Smriti Irani, Sycophancy and the Politics of Vengeance

Sanjay Dutt and the case for prison reforms

It would not be anything new if I said it is a mockery of the law. This is beyond comprehension. Actor Sanjay Dutt who was jailed for arms possession in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case is to be let out on parole once again on grounds of his wife's ill-health.

The latest report suggests that there are protests outside Yerwada Jail by activists of some political parties. All this happened primarily after some media outlets carried pictures of Maanyata at a film screening and a party last night, which signaled that she was perhaps quite well. The report says a doctor did check on her, and she is suffering from a liver tumour and suspected heart ailment.

How did Sanjay Dutt manage to get a whole month for his wife's ill health? Who decides on the tenure of care that would be required, as an illness has no timeframe, especially if the specifics are not spelled out?

The important questions here are about favouritism and the law. It is obvious that he manages to pull strings and get his way, something denied to others in the same case during the same period.

Zaibunisa Kazi, a woman in her 70s, was denied parole despite her illness. Will Sanjay Dutt stand surety for her? The answer would be: he cannot because he is a convict. Precisely the point. As a convict, how do the authorities take his word?

On the earlier occasion it was his own illness. Aren't prisoners sent to jail doctors? Should there not be adequate checks during his period of furlough to ensure that his health is alright, a mandatory requirement when a prisoner is inside the premises? Jail authorities can be pulled up if there is a problem. What are the standards when a prisoner is on parole? What if he commits suicide? Who will be responsible?

Should we blame the person seeking it or those granting it? If I were a celebrity, then it is possible that I might try and milk my status as much as possible. What is the law for — to play into my whims? Is the law my chattel that I can call upon to do as I will it to?

There is much talk about corruption, but what is going on here is a form of corruption on the part of the police and law agencies. Under pressure state home minister RR Patil passed the buck:

“The parole has been granted by the Divisional Commissioner. We are looking into the matter and have sought documents which formed the basis for allowing his release on parole.”

From the start, this case was in the public eye because the legal system deemed it fit to be seen as proper. To maintain that sense of propriety it sent a bunch of people to jail. Once you take this decision, then at least respect it. If Sanjay Dutt's behaviour is good, what is the aged Zaibunisa Kazi doing that isn't good?

I am all for humane treatment of prisoners, but it should apply across the board. (It was not done while convicting, as we know about ministers who had arms at the time.) If the law too believes it buckled under pressure while sentencing Dutt and a couple of others, then is there room for reopening the cases?

Perhaps it is time to use this instance to discuss prison reforms. Why can we not have a system of a broad-based house arrest, where convicts who are to be trusted can continue to contribute to society while being denied certain privileges? Doing carpentry and cooking may work in the barracks, but prisons can become better places if there are fewer prisoners in them. They can benefit if the 'homed' convicts are made to pay a portion of their earnings to the welfare of prisons. Imagine a Sanjay Dutt contributing, say, 10 per cent of his earnings.

There should certainly be strictures, such as showing up every ten days and filling up a roster, impounding of the passport and whatever identification papers the government deems fit, and the police can conduct surprise checks whenever they wish but accompanied by an appointed ombudsman from an impartial agency. Public appearances in the case of celebrities should not be permitted. Between work and home, the legal system can create a group of individuals who are not merely holed up and then granted special leave that looks like a farce.

If justice is seen to be done, it can be so outside the prison too. As I had written in an earlier piece:

a criminal is not answerable to me or you. The government, the judiciary, the police are. They are public servants. As for the ‘watchdogs’, it would be good for them to remember that those who prefer selective justice are the real anti-social elements.

The same applies to selective treatment of those who have seemingly got their just desserts.

© Farzana Versey

Miss America, Missed America

Why OD on racist comments against the latest beauty pageant winner when the majority of Americans don't care? If they can accept yoga, herbal cures and gurus, and even Spelling Bee and American Idol winners, why would they have a problem with Nina Davuluri, an American of Indian origin, getting the crown?

I found the comment by the host of Fox News and Commentary, Todd Starnes, rather curious:

"The liberal Miss America judges won't say this - but Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values."

What is a 'real' American? I didn't ask 'who' because it is only an idea, and could be represented by many perspectives. Miss Kansas is an Army Sergeant. It was the first time a contestant displayed tattoos. As these do not constitute values, one wonders whether her serving in the forces has anything to do with it. If that represents fealty by default, then does it mean that "liberal" judges do not understand American values? How are values to be displayed on a stage such as this?

What about the comment by Miss Florida Myrrhanda Jones? When asked about minorities having low-incomes, high-unemployment and incarceration rates and what should the country do to address this, she said:

"My father is unemployed. It took a lot for me to be able to stand on this stage. ... We need to have more jobs in America."

She was cut off before she could continue.

How would American values be factored in here? Was she not addressing a real issue with a personal example?

The 2014 finals on September 16 represent a small segment of the United States. There are bound to be reactions by just such a small group. That they are ill-informed is another matter.

However, Indians who like celebrating every 'foreign' success are likely to forget their own biases. Davuluri was referred to (wrongly) as an Arab and "Miss Al Qaida". This, more than anything else, would bother the majority of Indians, because we too tend to box in all Arabs with terrorists.

Then there is the profession. She wants to be a doctor. Indians are so hierarchy and status conscious that they will look down upon anyone who does not have such acceptable professional aspirations. Indian doctors in the U.S. are as much a stereotype as are motel owners or, as one of the angry responses mentioned, "Miss America? You mean Miss 7-11."

Had she mentioned that she wanted to run a nail spa or be a flight stewardess, Indians would not quite like it. They would then not be as concerned about racism as they are now, which only reveals their prejudices as much as those who are ranting about it.

The question posed to Davuluri was rather ironical. Responding to Julie Chen's decision to have plastic surgery about making her eyes less Asian, she said:

"I don't agree with plastic surgery, however I can understand that from a standpoint. More importantly I've always viewed Miss America as the girl next door. And Miss America is always evolving... I wouldn't want to change someone's looks. Be confident in who you are."

How many contestants say they are the girl next door? I find the term quite patronising, whoever utters it. Besides, what is the standpoint of understanding an alteration in identity? Are looks the only criteria that ought to be judged where such change is sought?

She also said:

"I'm so happy this organization has celebrated diversity, and, on this stage tonight, there was so much diversity."

53 women from places with a different climate, accent and cultural nuances, are bound to be diverse.

By emphasising the origins, immigrants, that too second and third generation, in some ways disqualify themselves. When she stood with Crystal Lee, the first runner-up, even before the results were announced, Davuluri said:

"We are making history right here as Asian-Americans."

She is Miss New York. In that state you bump into all kinds of people. Choosing a platform that is meant to celebrate pulchritude — let us cut out the tripe of the talent and question rounds (Syria?!) — she was no different from any other contestant. The primary motive is to look good, and also play up the exotic if you've got that.

Rather cannily, the discourse has shifted from sexism to racism, when the body objectified is also a form of 'segregation'.

---

End note:

In a just-concluded dance reality show —'Jhalak Dikhla Ja — on Indian television, an American lost out to a telly soap actress. Lauren Gottlieb is not an Indian citizen, but she has acted in a film and plans to work in India. She performed a few Indian-style dances, too, and was a delight to watch and by far the best dancer. She got the most number of perfect scores from the judges. So, it is obvious that she got fewer votes from the public — the Indian public that is obsessed with westerners did not want to see her win. And then we talk about racism.

© Farzana Versey

Playing Parvez Rasool: Politics and Pawns

I am glad they left Parvez Rasool out. I am glad because by the act of not sending him — the "first Kashmiri" to represent India — on the field, we are witness to varied kinds of politicking.

On Saturday, Aug 3, India was playing the 5th ODI against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo. We were already in the lead. Of the 15-man squad, Rasool was the only one who was not given a game.

The result was outrage. Why treat a Kashmiri as different when you want him to be India's hope?

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah expressed his anger with his usual dramatic flourish: "Did you really have to take him all the way to Zimbabwe to demoralise him? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just do it at home?"

The CM is insulting the Indian team, the state he rules and Rasool, especially the latter when he pleaded on the eve of the last match to "give him a chance". Had there been allegations of malpractice or matchfixing, would he have been as quick to ask the team to treat a player from J&K without any favour?

One does not have to think too hard about the machinations and Mr. Abdullah is not the only one.

Kashmiri Pandits who hardly ever referred to Vivek Razdan and Suresh Raina are now emphasising their Kashmiri roots. Clearly, it is one of those 'use the populist sentiment' moments. It is not the same though, for Parvez Rasool lives in Kashmir and, unlike the other two, he has to 'earn' the India cap for reasons beyond cricket.

Does everything in J&K have to do with militancy? Rasool, a resident of Anantnag, has experienced it first-hand. When there were militant attacks in Bangalore in 2009. As India TV reported:

Police along with a few other people detained Rasool, who was a member of his state’s junior cricket team, as they had been staying within the premises of the Chinnaswamy Stadium which became the target of the militants.The youngster was later cleared of all charges and continued with his cricketing career to achieve greater heights.

“I dont want to talk much about that incident...Whatever happened back then is something I have left behind me and followed cricket. Now that I have worked so hard, I have got such good results,” said Rasool.

On the one hand, there is the real issue of the alienation of those from the state, and then there is a hint that even a sop would do. The word sop is not used though; it is called symbolism. That does not change anything. The Times of India said that not giving him a single game defied "both cricketing and symbolic logic". The first being "to test its bench strength in conditions quite different from home against a weak opposition".

This does not sound like an opportunity, but an insult. Experts might differ, but a weak opposition would be like playing at the nets. Besides, the tokenism would fall flat:

It would also have given a player from Jammu & Kashmir an unprecedented India cap, the symbolic value of which could have been huge. Sadly, the men on the spot didn't seem to understand this and nobody higher up nudged them either.

How different would this be from bookies placing calls to swing a match? The BCCI does not, and must not, decide what happens on the ground. And the BCCI is not the government of India. It is the GOI that will ultimately have to work with the state for real decisions, and not mere symbolism. As the report further states:

The first cricketer from J&K team to be selected for the national cricket team, Rasool is also a beacon of hope for players from a region which felt marginalized from Indian cricket's mainstream. By playing Rasool, who is by all accounts competent enough to hold his own against Zimbabwe, the Indian team could have brought joy to Kashmir and given the player confidence to get into the big league.

This is just patronising. Is a Kashmiri only competent enough to play Zimbabwe? If that is a weak team, then how will he gain confidence against bigger players? I read somewhere that his selection was fast-tracked after a good haul against Australia in India.

Kashmiris feel and are marginalised in several areas. And, it may not sound right to say it, but not everyone in the state is looking to represent India in cricket. And not everyone would be crestfallen over this 'picnic to Zimbabwe' because people continue to be killed and have to battle everyday issues.

If only there were sops and symbolic gestures to assuage those.

© Farzana Versey

Chatting up the media = barking up the wrong tree

Hear, hear?

The media should be the last refuge of the Prime Minister of any country. I think our ministers are too vocal without saying anything – whether it is home minister P.Chidambaram whose bright idea it is for the PM to have these gup-shups, or the social networking guys who provide bird feed or the Digvijay Singh types who use the rattler to create a noise. Occasionally some sense comes out of it, but politics and leadership are not occasional sparks.

Manmohan Singh’s interaction with the media will be as scripted as his speeches. If anything, it will create fissures among different groups as to who gets to attend these special sessions. Five senior editors are being invited. The first meeting was today. His office is expected to release the transcripts.

This is as pathetic as Anna Hazare holding the government to ransom. And it is unfortunate both ways. One, this amounts to fed information. The editors may ask questions but one can be reasonably certain it won’t be open season. Dr. Singh will know what is being asked beforehand – and most senior media guys tend to err on the side of propriety when it comes to dealing with authority. Gone are the days of putting their heads on the chopping block. Now, it is more important to rub shoulders with the powerful, and even if it means making them accountable there is an element of “See, we have this much reach.”

Two, how many of the editors will carry the full transcript? What would the editing reveal if not their own pet positions? That would not be as bad as trying hard to give a balanced picture and misleading the reader/viewer by slyly pushing an agenda. Recall the famous breakfast meeting by Pervez Musharraf in Agra where editors spoke about the fluffy omelettes and his compliments on their clothes. They called it his PR coup.

(Break: Just come in. One of the PM's statements at the high-powered meet: "What surprises me is not that there are corrupt civil servants but that despite all the temptations, so many of our civil servants remain honest and lead frugal lives and this is the mainspring that we have to tap.")

Take any recent event and you can see which side the media house is on despite giving all sides.

Manmohan Singh is answerable to the nation not to the media. The job of the media is to carry news and express opinions and the two should be clearly demarcated. The PM owes them nothing. He owes the citizens an explanation. For that he needs to release a statement or come before the Doordarshan cameras. Maybe answer queries from the public.

Government transparency is not about discussing policy issues with editors. They are not in the government. And they are not even transparent themselves.

- - -

I can understand media pressure when one of their own is murdered. Initially, many did to want to comment on the killing of investigative editor J. Dey, remember? Let the cops do their job was their stance. Then the morchas took place. The ministers were pressurised. The cops had to do something quick.

Now they have rounded up seven people from the Chhota Rajan gang. Everyone knows that this could be the tip of the iceberg, but can the media run its own investigations? If so, then come clean. Don’t expect the government to deliver the goods and then run your own theories. Dey’s colleague ‘Akela’ had some leads. Have they come to any use?

And, more importantly, if he made that trip to Europe and met some underworld guy, then what exactly was going on? What about his proposed junket trip to Philippines that he was not too keen on? Are scribes being used to act as messengers and by whom?

Rather conveniently, the action has suddenly shifted to Chandni Chowk where the plan was apparently hatched. This, after the case was “cracked”. More obfuscation, but no real questions. And, yes, no motives.

(Here was my take on June 11: Who kills investigative reporters?)

- - -

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah is not making any promises. Nice. He left a public gathering when he was asked to make an announcement in Beerwah that it would be given separate district status from Budgam. He said there are procedures for these things and he cannot make false promises.

This is all good. But why did he leave the venue? He is the CM. It wasn’t like he was being asked for Kashmir to be separated from Jammu or Ladakh or even India…

The Indian Army’s Women

The headline is deliberately sensational. This is how the women officers are treated – with scant respect and without getting their due. Worse, the government that talks about reservations for women in Parliament agrees with the court that women in the Indian Armed Forces are lesser than men. Major Seema Singh has challenged the Supreme Court:

“The policies for women in army not only discriminate her against male officers but also lower her status to that of a jawan/junior commissioned officer, whom she has been leading for 14 years.”

After this, she is “thrown out”, and given the number of years she receives no pension and no retirement benefits. In the scathing words of Major Singh:

“The army is using the policy of use and throw while dealing with its trained women officers.”

The risk theory is propounded, which is flimsy:

“Women officers and gentlemen officers commissioned into these services are performing similar jobs, undergoing similar professional courses and are being posted to all field and peace postings. There is no separate charter of duties for women officers or short service commissioned male officers and permanent commissioned male officers. The strength of women officers posted in services in combat zone is 30% whereas short service commissioned gentlemen officers comprise 29% and permanent commissioned gentlemen officers have 23% presence.”

Even if one is to take the facing the enemy line, these tasks are not about combat. Besides, how many troops are really in a constant state of battle? Why must only combat zones be considered real work? This is just a manner in which the army, a male preserve, keeps its image of machismo alive.

It is clearly not an issue of performance but gender, for why do the officers doing the same job get to stay and why are some pushed up to give orders to the women who were once their seniors? How many women officers have been implicated in scams? How many have had cases against them for sexual harassment? How many have shirked their duties? How many have dropped out mid-way? How many have used excuses to get out of the army – it is tough and the excuses are fine-tuned? How many instances have the armed forces encountered where women officers specifically asked for soft postings? Are there more applications for leave from women officers?

Do remember these women are not getting brave in bunkers for a short while; this is their job and they ought to be given all the facilities due to them.

If militant organisations can have their women’s wing, and be sure they are combative, then the army need not worry about our women officers. They joined the forces knowing what they were getting into and not to nurse the wounds and egos of our male officers.

- - -

On an unrelated note: 

Cinema halls play the national anthem before the start of a movie. Of late, they have the film Rajneeti's team on screen before the flag singing the anthem. No one resents standing up out of respect, but I certainly do not want to see the faces of Katrina Kaif, Ranbir Kapoor, Prakash Jha and the rest covering the flag. Why do we have to face them? It appears we are paying respects to them as representing the anthem and the flag.