There's a Frenchman in the Pakistani Soup

Fine dining, by definition, is exclusive. Can a foreigner bar Pakistanis from his restaurant in Pakistan, their country?

The obvious reaction would be, no. It is racist any way you look at it. However, let us see the other side.

La Maison, run by Frenchman Philippe Lafforgue, in a part of his house at an upscale area of the capital Islamabad, has been forced to shut down after there was an outcry against this discriminatory policy. There was no board outside saying so; it was a discreet decision by the management.

As the owner stated:

“It’s not a discrimination thing. It’s a culturally sensitive thing. How can I serve pork and booze to Pakistanis without getting into trouble? So I have a rule: no locals getting in...I can’t open it up to the Pakistani people because I serve alcohol. If I start serving locals, which is obviously profitable, I will have to bribe the police…which I want to avoid.”

This last bit is important and has been ignored by the commentators. There are many in Pakistan who can afford it, and do patronise fancy restaurants. However, there is much hypocrisy regarding alcohol. Many of the elite like to show off their bars and collection of wines, but do not raise their voice against government policies over their eating and drinking habits. Their laws might discriminate against minorities, but they are quite willing to tap this segment for their quota of booze. Non-Muslims and those in the diplomatic services are their sources for tipple, although they can manage to arrange it through powerful local contacts.

Therefore, the owner is not entirely wrong when he talks about having to bribe the cops.

Is there a cultural issue that he is truly concerned about? Let us just say that the Pakistanis who might enjoy their drink at home or at private parties might put on a publicly moralistic mask. This is not a blanket judgment, but it certainly does apply to a few. Sometimes, it is pragmatism. A friend who has never hidden his lifestyle has had to hear the police knock on his door quite often.

Then, there is the sensitive issue of whether an outsider can prevent citizens of the host country from entering. Most reports have gone back in time to refer to the "Dogs and Indians not allowed" policy of British establishments during colonial rule.

There are clubs in India where certain people are not permitted even today. Depending on the portfolio of the club, politicians and film stars too have been debarred by the intellectuals and corporate sections. There is also a dress code policy; the famous artist M.F.Husain was prevented from entering the British era Willingdon Sports Club because of his footwear.

I am afraid, but I do believe that private establishments do have the luxury and right to choose their entry policies. Try dressing up scruffily and getting into the Karachi Club, or even a posh eatery in Zamzama. The hierarchy is well in place.

For that matter, at an exclusive do in Karachi, my host said he would not introduce me as an Indian because it was a cadets party. Although uncomfortable about it, I did understand his position, and was in fact grateful that he let me have a glimpse of something I would never have had.

Why would the French restaurant assume that all Pakistanis are uptight? I have been to an Italian restaurant not too far from this place and we were the only 'locals' there, if we don't consider my Indian identity.

What is particularly glaring about how this discrimination thing has worked out is that the main issue has been obfuscated. The assistant superintendent of the Islamabad Police decided to do a personal recce after getting complaints (a social media campaign, naturally). These are his words:

“So I personally called in to make a reservation, and was rejected when I said I was a Pakistani. The next step was obviously to check the place out. We found over 300 bottles of non-licensed alcohol and even a casino table.”

Lafforgue was charged with "unlicensed alcohol," a crime. Where does all talk of racism disappear? As an homily, the cop added:

“How can you live on our soil and treat us like this. No rules allow such behavior. This is not the nineteenth century.”

Part of the problem is the need to look up to foreigners. It is ingrained in the DNA of the subcontinent. The protests do not emanate from the ground, but from niche ideas of access. This too is privilege.

There is a flip side as well. Local Pakistanis, mainly young women, seek out invitations to parties at the diplomatic clubs, even though they are primarily meant for embassy staff and their families. It is another matter that they are often welcomed because they add exotica and are not inhibited.

The police have shut down the restaurant for now. It would have made sense if the registered crime was not illegal bottles of alcohol but discrimination. Unfortunately, that would be a difficult proposition. For, there is a huge mirror and it shows what Pakistanis do not wish to see.

Touché?

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: Philippe Lafforgue at his restaurant, NBC

Meat, Drink and Judging Vivekananda

Would the young give up the occasional tipple and their cuisine choices only because of a leader? Does a leader who comes with a moral baggage — and selective at that — truly appeal to the youth? On the other hand, if the leader were given to some of these indulgences would the young be influenced by it, or is it something they are anyway attracted to?

Today, as one 'youth icon' Modi turns 64 (what happens when the youth grow older — do they discard these icons and refer to them as "senile" as some middle-aged folk have been doing about another leader?) — my thoughts turn to how self-righteousness plays itself out for political gain.

Last week, Shashi Tharoor was at the inauguration of a statue of Swami Vivekananda. BJP Kerala state president V Muraleedharan who was present stated:

“The union minister said that Vivekananda’s legacy cannot be appropriated by a particular section or group and went on to add that the monk used to eat meat and drink occasionally.”

Swami Vivekananda is now one of those sages that the rightwing is trying to claim as its own. He did have what may broadly be called a 'Hindu view of life', but it was certainly not a narrow divisive vision.

Tharoor often speaks before thinking, but this time, even if it is political expediency, he was merely trying to throw a spanner in the Hindutva works. In a fashion followed by the saffron parties, he was humanising Vivekananda, and there is much of that in his persona.

It was enough to create a controversy. BJP leader O. Rajagopal made what The Hindu refers to as "a frontal attack on Shashi Tharoor" (what could be the other option?) and demanded an unconditional apology. As the report mentions how this tale was spun:

Being a Bengali belonging to the Kayastha caste, Vivekananda may have had fish and even meat, but there was no reference of him ever having taken liquor.

His remarks hurt national sentiments and showed that Dr. Tharoor was still rooted in American culture and lifestyle. His remark that Vivekananda took to drinks was especially objectionable when campaigns are being launched to wean away the youth from liquor.

I should assume that these keepers of our palate culture will have no problem if Bengalis and other communities continue to eat what they want, and they do not have to follow state diktats on such habits.

Regarding drinks, it is not only the youth that needs to be weaned away. Kerala consumes a whole lot of alcohol; in many places elsewhere too the poor drink cheap country liquor that often results in death. This ought to be of concern and not whether it is a western lifestyle that some youth emulate. These young people are more likely to follow contemporary heroes than Swami Vivekananda, especially in their lifestyle choices. If the legacy of the Swami has any currency it will survive an occasional hic.

But that is not what certain parties want. They have no foot to stand on, so they recall saintly figures from the past and prop them up as engineers of some purification process. This only means that contemporary leaders are devoid of any good qualities that the youth can look up to. Swami Vivekananda is the new flag-bearer of this flushing.

The leader quoted in another report even said that "Tharoor has depicted him as an alcoholic". There is a difference between somebody having a few drinks and being an alcoholic.

It is clear that some of those who are sober can't hold their 'drinks' and in the stupor they find a little bit of trendy morality.

"Above all, beware of compromises. I do not mean that you are to get into antagonism with anybody, but you have to hold on to your own principles in weal or woe and never adjust them to others “fads” thought the greed of getting supporters." - Vivekananda

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: A young Swami Vivekananda

Risky Riders

You must have read about how drivers in Andhra Pradesh’s public transport have transformed because their dashboards carry photographs of their wives and children.

“Every driver leaves home promising his family that he’d return home safe. A soft reminder of his family motivates him to be alert. This has gone down well with the drivers.”

I am not too gung-ho about it. One is aware that this bit of news has been highlighted because the Delhi gang-rape took place in a bus and it has been mentioned in the reports, although there is no connection at all.

My point is that not all drivers would be married. Besides, many dashboards have some talisman or icon of deities. Since religion is a huge factor in the lives of many, why does the fear of god not make these people careful? Why do they imbibe alcohol? Rash driving is simply a case of bad drivers – licences are bought by rookies after paying the RTO officers. Then there are bad roads, poor lighting, lack of proper road signs, no concept of road etiquette, both by drivers and pedestrians.

And why blame only public transport. What about private vehicles? Check the number of accidents caused by fancy wheels, and with prominent people behind them.

There is a fine for using mobile phones while driving as it diverts attention. Will not looking lovingly at the photograph on the dashboard have the same effect? If we wish to take a psychological look, then rash driving may have something to do with a sense of insecurity that suddenly finds a tantalising stretch that can be conquered by wearing blinkers, so to speak. There is no one in the line of vision except the road ahead. The cocky look in the rear-view mirror is only to make sure that no one overtakes one’s own road. This is a spatial phenomenon, where ‘I own this territory because it is under my feet’ prevails.

I am merely giving a flipside argument, because we really need to get our act together rather than resort to filmi prototypes.

Domestic violence, pesticides, alcoholism: Half Truths-Satyamev Jayate

SMJImpact is a typically superficial and arrogant assumption that a television show has made a huge difference. We titter when any of the private channels, star anchors and even newspapers claim to expose cases. We raise doubts over sting operations. We question cops, soldiers, government officials and ministers even when there is palpable change. In fact, we do not see any impact when cases are cracked, when terrorists are stopped, when bore wells appear in villages or panchayats solve issues or women in rural areas form protection groups or become part of the cooperative movements. We do not care to see anything positive in political initiatives. 

We are right to a large extent. We say these are for votes, these are sops, these are tokenisms, these are drops in the ocean. 

When did Aamir Khan become the ocean? Is Satyamev Jayate really having any impact? Don't we know of how corporate groups ensure that the 'good work' they are involved with gets enough publicity? It would be foolish to imagine that change is taking place. A film star host has become the marketing vehicle for different causes, not unlike Bill Gates. Except that Bill Gates forks out his own money. However, philanthropy is never a free lunch. 

I did not write about the past three episodes. As I said the last time, one is not opposing everything. It is the stance that bothers me, and how a section of society helps in propagating it as the ultimate truth. If you need such a show to even know that domestic violence exists or to buy the one-dimensional view of the use of pesticides, then it is more sad than shocking. 

Let me recap my views on a couple of aspects:

Domestic violence, we all agree, is a serious issue. It is not only about being battered. There are other aspects, and mental cruelty is considered a legitimate ground for divorce. Again, the emphasis was on show and tell, giving it a vicarious tinge. Also, while it is essential that women are self-sufficient, the law has some provisions. A TV show has no business to expect a superwoman to be manufactured in the studio. One of them said that after taking a beating from her husband for years, one fine day she slapped him and that put an end to the torture. The sound byte here was that you have to take that step when it first starts. That's not how it works. The first time a person does not see it as the beginning of something horrible. People are used to being hit by parents, so this is seen as another paternal figure. 

At this point, I must commend activist Kamla Bhasin who explained the patriarchal construct. 

The show now follows a pattern of bringing in one or two well-heeled cases to tell people like us that people like us also suffer. The host dramatises the moment by starting off with, “So, we think this happens among the poor, uneducated? No." And then he shakes his head, sighs, and brings on a lady with blow-dried hair/lipstick/jewellery. There are so many stereotypes here already, and it is rather insulting to both women because they are put in these boxes and the only thing that 'identifies' them are scars of a kind. 



Pesticides are bad. But, Mr Khan should have asked his audience to put up their hands, as he does in school master style, whether they use mosquito repellants, DDT, and other sprays in the house. This was, of course, a show on pesticides in food, but he did begin by discussing how many women cook, go to the market to purchase their veggies. Yes, only women. 

Do you trust the organic lobby? I am as confused about its intent as other packaged foods. In what appeared to be a truly revealing exposé on the use of pesticide, and I must confess  that much as I like the natural I have been disappointed with the 'movement', what we got was just one aspect. The host demonised one manufacturer, and it became a joke. How much did his audience know about organic farming? It is not only about paying a bit more. The organic product lobby caters to the ostensibly aware segment. They are supposed to be either rich or concerned about health, the latter has become a big money-making industry. 

Unless grown in personal terraces or gardens using natural manure, nothing is without chemical traces if produced in bulk for the market. Fungicides are used in organic farming. It is a question of degree of how noticeable traces. 

I am sure there are health benefits, but not unless you wash these as well. Do not assume that what you get in healthy packages is always clean. But people lap this up. A little study will tell you some nasty truths. 

We are just not into that. It was pretty disgusting that the show started with a researcher telling us about how she found pesticide residue in mother's milk, because the woman had consumed non-organic food. I wonder how all those women with silicone implants would react! Honestly, there is too much of a good thing. 

I have not watched the episode on alcohol abuse. Lyricist Javed Akhtar was one of the guests and spoke about his battle with alcoholism. 

However, let me recount a conversation with an expat. She is impressed with the show. I am not surprised. 

"Imagine, Aamir Khan got a respected man like Javed Akhtar to speak about alcoholism," she said. 

"And he must have been feted for being frank, fearless, bringing the curse out in the open, opening the eyes of people..."

"It does. You realise how bad it is."

"You don't read the papers? You don't know of people who are addicted to drink? There were others too."

"But this is someone we identify with."

"What about Mr. Akhtar do you identify with? You are from disparate worlds."

"He is from the glamour industry, so it takes courage to come out and admit it."

"Sau choohe khake billi Haj ko chalee...anyhow, I read an article that quoted him where he said that drinking makes a person three things: 'ghinoney (filthy), gadhey (an ass), or both'."

"See, alcohol makes you like that too," said the lady.

"I don't think you need to be an alcoholic for that."

She is part of the "dream response" that has made Mr. Aamir Khan opt for another season. Obviously, he would not have done so unless he was "convinced", "moved", "sensitised". I should hope a lot of people discover life and different sorts of people, finally. And they can recall real people with similar issues. 

Perhaps, we will get to watch a show with more celebrities in confession mode. How about the philanthropy partner's bossman Mukesh Ambani on his chemical industries polluting the environment? Or, how babus are bought? 

Just a thought, for truth's sake. 

Booze and dare? Imran, take a chill PIL..

Here, genie in the bottle?

Imran Khan, the young actor, has decided to “take on” the Maharashtra government. Why? Because he does not agree with the state raising the drinking age to 25:

“I am really disturbed by the state’s perception that the youth of today are a bunch of idiots. I am working with my legal team and plan to draft a petition. When one gets the right to vote at 18 and elect a government and even marry and have children at the age 21, to ban drinking for people below the age of 25 is ridiculous.”

It is and I don’t have a moral issue with people drinking but once again the elite are taking over. It reveals just the sort of people who lead closed lives and romanticise alcohol. As for idiocy, what has that got to do with whether you can swig a cocktail or not?

His knowledge is limited to a certain category of people:

“The issue is a raging debate on all social networking sites and most of the youth feel that it is unfair. It’s completely unfair to expect that one has to wait till one is 25 to exercise the freedom of choice regarding one’s lifestyle.”

I should assume he knows that ‘lifestyle’ is not restricted to what you imbibe. People are not born with visions of booze and they do not wait to grow up for that. If we take the argument even further then there are child labour laws that affect youngsters and they do not even elect the government, so should they talk about freedom of choice?

This is not on Imran’s radar. In fact, the quiet guy has come out with what will be perceived as a strong statement that may well catapult him to youth icon status because he has one of those ‘bold’ films coming up. I can see maamu jaan Aamir Khan’s strategy here. This is classic marketing AK style. So, why has the senior not raised a voice? Simple. He is now the face of many public service government campaigns so he cannot spoil his image.

Besides, this is about youth, the film is about youth. I wonder why Imran has not sneaked in the bit about how the youth can go down during sex, for that is one of the USPs of the film, or at least what the fed ‘scoops’ tell you . If he is so concerned about “right to choose” and how such laws should not be “imposed upon the youth”, will he also raise his voice about crimes committed against the youth? Paedophilia? Incest? Drug couriers? Imprisoned suspects?

There is no plausible reason for the Maharashtra government’s move, but this statement by Imran is shocking:

“This kind of regulation is bound to turn the youth into outlaws.”

What the hell does he mean? Are young people who drink law-abiding citizens with no criminal record? Has he not read about cases of drunken driving and people getting killed in the streets? If people do not get their favourite tipple, they will turn into outlaws? If the pub refuses to serve them, will they start smashing the bar?

Many do – when they are drunk. In the debate, no one seems to take into account the poor who become victims of spurious liquor even when it is freely available simply because they do not have a choice.

Has the government given this a thought? It would seem that this youth business that has gained momentum is essentially about a creamy layer. The charmed circle of Mumbai. Even the authorities will not enter many of these lounge bars to check on age, least of all the pub owners.

If you want to take on the government, then first go to some small town and find out about the ‘choices’ the youth there have in any matter.

Ale and Hearty

Can women use Viagra? Does it affect their performance? I am asking because of this silly little beer that has been created to trumpet the royal pain-in-the-ass wedding. BrewDog is marketing the Royal Virility Performance lager and it also has a tagline that says, “Arise Prince Willy”, which is sophomoric. It is a limited edition brew and the proceeds will go to the charities that the prince supports. Therefore, to mime a similar manner of speaking, those who consume it will really rise to the occasion.

What has not been made clear is the effect of the Viagra content on women who might imbibe it. Britain is known for its pubs and beer is a fairly unisex all-time drink there. It is a bit sexist.

The co-founder of the firm states: "As the bottle says, this is about consummation, not commemoration."

Then why wait for an occasion? Or is this bottle going to replace the water-bottle?

Now we have news that beer will not be served at Buckingham Palace because the “prospect of guests downing pints has been deemed unsuitable for such a prestigious occasion”. And would the guests be glugging pints? That says more about the guests than the beer. This is not the Oktoberfest where you sit on planks of wood and rough-hewn tables and the mugs are huge and there is much banging of the tables for refills. I dislike the taste of beer, but love to look at the froth. It is a beautiful sight, like a desert sunset topped by fluffy clouds.

Kate and William want a more “sophisticated” experience for their guests who will sip champagne and wine to accompany the canapés. There was a huge noise about how the 10,000 varieties of canapés will follow strict English cuisine norms. I wonder which English wines will be on the list and where would the champagne be from.

I am truly interested in the hierarchy of alcoholic beverages. I find it amusing when outside of fine dining, people make a production of wine-tasting. Especially if it is house wine! All good wines have been tasted; the details are mentioned on the label and if you are a connoisseur you ought to know about body and aroma. What’s the point when the steward brings a glass that you swirl it, sip it, roll it in your mouth and then nod appreciation, which you would do anyway?

It is fascinating, though, to watch. I doubt the guests at the Palace will dare do such a thing.

Talking of champagne, it is strange but quite sometime ago I had mentioned that the perfect female breast was the size of a champagne glass. It got people all wired up and it came to haunt me again recently in an accusatory tone. Honest, this is not my invention and not all champagne glasses are flutes. In fact, there is history to prove that the coupe was shaped along the curves of some aristocratic ladies, including perhaps Marie Antoinette. Wonder what she had with her cake.

I had an interesting experience in Delhi a few months back. I had a glass of vodka and my colleague brought his gin. We were seated with some other people at an ‘intellectual’ hub and he made a surprising comment about his choice of dinner drink: “I am not ashamed to show my feminine side.”

“Ah,” I said. “In that case I am an Alpha female and a spudist.”

Modi’s Red Revolution

Will Narendra Modi transfer bootleggers? Will his cops have an ‘encounter’ with them? Not likely. For, the great leap forward that is Gujarat would take a backseat then. Every state has a thriving alcohol industry, but poor Modi is stuck with the legacy of prohibition and a not-too-complimentary red revolution. Illicit trade has of course continued. Now comes news that tomatoes are being used to ‘carry’ booze and they come at a pricey Rs. 250 per kg:

The bootleggers of Sardarnagar came up with the novel idea when they realised that most tipplers prefer tomatoes and onions with their daily shot of hooch. First, the tomato is softened and some of its juice is extracted with a syringe. Then, the liquor concoction is injected into it before freezing it. The tomatoes are then sold along with other vegetables by roadside vendors.

The bootleggers mix sleeping tablets in the concoction to make it more potent. But the arrangement has worked well for both the consumers as well as the sellers.

I am not sure many of those imbibing it are aware of the sleeping tablets. There is the whole business of spurious fruit, grains and vegetables going on anyway, but the consumers are buying these as necessities and not with the purpose of getting a high.

While some say they can eat these tomatoes in public without being caught, I wonder about the alertness of the police. If it is openly available, has no regular buyer noticed the difference in price and complained to the consumer forum? Don’t the police buy vegetables?

This is all part of the hypocrisy prevalent in our society. No, no, we cannot have alcohol in Gandhi’s Gujarat, they say, as though Gandhi owned Gujarat or ever chided his friends Nehru and Jinnah for drinking. Modi feels no affinity towards Gandhi and am quite certain he does not have a great dislike for ‘hard drinks’, although he might be a teetotaller. He is stuck with this moral business, though.

'Piya' tu, ab tau aaja:
Narendra Modi could chill with the drinkers

In this hour of need, I think he should simply hark back to our ancient civilisation – yes, the other bugbear he is stuck with – and quote from the scriptures about the potency and purity of somras, the elixir of the gods. He will then be free to lift prohibition, legalise the booze trade, invite Vijay Mallya to set up a brewery that uses only ingredients with a local flavour and market it as Gujarat’s asmita (self-esteem).

Right now, no one quite knows what sort of liquor is being sold; it does not appear to be very fine or one that will appeal to the discriminating palate. A proper scheme will add pride when there will be different wines, ‘Surti Scotch’, liqueurs with flavours of jeera (cumin seeds) and chhoondo (raw mango pulp mixed with sugar and other stuff) and, of course, vodka. Prafulbhai can ask his ‘Mrs’ Latikaben to get some farsan (snacks) ready as he pours his vaasi batatanu daaru (rotten potato tipple).

Narendra Modi will only consolidate his position as the economic messiah with the new halo of being Kingfisher’s kingmaker.

- - -

Images: TOI and Narendra Modi.com

Dis n Dat

Modi and Mallya – hooch hooch hota hai

Dramatic statements are part of political speak, but I wish some thought went into ascertaining the meaning of what is being said. Calling Narendra Modi a “maut ka saudagar (merchant of death)” is stupid. It was first uttered during the election campaign by Sonia Gandhi to convey the Gujarat chief minister’s part in communal riots.

This time it has been repeated because 150 people have died in a hooch tragedy. The Congress says that such trade is flourishing under political patronage. In places where there is prohibition an illegal trade always flourishes, but so does it in areas where alcohol is permitted. The demand for cheap bootlegged liquor is huge. If anything, this would have been a natural blow to the Modi government because it would convey that his so-called economically powerful state is not all that wealthy and there are poor people who want such daaru. The rich can stock their bars in other ways. I can imagine all those Patels hanging torans over their Kutchi embroidery upholstered stools drinking their whiskey or beer and munching chevda and having large bites of dhokla.

Why is prohibition a moral issue at all, then? I can understand a Morarji Desai who wanted to mimic Mahatma Gandhi attempting it, but Modi? Is he trying to appease – hai Ram! – the Muslims?

Predictably, the savvy Vijay Mallya has jumped in to state that “blanket prohibition has never worked in this free world”. As though Modi has ever talked about a free world. He has offered his – more appropriately his liquor company’s – services:

“The UB (United Breweries) group stands ready to work with the government of Gujarat to introduce a responsible beverage consumption policy with appropriate warning and restraint.”

We already know that these deaths are not because of prohibition. I find Mallya’s attitude opportunistic in the extreme. What does he mean by a responsible beverage consumption policy? If prohibition is a dictatorial measure, then the state deciding how much is equally fascist. It also assumes that the lettered must have access to such alcohol, for the warnings would not be read by those who are illiterate. And, of course, those who do not care to read.

The fact is that he is aware of every brand being available at a larger mark-up and reveals his intentions when he states:

This means that the government of Gujarat is losing thousands of crores in potential revenue.

He is not interested in the dead or the illegal trade. Only in the money. It is fine since he is a businessman, but the timing and the intent are all wrong.

One is not sure what Modi will do. Is he making money from this illegal racket? I don’t think so. He has got worse on his platter and this somehow does not fit in. What about small-time politicians and bureaucrats? That is possible, not only in Gujarat but almost in every state.

I am afraid legalising anything is no guarantee that you won’t have underhand dealings. Many legal businesses manage to get an extra quota through corrupt means or start side operations to sign off their losses.

What Modi owes the families of the dead is justice to see that the culprits are tried and sentenced. Perhaps, Mallya would like to join in the effort for this too constitutes “responsible beverage consumption policy”?

If Jackson was killed for cash…

His sister LaToya has made the allegation. If she knows the reason and the people behind it, then why did she give a regular speech at the memorial? There did not appear to any anger. Are we dealing with performers here?

“I feel it was all about money,” she was quoted as saying by the News of the World. “Michael was worth well over a billion in music publishing assets and somebody killed him for that. He was worth more dead than alive.”

So the lady has been keeping count of her brother’s wealth?

She also claimed, the newspapers reported, that roughly $2 million worth of cash and jewellery was taken from Michael Jackson’s rented mansion and has not been accounted for.

How does she know?

It is true that prescription drugs can kill, and it is possible that someone was administering these to keep Michael “submissive and under control” but he had other reasons to keep “him away from his family”. Everyone assumed that his ex-wife Debbie Rowe is the gold-digger and she was pretty much kept out of the proceedings.

Incidentally, people, especially celebrities and those in high-anxiety professions, can get addicted to prescription and other drugs without any assistance from others who want their money.

If LaToya wants to make allegations, it should be to the cops and not the media. She waited to have her moment at the service and then came out with this.