Salman Khan vs. Milkha Singh... and the league of ranters

“Imagine if the American contingent for the Olympics had George Clooney as goodwill ambassador!” stated the TV anchor, shock in his voice. He, and some of his panelists, were essentially foaming over the fact that actor Salman Khan has been chosen as goodwill ambassador of India for the 2016 Olympics in Rio. All hell broke loose. Why Salman? What has Bollywood got to do with sports? Is this not insulting to our sporting heroes?

While some sportspersons like boxer Mary Kom and shooter Abhinav Bindra seemed to welcome the move, former athlete Milkha Singh – the legendary Flying Sikh – did not. He said:

"I am of the view that our sportspersons, be those from shooting, athletics, volleyball or other sports, they are the real ambassadors of India who would represent the country in the Olympics. Still, if we had to pick an ambassador, it could have been from the sporting arena.”

Salman Khan is not representing any particular sport (and we do know about the sort of one-upmanship that exists among the different sports), so he is a neutral figure. Our players work under great stress not only on their skills, but in dealing with bureaucracy, harassment and pathetic facilities. We do not see many people raising their voices against these, not even the tall players who are now commenting about this selection and how wrong it is.

Here are some of the reasons dished out:

We cannot see beyond Bollywood.

If you spend a little time on social media or television, you will mostly see films being discussed. Yes, there is cricket and the World Cup football games, but since most are watching it on a screen, this too qualifies as, in a sense, a portrayal of the game. We see the players as characters with quirks, with different style statements. How often do you get deep analysis of a game completely devoid of these aspects?

Salman Khan had a simple thing to say after the announcement:

“It is a matter of great national pride that our athletes are performing better and better at the Olympic Games and I think we should all join hands in giving them every support and cheer for them so that Rio 2016 becomes our best Olympic tally.”

He is not replacing a sportsperson but an official.

He is promoting his film Sultan in which he enacts the role of a wrestler.

He has not said anything that might indicate it, but there could be soft marketing. Now, soft marketing takes place all the time if we consider the very ‘being’ of a celebrity as a public relations exercise. Sachin Tendulkar owns a restaurant; he could be promoting that. Mahesh Bhupathi has an agency to promote sportspersons; he could very well land a few deals. We can go on with this.

Human being are usually glamour-struck. That is the reason you get these angry comments. You think they would have bothered if a fairly unknown sports star was appointed goodwill ambassador and somebody had an objection to it? Does anybody even remember who the earlier goodwill people were?

Salman has a criminal and bad boy image.

He does. [Just a thought: Would Americans cry foul if Tiger Woods – bad boy and sportsman – was chosen to represent the US?]

Salman has been to jail for shooting black bucks and when his car killed a pedestrian and injured three others. In the latter, the courts have let him off. There is no excuse for either of the crimes, to whatever extent his direct involvement may be. But, in all these years he has acted in and produced films that went on to become huge hits. Do all those who are raising his criminal image now not watch his movies?

If we ask how can such a man represent India, then we should also ask how can we permit so many MLAs and MPs from sitting in Parliament. Who is voting for them? Do we raise our voices enough? No. We aim at the softer targets. Salman Khan has clout, and he must surely be using it. But in comparison to the political leaders, he is fair game.

And to think some people in the media take a high ground on this. These people whose newspapers and TV channels promote politicians and their photoshopped lies, real crimes too, should be the last people to object.

Celebrities are arrogant.

When was the last time people mentioned Milkha Singh, whose honour they are so frenziedly protecting now? It is ironical that it took a Bollywood ‘insult’ for them to wake up to the legend.

Salman’s father Salim Khan responded to Singh’s statement with these tweets:

• “Milkhaji it is not Bollywood it is the Indian Film Industry and that too the largest in the world.”

• “The same industry which resurrected you from fading away in oblivion.”

Here, let us break this down. In the first he is just expressing distaste for the term ‘Bollywood’ that is often used pejoratively. As an award-winning screen writer, he is permitted to be protective of his industry.

It is the second statement that has caused problems. They say he is being arrogant, and how dare he suggest that a figure like Milkha Singh needs Bollywood.

If we are a little honest with ourselves, the truth is, yes, Milkha Singh as many of this generation know him, did come alive in the film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag. There can be no doubt that it resurrected him, unless we want to bury our heads in the sand or just pretend we can barf nonsense as long as it sounds ‘moral’.

Milkha Singh was fully involved with the movie on his life. It was fascinating to see Farhan Akhtar transform into him. The athlete did not charge anything for the rights. He asked for a token mount of one rupee. The filmmaker Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra arranged for a currency note issued in 1958, the year in which he won the gold medal, a first for India, at the Commonwealth Games.

I do not understand the argument against the film earning crores “on his life”. This was not some sneaky production; he was a part of it. Indeed, the film had to make money because the producer spent on it. Milkha Singh had a choice to demand money. It is said that he was upset because he was expecting 10 percent of the profits. Since it was in the papers, how come none of his now-vocal supporters took this up on his behalf?

There are other sports biopics. We had one on Mary Kom, and there is one on Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Dhoni was paid Rs. 80 crore and Mary Kom Rs. 25 lakh. It is obviously all skewed, but it has a lot to do with economics. Incidentally, both of them do enjoy being as glamorous as film stars. It was surprising to see Ashwini Nachappa questioning Salman’s choice; she herself had tried her hand at acting in films, as have a few others.

Many would not remember, or might not have been born then, but some decades ago when P.T. Usha was riding high a news magazine, India Today, had got her all dolled up for a feature. They too needed to grab eyeballs using glamour.

It is possible that under pressure, the Olympics Association of India decides to withdraw Salman Khan or the actor might do so himself. It would be interesting to see what happens next. If one goes by the general slovenliness of our new sports lovers, they will go back to their organised lives, smirking at the ‘fans’ when they are the ones really obsessed with celebrity.

Where are the sparrows?

It is easy to run down television, but aren't we overdoing its impact on children?

Does it convey a dumbing down if children between three and four can recall names of brands and TV channels, but do not recognise a sparrow?

TOI reporting on the survey conducted by Podar Institute across a few schools in Mumbai started with this statement:

“Parents often pride themselves on their children’s skills but a recent survey might leave many embarrassed."

Many parents these days push their children on TV reality shows. One might question some of them, and even the intent to be in the public eye, but it is essentially to showcase the talent they think their kids possess.

Before such shows, children invariably were asked to perform before visitors - “Beta, recite that poem...show aunty that dance...tell uncle how you will save your sister with karate chops..." (How many children are asked to show skills in mathematics or history?) TV shows have given a wider platform to these same performances. While I do get pretty disgusted watching people so young make adult moves, tell off-colour jokes, is it not a fact that in real life this would be seen as 'older than her/his age'?

The survey sample was 2000 — 500 each from the 3/4 year and fe/male gender bracket. It also concentrated on a fairly uniform socio-economic background. The director of the institute observed:

“Children learn many things from watching television, especially commercials. Brands are not something parents or schools teach, but kids automatically absorb the information because it comes from a very colourful medium.”

I would extend the argument to iconic people and events as brands. The images of Gandhi are 'colourful' — his clothes, glasses, spinning wheel, and his quick gait. I recall a cousin dressing up as Tagore for a fancy dress competition and another as Indira Gandhi, much as one sees them on some reality shows. What, then, makes the latter bad? Some kids talk about events, and although I vehemently oppose children being used to make a point about religion or terrorism, one may surmise that they are not unaware of things around them.

The absorption is based on observation. If 85 per cent could name brands of chocolate, is it only due to the onslaught of televised images? There is no doubt that a story related to the product makes it easy to remember, but what child of an earlier generation would not tell you about the same, and even of other products? Perhaps, if a survey was conducted in those days, the results may not have been too different. I clearly recall Kiss Me toffees and Cadbury's.

90% could identity fast-food joints and names of powdered energy drinks. Is it because of the electronic media or more access? More families are eating out and the family dinner is about where to eat as much as what to eat. Energy drinks on TV work in tandem with how parents force them down kids. Again, Bournvita, Horlick's and Ovaltine have always been used to lure children to have milk.

The input has a lot to do with availability. Tigers are exotic, so everyone was aware about them. The reason probably only 20% could recognise sparrows is because they are not as visible as they used to be. This is borne out by the fact that crows scored better with 70%.

This same principal applies to fruits. Kiwis, bananas, pears, pineapples were known; only 12% could spot chikoos.

There is too much concern about the influence of consumerism. Children do not think about that. If they’d see butterflies, they’d still chase them. If we want to give the butterfly a brand name and they recall that, it does not denude the wonder they feel for it.

© Farzana Versey

The Big Bad Ad

The US ad for Virgin Mobile appears to have made light of a crime: rape. The obvious question would be - are there no limits to sexism? But, then, we reduce the argument. 

As you can see, it features a man standing behind a woman, trying to shut her view. He holds a red box. The caption reads: 'The gift of Christmas surprise. Necklace? Or chloroform?' 

I go with the rape theory. However, for the sake of argument, are rapes always planned? By asking her, are we as viewers of the ad complicit in suggesting that a man will ask before he commits the crime, that the woman is to blame for wanting a gift so badly that she might - a very covert suggestion - just say chloroform to humour him? The ad is bad enough; seeing it as a joke on rape seems worse. 

Like most people my first reaction was the same. Then, I looked at the picture a few times. The gesture of her hands does convey exclamation; it could also mean she is protecting her neck from the necklace. Why is she smiling then? Blind trust?

Virgin Group founder Sir Richard Branson took immediate action: 

“Having just seen, for the first time, the Virgin Mobile US advert which has upset many today, I agree it is ill-judged. Although I don’t own the company [it is owned by a US  firm, Sprint Nextel], it carries our brand.”

Will anyone unsubscribe to Virgin Mobile or its US partner Sprint?

Now we come to the business of advertising. Why would a festive occasion like Christmas be transformed into something Gothic? Does it subliminally appeal to consumers, who probably become less sensitive to social propriety in their fervour to buy, and that as a result everything becomes an object?

That is something we should ask ourselves.  

Fighting Shit

Everybody needs to use the toilet. Every day. But in India, we exaggerate it. By doing so we do not give it importance; we merely magnify it in the lab under a microscope. More appropriately, we bring awareness to people who probably have a bidet, use perfumed toilet paper, and have a warm jet of water to clean up with.

National award-winning actress Vidya Balan is now the brand ambassador for the sanitation drive. This is the brainwave of Union Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh, who said:

"It is going to be a two year programme. She's had a dirty picture in reel life, but this will be a clean picture in real life. I think she will help in making sanitation a national obsession."

This is a silly comment, the transposition of dirty and clean. It is also a cheap gimmick. Ms.Balan’s giggle act and repetitious references to the film was bad enough, now a central minister wants to ride on it. There are people who have to shit in the open, in fields, in dug-up holes, and sewage even from hotels near water sources floats into our rivers and seas. Those people would have liked to have such facilities long ago. What does the minister mean by saying she will make it into a national obsession? The film became a publicity-geared obsession only for those involved. The others bought tickets, whistled, got off and moved on.

Using public facilities is a basic need. What is obsessive about it?

For Vidya Balan it is just one more satellite benefit for The Dirty Picture. She does not have to say it. Instead, the words are typically managed:

“It's an honour for me to be the brand ambassador for the sanitation drive and like Mr Ramesh just said, it needs to become a national obsession and I am going to do everything in my capacity to make sure that the message is taken across to every person.”

What will the ads tell people living in slums or in the interiors? It is the job of the government to provide public toilets and ensure that women do not have to hide their faces behind umbrellas as they sit alongside drains on roads to empty their bowels. Have you seen such scenes? Do you know how heartbreaking it is? Do you know how young women have to take someone along because there are predators waiting? Do you know that many cannot afford even the two rupees to use the public loos? Do you know that the cloth they use during their periods has to be washed in dirty water because there isn’t enough of it? Do you know that they stand for hours to fill buckets to use the water for drinking and cooking and recycle what is left? Do you know that children squat for hours only to see their malnourished droppings taken over by flies?

We look away, hold up our noses. Vidya Balan is doing it out of “conviction”, she says. Every Indian she reaches out to will remember her as she lectures on sanitation. They will probably have an inauguration in some cleaned up poor locality. After that, there will be clips on what to do and how to keep your environment free of disease on television.

The municipalities and panchayats should be regularly visiting these places. They ought to involve key workers from those areas, people who belong there, have suffered. I know that with Ms. Balan it is possible to get some industrial houses to shell out money. Yet, it won’t really reach out unless the infrastructure is in place.

I am waiting for someone to compare her to Mahatma Gandhi the minute she holds up a broom in her hand. It’s been over six decades when he started it. Has it made any difference? It did not then. It will not now. Except to honour the celebrities for their sanitised concern and conviction.

The rotten state of IITs

This news comes from the director of IIT Guwahati. Well, not quite rotten, but if you are not literal you will get the gist of the apparition, not to speak of the continuum of illusion. For all the so-called brilliance of those entering the institute, we have a thriving coaching class business that makes them ‘ready’. In a candid disclosure, Gautam Barua says:

On entering the IITs after undergoing excessive coaching, the students are almost burnt-out and mentally fatigued. Then the IITs for them become a place to relax. Coaching is the primary reason that affects the performance of students. A mindset has been created that if they (students) do not opt for coaching, they may not have the chance to get admission to the IITs.

And do these students wish to go to into engineering at all? Remember the film 3 Idiots where the maverick protagonist calls the fiancé of the woman who he will fall in love with a “gadha” (donkey) because, after all the admission to the prime institute, he ended up in a swivel chair? For him everything had a price tag. Mr. Barua’s views express similar sentiments:

IIT has a brand value. Parents and students want to enter IIT without thinking what they will do. So after they graduate from the IITs, many of them don’t go for engineering jobs; they rather go for the finance sector, management or do jobs which have no connection with engineering. We have seen that about half of the students from IITs are really not interested in engineering.

The IITs are creating a brahmanical bubble of being the superior race and the chosen ones. The fact that some of them are grabbed for a few crore rupees’ salary makes news; the rest become certified purple-robed job seekers. Or, they just have that brand on them and think they can do anything and be certain that with the campus story to back them they are worth a good deal.

People who join medicine have to shell out capitation fees and are made to feel responsible about how that seat is so important. Do the IITs give that sense of accountability to the students? Obviously not. So, why are they such prized mice in the rat race in other fields? Ah, why is the lady carrying the Ferragamo bag with nothing else to show given a better welcome or the man who alights from a Mercedes offered a stiffer salaam? It is the tag.

We are living in times when this is all that seems to count.

In a rather tragic-comic comment, Mr. Barua states:

It is time for the government to create IIT-like institutions in the field of humanities. Let there be IIT-like institutions in economics, philosophy and other fields of humanities, with IIT-like campuses and branding. Then it will no longer be necessary for students to get admitted to IITs and later join non-engineering jobs.

I really do not think we need this sort of tagged legitimacy to move around like dogs with collars. Many universities in any case have ‘names’ and cater to some sort of elitism, whether monetary or intellectual, the latter an iffy word because the purity of such intellectualism is largely diminished if they make puppy eyes about being Stephanians or leave scruffy ideological paw marks about JNU. Where is the individualism?

There was a time when we worried about students being spoonfed. Now, with technology and the availability of information within seconds, the term has taken on different connotations. The IIT person is assumed to be prepared for anything. A bit strange that one who might have been a cordon bleu chef chooses to stand at the buffet table. The only difference is that someone is there to carry the plate.

- - -

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (From Hamlet. Marcellus to Horatio, after Hamlet follows his father's ghost)

Mr. Bachchan's Brand Politics

Oh, they are overdoing it. Oh, he has every right to attend functions. Oh, he is our national asset and conducted himself with grace as opposed to the politicians.

Did the Congress have to react to Amitabh Bachchan’s presence at the sealink with chief minister Ashok Chavan? Did it have any business to ask whether he supports Narendra Modi’s role in the Gujarat riots? Is there a conspiracy against poor Mr. B that they removed the audio-visual clips of Abhiskek, who is the brand ambassador of the World Wildlife Fund?

Okay, the Congress has no love lost, but Mr. Bachchan did not have any problems when his son was given a premature award by the UP government because of their connections. You cannot play a game and expect to only have your cards.

Now, he has gone on the offensive-defensive. He has asked readers of his blog to tell him what to do – which function to attend. This is not public opinion but playing to the gallery. The media is sucking up to him big-time. Imagine the millennium superstar saying he was a failure in politics. They want to tell him, no, no, you did not fail, politics failed you.

This is what he writes:

Ever since leaving politics I have never partaken in any political activity, never made any political statement or shown public allegiance to any political outfit. As a citizen of this country I have a confidential right in not divulging publically my political allegiance, that is if I have any.

Gujarat was there before Mr Modi and shall remain even after him. The divine temple of Somnath in Gujarat was not built personally by Mr Modi, nor did he construct the ancient civilizations of Haraapa, nor did he have a hand in the existence of the lost city of Dwarka, or the beauteous white soils of the Rann of Kutch, and neither did he order the construction of the largest number of heritage sites in the State. These are all vital important and exquisite jewels in the crown of the majestic State of Gujarat, in the most beautiful country of the World, India, and I want to see ..who is going to stop me from glorifying them !!
ATTACK ME, ABUSE ME, CRUCIFY ME … DO WHAT YOU CAN AND WILL … I SHALL NOT STOP. I AM GOING TO DO IT !!

Hahaha…hahahaha….haahhaaahaha…

You find this laughter cheesy and stupid? Well, this is what the great superstar has done.

SO, MR B, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM GLORIFYING ALL THOSE HERITAGE SITES, BUT SINCE WHEN HAS NARENDRA MODI BECOME ONE?

Remember what you had said?

“I do not agree with anyone who calls me shahenshah. This title is more apt for Modi; I am nowhere close.”

Hahahahah?

And when you were brand ambassador of Uttar Pradesh we did not hear you promote any specific sites, nor have we seen you do it for Somnath etc. When did you discover the beauty of the state? And when will you film your next project in that Gujarat?

You also have some social responsibility, not as a celebrity but as a citizen. I had questioned Ratan Tata and his Nano project and I questioned you, too here:

And, as a citizen of the country, he ought to realise that the Modi regime has been harsh on the industry from which he earns his livelihood. He may not protest when their films are banned, but the least he can do is not help out an establishment whose human rights record is abysmal.

Mr. Amitabh Bachchan has conveniently sold out to the best possible hope for him at the moment. Mr. Bachchan has acted irresponsibly in doing so.

If this is not political activity, then please let us know if the Gujarat Tourism Board is not part of the state government. If it is, then you are hired by a political organisation. And since you are not a peon or a clerk, you represent the politics of the state. You mentioned Somnath, did you not? You forgot Gandhi and Porbandar. I mean the Mahatma.

Einstein's Tongue

He is a brand. He could stick anything out and it would sell. He chose his tongue. As tongues go, it is decent enough. Not too long, not too short, not dry, not slobbering. I wish the picture were in colour so I could ‘read’ it more clearly. The shade of the tongue tells you a lot. I wish I could see taste buds. Or little lines running across and meeting each other.

This tongue is political, though. Albert Einstein was not caught in a candid moment; he showed his tongue to photographers and later wrote that his gesture was aimed at all of humanity.

The tongue jutting out can be an apologetic gesture in some cultures or a cocking a snook in many. It is frisky and it aims at reducing others to blubbering idiots by playing a blubbering idiot.

That is why I like Einstein. It has nothing to do with his E=Eminem square or whatever. But why aim it at humanity? Humanity is about humanism. Humanism isn’t about the Red Scare or the McCarthy anti-Communist hearings of the 1950s, which he said was the reason he did what he did.

Old Albert, I think, was a smart fellow. He probably dropped a consonant while speaking or maybe found a button missing from a part of his clothing and in that ‘oops’ moment his tongue just pushed against his grimacing lips and hung there, desolate and wet. He had to do something about it, so he went into those explanations.

It really does not matter. Someone paid $74,324 to get a signed picture of him.


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Einstein