”)

*  The rough meaning of the verse: the poet says that had I been given some powers why was the crown to be sought, and if I were created as an example of humility then I rue that I was asked to become the beloved of nothingness.

NDTV Exposes NDTV?

Last night I did not watch ‘The Buck Stops Here’ on NDTV. I caught it on the Net today. The video showed an image with the words, “This is not an envelope.” I geared up for the expose. It happened to be an ad for DHL couriers. Then began the show. First thought: what were they thinking? It does not take long to figure out that what I had expected has happened: The ‘lynch mob’ is now the ‘give-the-benefit-of-doubt mob’. I had avoided taking specific names in an earlier article here because it was taking away from the issue and it would have only confirmed my point about buffering a cult.

Now, things are different. Barkha Dutt came on her own show to answer questions by an independent panel on a channel in which she is the group editor. The host, Sonia Singh, started by saying that they had earlier wanted someone else to ask Barkha because they believed in a level-playing field. They should have continued with that belief. This show was a farce not because of the emotions, which are natural, but because of several other reasons:

1. It was an unedited version. This does not mean an objective one. No one, not even Manu Joseph the whistle-blower, could make a logical argument.

2. What does independent panelists mean? Are they independent of the channel? Are they independent in their views? Are they independent of any association with any of the people involved in the controversy? Are they independent of their own organisations? All of them are from the media.

Dileep Padgaongar went into his intellectual foreplay and he does seem far better equipped to discuss the finer aspects of French cuisine.

Swapan Dasgupta first talked about how he was always pre-judged, which sort of sent out a little message of empathy, but since he had to be independent he made some noises; this man has been a hardcore Hindutva supporter and now in his role as a TOI person he has gone soft overtly. Independent?

Sanjaya Baru of Business Standard tried to discuss the Radia tapes but insisted that ethics was a different issue. Huh?

This brings us to Manu Joseph of Open Magazine that was the first to carry the transcripts of the tapes. His insistence that Barkha should answer the question about why she did not do a story based on the conversations began to sound extremely churlish. It is a valid poser that has been raised by quite a few people, so there was nothing new. She responded that no one can decide about what story should be covered by whom. This is her opinion and there were several other subsidiaries that could have been asked to pin down this same point.

3. Barkha Dutt said that all she can be accused of is ‘an error of judgment’ and ‘naivete’. Yet, she told Manu Joseph that he did not know about political journalism! If we take her word for it, then why did she trust Nira Radia again and again? Politicians are mentioned. The possibility of talking to them is clearly stated. If she was just listening to Radia’s appeals and playing along, then she is not naïve at all. The error of judgment is not realising that these things would backfire.

4. This brings us to Open Magazine. It has brought out some dirt. What does it plan to do next? Does anyone know? When there is a lot of noise about the mainstream media, on what grounds is Open considered non-mainstream? Here is what the magazine’s site says about itself:

The clean, vibrant packaging and uncluttered presentation adds to the international look. And it comes in a new size—more than an inch wider than the standard A4 size of most magazines—giving the reader more content and the advertiser more ad space.

It is also “boredom-proof”.

All this make it essential to have content that sells. There is no need to be apologetic about that, but Open is owned by RPG Enterprises. Here are some details:

The RPG group is one of India’s fastest growing-conglomerates, owning premium brands like Ceat Tyres, SareGaMa and Spencer’s, with a turnover touching Rs 14,000 crore. The group has diverse business interests, owning more than twenty companies in areas like tyre manufacture, power transmission, IT, retail, entertainment, carbon black and life sciences.

No mobile phones and 2G dreams? What if…?

Is that the reason why the editor insisted that he has not accused Barkha Dutt of corruption? Then what is the tamasha about? Lobbying? Media ethics? He did not accuse her of these. He just wanted to know why it was not covered on NDTV when Barkha Dutt was privy to so much information.

Did any of the panelists believe that they would get an answer? By becoming a part of the show they have in fact lost at least partially any independent thinking. Vinod Mehta declined to be on the show. Manu Joseph should have done the same. If you believe in the material you have, then use your own forum and the processes that civil society grants you. If need be, file a suit in the courts.

Nira Radia is being questioned by the authorities. Let us see what she will squeal. She is more likely to defend her corporate employers than the media people. The corporate guys won’t care about individuals; they can start a media company anytime. The politicians are used to horse-trading.

And the media? How many media-propped celebrities who fight against the corporate lobbies have come forward and spoken about this particular issue? What about their silence – those who know they need the media for their ‘war against big guns’? The same coteries will be back on the panels discussing other people’s ethics. Everyone has a story to sell.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents. They have uploaded the video.

Pakistani circus comes to town!

A Pakistani commentator has come up with a Pavlovian response to how Indians salivate over Pakistan’s misfortunes and are not all smelling of roses. To make this rather simple point, he moves from the dog in the science lab to sci-fi to Biblical metaphors.

Ejaz Haider’s column in The Express Tribune mentions his educational qualifications – a seemingly mandatory thing these days in some publications – which should tell us that he is all grown up and doing tickety-boo. So well in fact that he expects “scientific inquiry”, unlike aforementioned dog, from Indians in the World Wide Web. He forgets one basic tenet of the W word, and that is anonymity and the possibility of fake Indians and fake Pakistanis faking emotions to elicit fake critical faculties of columnists who are educationally well-hung.

His one-line tenet is that Indians pounce on any Pakistani for “putting things in a (sic) perspective”. He believes that his country is masochistic because while Indians can openly be critical of Pakistan, Pakistanis cannot do so in Indian newspapers. I think he should do a bit of research on internet behaviour. As I have already stated, Indians and Pakistanis rarely appear as themselves. Pakistani commentators are quite coddled in India, even if they write about some sidey actress and Nwaaz Shrif’s hair implant. All those Pakistan diary type items often talk the usual lingo of exotica which makes it rather charming. The same applies to Indians who discuss “daily life” or Bollywood or “peace initiatives”, the latter being the biggest-ticket event.

Before I am accused of doggie behaviour, I must add that Mr. Haider has rather magnanimously acceded that India does have its moments:

India has its strengths, without doubt. We need to emulate them, no gainsaying that either. But for Indians to embark on an exercise, every time a whistle is blown, to prove India is the best thing to happen this side of Eden is to ask for willing suspension of disbelief at a level that defies even disbelief.

Just a bit of semantics here: When you defy disbelief, you are a believer. Ergo, suspension of disbelief ought to be a dribble of saliva.

He then comes to the point:

There have been comments upon comments in this newspaper by Indians about, among other things, corruption in Pakistan. Something like the 2G scandal in Pakistan would have given the Indians a field day. Try placing a comment on the Radia tapes, a scandal which, alone in its spread, is enough to eclipse Pakistan’s collective scams over 63 years, or even offer to write on it in an Indian newspaper, and you would know what I am saying.

One moment. Corruption is endemic to our societies. However, it is a huge exaggeration to say that in 63 years Pakistan has not had a scam of this dimension. Is the reference only to the monetary aspect? How many tapes have been ever released about Pakistani politicians or Pakistani military leaders? India is also a larger country in every way. I don’t understand the need to compare and sound so insecure about being ‘eclipsed’ in this field. Having said that, who has stopped any Pakistani from writing about the scandal in a Pakistani paper? Why must a Pakistani write about this in an Indian newspaper? It might be noted that part of the scandal is the blurring of it in the mainstream media, so even if a Tutu columnist tried, s/he might not get in edgeways.

A few days ago I was asked by the people concerned when I would resume my ET column and the next sentence mentioned the Radia tapes. I was surprised that no one had written about it and when I said that I had already had my say on the subject, they told me they’d like to use a shorter version. I agreed, provided I could edit it myself and it would clearly state that it is an abridged version. It is still not up. It is about several lobbies, as I have often critiqued in both the Indian and Pakistani media about both India and Pakistan and several other societies.

However, while Pakistani newspapers might publish some views, are they open to ALL views? I have faced criticism for other opinions about ills in Pakistani society as I do from Indians. And, most amazingly, one reviewer of my book ‘A Journey Interrupted: Being Indian in Pakistan’ even mentioned that I had misused the hospitality! Pakistan or Pakistanis had not sponsored the book nor had India or Indians or even my publisher. This was an insult to the several Pakistanis I had met and they were the first to rubbish such a thought; it only revealed that when you talk to and quote real rebels, people who have been imprisoned, literally or otherwise, instead of part-time jingoists, you are not quite ‘with it’. These remarkable people are considered outsiders even today by their own smart-ass commentators.

On the flip side Pakistan, and India, choose their favourites. Interestingly, these ‘vocal critics’ become the flavour of the ‘opposite camp’. So, my criticism of certain aspects about Arundhati Roy sounds offensive to Pakistanis! Talk about co-opted cocoons.

Of course, Mr. Haider is all praise for the Indian’s pride in the state, unlike Pakistanis who talk about doomsday. That’s because they have been hearing the Americans go on and on about a ‘failed state’ so often that they feel like doing a little mirror job. But, when optimistic Pakistanis see the good side, they are considered wimps and fools. Besides, questioning the status quo is always good.

Finally, Mr. Haider sounds quasi ominous and forgets grammar:

Meanwhile, I have said India and Indians a number of times here; the circus is about to hit town!

I am sure you have told us: the circus is about to hit town. The problem is that having said it so often, we mistook the messenger for the message.

PS: When you assume Pavlov’s dog is on your mental leash, it can turn out to be quite a bitch.

Attn: Mukesbhai Ambani urf Shahjehan

Dear Mukesbhai:

I am writing to you with lots of pain. I goat coal from friend high up…working in Kanchenjanga type place baba…saying I am useless. Niraben is not coaling me…I am telling him time to time that I love lowby. Nice free fres air in aircondisun looking at peepuls from all walks and talks of life. My favourite is Taj lowby but after tragedy and coming to know that terrorist also liking it, I am not pakka sure. You know newspaper is saying Ratan bhai is moving Supreme Court. My tongue in hanging out like Kali Mata that how gentle Parsi man who doesn’t hurt fly and move head too much like common man style nodding is becoming like Bheema and moving whole big fat court.

I did goggle search to find out full detail and moving means asking judge about leak. Again my tongue hanging out. Why judge must do sulabh shauchalaya work? So I read more report. It is leaking tapes. He is saying it is private matter between income tax and Niraben. I am saying maybe Niraben is adding extra ‘I’ in Nira because of ‘income’. That way I am intelligent. Ratan bhai also is going to say to judge openly he will want crime to be tried, like good man and good citizen. He is knowing this is not Gujarat where Nano and moto (not Motorola baba) problem can be solved with Narendrabhai Modi giving secular blessing.

You think I am saying all this only to get you to give me scoop? No, no. I went to Huggin Das thinking now this Bengali, like Mata Amritanandmayi, is giving hug with ice-cream scoop. I am really pain because my high up friend is laughing and laughing saying no one will coal you to lowby. I am saying maara sam, my swear, nice gentlemens meeting me in lowby many times, shaking hands, looking into eyes and then asking to have chai-pani as if I am havaldar or something. I am saying like Bollywood heroine of long time back that I live on love and fres air only.

But if Niraben coaled me my naak would be little up, my ijat little more. To put solt on my voond you didn’t ask me to come to Taj Mahal also. You are now becoming Shahjehan…arrrarrra…Nitaben 2 G-yo hajaron saal, may live long, long live Nitaben…by the whey, you look like twins now, only she is fair-fair like you done Michael Jackson type skin removal. She is good dancer and all time she does mudra pose newspapers talk about her tellunt. Look no, that day only your Ant Hill housewarming party was on front page of Times of India. I saying to myself, wah, wah, now why no one is coaling this lowby? This is double roti standard na? One day you are Shahjehan next day they saying, uff why media doing like this and why media doing like that? Why, you say?

But I am asking you why you call house Ant Hill, everyone wanting to know, even friend high up. I am saying him, first you tell I am not worth lowby then how I must know all this. Ratan bhai will move court about how it is all private, so what if little detail was in paper about chandelier, food, guests, lifts, garden…you wanted to avoid media so you had housewarming (it is so cold what?) before date, and then see it is in papers anyhow. What is happening to world? Everywhere lowby, lowby. Only no one is saying even inside lowby there is special lowby.

I am knowing little bit also. It is all in karma. Some peepuls will say, look that woman and that man openly writing against Vijay Mallya though they are friends. I am wanting to smile like Mona darling Lisa. Saying negative about Vijaybhai is like beating maasocheest – he is looking forward to whip! My Ingliss getting better, na? All Niraben’s kripa; after Rakhiben Sawant and her jeejus, Niraben is next fatafat.

I am writing to you also to say I talk too much on telephone. Niraben’s record I can break. But no one is coaling me, except friend from high up. I am going to tell him lies and say your house is like 21st century Vrindavan. Only instead Kokilaben is Krishna and has two mothers, you Mukesbhai and Anilbhai. She is doing running from one to other, I am reading like that in papers. She is sitting with dandiya-type flute and having to lagao makhan butter for smooth-sailing of family ship. You not having ship? Helicopter is also okay, sailing in sky and dropping on hell-paad.

I am having another little noting. Mandir is in bottom of house and you are on top of god. Thanks god I am calling it Vrindavan and not Taj Mahal otherwise those mahants and political parties will say, look we will get Mukesbhai for elecsun because he is doing sym-ball and telling world that below Agra Taj Mahal was also mandir, he is making point, he is lowbying for us.

I am only opening your third eye. I know, I know, only Shiva had third eye, but Telelka and all sting wallas having third eye. You don’t worry, be happy. My pain is gone after opening heart surgery with you. All is out of chest. Reminds me, I reading Paremeshwar Godrej was also at party? Nice lady carrying communist baraat many times on head. What? Beret? Haan, haan, how I am to knowing all this? They saying what story to carry. Arre, how anyone can carry story? It is not some bojh, burden, to carry inside sack on head.

Please give Niraben’s reliancing number only. I will give missed call from Wada phone or air tell…most danger like telling in havaa. I am taking risk. I can hear phone is tapping like keyboard on leptope.

Today I made promise to self I will go to lowby. i don’t want my rape-u-tasun to be on stake like Joan ben of Arkansas.

Jai Shri Krishna!

Yours (Radia se kaise na jaley) censurely,
Antilia

- - -

PS: While I cannot 'translate' this into regular English, I'd elucidate that part provocation for the post was the reference to Mukesh Ambani's new house as the "21st century Taj Mahal" by a media person and, when there is so much noise about the media, this private housewarming party made it to the front page of the newspaper.

The Media as Middle Man

India's "Paid News" Scandal

The Media as Middle Man 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24

The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.

There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.

The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.

There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.

No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.

Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?

To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.

Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.

Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.

The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.

Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times

Remember Rajdeep...

How he used to often say, "Iss hamam mein sab nangey hai"?

The answer my friend is this: Iss haman mein sab designer clothes pehne hue hai jo aam aadmi khareed nahin sakta aur designer bechne ke liye sirf 'fit' models chunta hai.

Samjhe na?

- - -


To transcribe: This is an allusion to the 2-G/media/lobbying/blah controversy and how CNN-IBN's head Rajdeep Sardesai used the phrase that means 'All are naked in the 'hamam' (Turkish/open bath). My response is that in this hamam everyone is dressed in designer clothes that the poor can ill-afford and which designers find models that can 'fit' into.