How Social Media Dishonoured Qandeel Baloch

Qandeel Baloch sometimes looked like Amy Winehouse; her death was as tragic as Amy's. Both were on drugs. Winehouse was on the hard stuff; Baloch on the harder one.

Addiction to social media is narcotic. I do not mean the persistent need to check the walls and timelines or click on likes, or even to voice an opinion or an inanity, but the recreating of life online — to be completely subsumed by the persona one has birthed as well as the perceptions. In fact, Baloch was no more her own creation. She was an opinion. As she had said, "Love me or hate me both are in my favour. If you love me I Will always be in your heart, if you hate me I'll always be in your mind."

In the real world, she was killed by her brother — sedated and then strangulated, as her parents slept in the other room, sedated too. This murder falls into the honour-killing category. And immediately, we hear of the yawn-producing argument that these murders should be called dishonour-killings because, they ask, where's the honour.

Such ridiculous assertions forget that by doing so they suggest the victim would have brought dishonor as much as the perpetrator has, when we are in fact talking about misplaced ideas of honour, prevalent in almost all societies.

In Pakistan, the victim's family can forgive the man. Baloch's father has refused. He wants to wreak vengeance upon the son. One article even quoted the parent calling out, "Qandeel, Qandeel!" Strange, because that was not the name she was given at birth. She was Fouzia Azeem. Qandeel Baloch was the pseudonym she chose for herself. To escape, among other things, memories of being forcibly married off by her parents when she was a teen.

It was her new life that took care of them. Baloch was the only earning member. Her brother says he killed her because of the stuff she posted. But it could also be because his male ego could not handle being dependent on a sister, that too one who was unapologetic about her self-portrayal.

The latest news is that her mother says the brother was taunted by his friends regarding his sister's shenanigans, somehow softening the opinion against him. Nobody seems to want to take responsibility for judging her. She is now, as she was then, just a daughter, a sister, a trigger for the self-righteous.

Qandeel Baloch was not as unusual a phenomenon as is made out. The pretty provocative at 26 is often what rebellions are made of. I watched an interview in which she referred to herself as a social media sensation. That was her identity.

It is no different from the social media celebrities around who primarily feed their followers minutiae of their lives — the animals they rear, the food they eat, the places they visit, the clothes they wear. They flash these as a badge of frankness, when what such trivia does is to act as a camouflage for their opinions and feelings or, more likely, lack of them.

They feed on events and trolls. The more trolls they get for a stray comment the more they begin to market their boldness. Being in-your-face is projected as honesty. The cliques to which they belong — and they sure as hell wouldn't survive without them — ensure that their machinery is well-lubricated with their fan-like leech behaviour.

The Qandeel supporters were different. They might have enjoyed her exhibitionism, but they could not possibly invest in her emotionally because they felt they were not equal. As long as she could be patronised, it was okay. In some cases, she reminded them of their own struggles. But, yet again, there was a kid glove treatment.

I watched The Ali Saleem Late Night Show where she appeared alongside Pakistani comic actor Rauf Lala. The latter had the audacity to leer at her and make it seem like doing so was a part of his acceptance of her. He resorted to the typical subcontinental trope of, "You are like my sister." She shot back, "Can't you say daughter?" He agreed, in the same leering manner, "Ok, ok, like a child I've rocked in my lap."

If you think this was just another character from the entertainment industry, then you are wrong. I've witnessed much sniggering by Pakistani liberals online. Upon her death, they might have surely spoken some shit about how horrible honour killing is and how she was merely a misguided youngster. Short of calling her a floozy, because they are so desperate to be politically correct, they meant just that.

Qandeel, obviously, had a different opinion of herself and her agenda. In a Facebook post a day before her death, she had written:

"I believe I am a modern day feminist. I believe in equality. I need not to choose what type of women should be. I don't think there is any need to label ourselves just for sake of society. I am just a women with free thoughts free mindset and I LOVE THE WAY I AM."

But this love for herself was the result of going regularly viral due to the 'love' of others. Did the liberal society ever grant her the status of feminist? Even Mathira, a model and actress known for her item numbers, had mentioned in an earlier interview about her drawing the line somewhere as opposed to Qandeel, who apparently knew of no such line.

Qandeel did a bad version of twerking, she wore transparent clothes and seduced the camera. The viewers were added bonus. And she sang. That's what she wanted to do. That's what nobody was interested in. Unless she sang wearing night clothes in bed just before signing off in a video she shot to share with strangers.

Did anybody notice her voice? Clearly not. Even in that 'understanding' interview with Ali Saleem, the host made her run on a treadmill and sing. To be fair, he made the other guest do so too, but Rauf Lala had no singing ambitions. Qandeel did.

But she was just time-pass for those on social media who even as they while away the hours in their echo chambers look down on people like Qandeel who do the same.

They refuse to accept her not only on her terms, but even on theirs, should she have made it. She had to be kept in her place, even as they pretended not to show her her place.

In the end, the social media voyeurs were witnesses to the murder of Qandeel Baloch.

---

An earlier one on Amy Winehouse

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.

How J.K.Rowling demoted Serena Williams

What should have been the brilliant Serena Williams' moment has transformed into a J.K.Rowling defending Serena one. The tennis star has enough calibre and celebrity to withstand stray comments, if she pays heed to them at all.

Instead, by rushing to her rescue Ms Rowling has reduced that victory to victimisation.

It started with Rowling posting her praise for Serena on Twitter: "I love her. What an athlete, what a role model, what a woman!"

A fellow called Rob responded with, "Ironic then that main reason for her success is that she is built like a man."

That's when Rowling did what she is now all over the place for. She posted two pictures of Serena in a slinky, clingy gown, her contours emphasised, and captioned it, "'she is built like a man'. Yeah, my husband looks just like this in a dress. You're an idiot."

For doing this, Rowling is now celebrated for having "decimated", "destroyed" a troll. Seriously? Can't even imagine the search words she must have used to find these photographs. Was it "Serena looking like a woman" or "Serena's hips"?

Rob has an opinion about women's bodies, and he does not think twice about commenting on a tennis player's despite the fact that she has won due to stroke play and not what she looks like. But, is J.K.Rowling any different from the guy who is denounced as a "body shamer"? One may accuse him of being wrong, or of misogyny, but has he shamed Serena?

Why would being built like a man qualify as shame? If a graceful male dancer is said to be built like a woman, would that be an insult? It ought not to.

I am surprised that the media has gone all pulp prose to commend Rowling, who should in fact be ticked off. She posts a picture of Serena looking 'feminine' and goes on to highlight it. What if she did not have those curves, would she then be less of a person of the female gender?

Not all women are built in the mould that a Rowling fancies as representative, just as not all men are uniform in build that Rob implies.

Worse, Serena is objectified not by the unknown man, but by this celebrity author. It's almost like a put-on display to justify to that Rob guy that she is all woman, all flesh. This is body shaming because it feels the need to prove that it is the desirably accepted female body and not what a guy from somewhere suggests it is.

Serena has won a title at Wimbledon. Her body has not. So, J.K. Rowling and her cheerleaders in the media and social media, bereft of nuance, can just shut up. And perhaps grow up.

Fake Feminism and the Alamuddin-Clooney marriage

A few months ago, somebody sent me a YouTube link to "the woman they say George Clooney is getting married to". Amal Alamuddin was discussing human rights. The feminist who forwarded it could have just sent the link, perhaps adding the subject of the discussion. It intrigued me that the 'connection' of the subject needed to be mentioned at all.

You are probably thinking what I asked myself too: would I have really been interested in watching the clip otherwise? To be honest, less so with as much immediacy. I did not know anything about her, and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. She lives and works in London, and as a legal luminary she is not — or was not — a subject of pop culture, which is what is fed globally.

I did not expect her not to be good, but she was indeed impressive and somebody I could trust with opinions. It did not mean I would forget who she was betrothed to. These were not antagonistic realities, and could run parallel without either jousting the other for space.

Amal and George are now married. They seem happy and look good together. That would have been my views on what has now become a celebrity wedding.

However, the link sender I mentioned at the beginning has found an echo in this headline:

'Internationally acclaimed barrister Amal Alamuddin marries an actor'

If the idea was to laud her, it falls pathetically flat to a discerning observer. Mentioning the two by their professions is stating the obvious. The motive here is to show her as superseding him, which is the trope patriarchal notions thrive on — of the spouse as competitor, a threat who needs to be envied and therefore tamed.

There is a good deal of undercurrent here. The taming might be almost invisible. The article that goes with the headline concurs with Clooney's earlier observation that he was "marrying up". I have serious issues with such social mobility, and one is aware of how women are often accused of "getting a good catch" or relying on the "sugar daddy".

This is particularly galling if you consider that the man may genuinely think she is too good for him, but in the popular imagination it strikes one as him legitimising her superiority, and therefore acceptable to those holding forth. It is quite likely that this site is doing what the man believes is okay. They have his tacit approval.

»

Little is known of Amal’s earlier relationships (we assume she was climbing that corporate ladder and smashing glass ceilings) but she’s tying the knot with an actor, whose name is George Clooney, we’re told.

They are desexualising her as somebody who cannot have a personal life because she was busy proving herself. Would they ever day that about a man? Any man?

»

We only hope he doesn’t hold her back from conquering the world. We think this George Clooney fellow has scored big time.

Were they interested in her before this? Have they written about her earlier, and in such flattering terms, which would be deservedly so? And by suggesting that he might hold her back, they are playing into such an old stereotype that ends up reducing her to a puppet who can be held back.

They are only now scrounging for her pictures because of who she is with. It might have helped if there was honesty rather than facile attempts at pseudo feminism that doles out crumbs by way of cheesy headlines to prop up what does not need props. Or quoting Julia Roberts praising her for her to be seen as a legitimately accomplished person.

Cheap parody and sophomore trickery can't take you very far as feminists or humanists. It just can't take you much further than your celebrity-assigned blinkers.

Victims, perpetrators and watchers: Preity-Ness

The problem with the Preity Zinta-Ness Wadia case is with the word molestation. As a feminist and one who would err on the side of a woman, I do have a few questions.

First, this is what happened: Zinta and Wadia are joint owners of the IPL Kings XI Punjab cricket team. They were in a steady five-year relationship, but had split quite sometime ago. They continued with the professional partnership.

The latest season of the IPL matches brought Zinta a lot of attention for her infectious enthusiasm and support of her players. Wadia seems to have been more a backroom partner, although given his background as scion of the Wadia business empire he certainly would take a call on financial matters.

On Thursday night, June 12, she filed a police complaint against him. Here is why:

On May 30, an IPL match between Kings XI Punjab and Chennai Super Kings was played at the Wankhede stadium. During the match, when Preity was at the Garware Pavillion, Ness reportedly accosted her and also bad mouthed her in front of many people.

She gave a written complaint following which an FIR was registered against Wadia under IPC sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), police sources added.

The police has acted quickly on her complaint that he accosted her, grabbed her hand and abused her before a bunch of people. Her complaint was converted into an FIR within a day.

This is how it ought to be, but often isn't. Besides, she had not recorded her full statement as she had to leave the city.

Now for a few points:

• This is important to her, so could she not delay her travel plans? She also took 13 days to file a complaint, again because she was traveling. Where are the priorities? We must understand that she is educated and is not striving to survive, and has a support system. This is not the case with many women who are forced to stay quiet. The impact of an immediate complaint would help investigators too.

• The Oxford dictionary defines molest as 1.Assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually; 2 DATED Pester or harass (someone) in an aggressive or persistent manner

Despite the public statements being more in the nature of the latter, it has been given a titillating connotation. Unless there is more to it than we do know, such loose references demean those who suffer from sexual/physical exploitation of the worst kind.

In fact, just recently the courts have announced that sexual force against a woman's will in a marriage will not be considered rape. There are cases of domestic violence and harassment at the workplace that rarely get heard.

The response is likely to be that Preity Zinta has come out in the open and it might help women, and she has shown courage to take on a big man.

It does take courage, but she is a famous person in her own right. That is the reason that the Mumbai Police Commissioner has personally ensured the case gets due attention and the Maharashtra State Women's Commission have demanded action.

On her Facebook page, she has raised some important issues:

"It saddens me that no one at work or around ever stood up for me in the past when i was abused and insulted publicly. This time i was left with no option but to take this stern step as this incident happened in front of way too many people."

I assume she is talking about the IPL colleagues and not the film industry, for she has thanked them. I am disappointed though that abuse for her is abuse if it is in front of way too many people. This is one of the reasons people do not complain about what happens behind closed doors. Some news channels are talking about how there has been a history of abuse even during their relationship, and she has now decided to not remain silent. It is astonishing that not only was she quiet all these years, she continued with the working relationship for another five years when she filed the complaint.

He has reportedly talked about his political clout and she says her life is under threat. Did all this transpire during that one incident? If such abuse has taken place (Ness Wadia says it is not possible as she is always "surrounded by bouncers"), then it clearly reveals the arrogance of the man who assumes no one would dare to oppose him. In a sense, he was right. She gave him 13 days of respite.

"Sometimes we are so ashamed and humiliated that we fool ourselves to believe that no one saw what happened. Everyone always looks away as if they don't exist or then we don’t exist."

I am afraid, but I have to ask this: is there more concern for reputation, of being publicly humiliated despite being a star? This is a problem with fame — their status as former partners in a relationship would make them 'untouchable'. Besides, the reports on the cctv footage mention that she was with family and friends. Did they look away as well?

"Ironically what happened at Wankade is being diluted by every other fabricated story about my character except the truth of what happened. I'm sure the witnesses will speak the truth and i trust and believe that the police will do their job fairly and quickly."

This is by far the most unfortunate aspect. Indeed, it is treated like a soap opera. Even worse, some who are standing up to support her are comparing her courage by calling other actresses bimbos without any context. The media and social media space has always sensationalised abuse, more so when celebrities are involved. Even director Mahesh Bhatt has used this opportunity to plug the film 'A Hate Story' by referring to this as one as opposed to the love story it was. Nobody seems to realise there has been no personal relationship between the two for a while.

"No woman likes to be involved in a controversy like this which makes her open and vulnerable for all to take a dig at."

There is no reason that a fight for one's self-esteem and against abuse should be seen as a controversy. It isn't. However, if anyone commenting on this case believes that it will be an eye-opener, then we are deluding ourselves and living in a cocoon.

Barely a few days after the Badaun gangrape, there has been another case. Every single day, it happens in some form or the other.

It is also time to ask whether the blanket usage of the word rape is counter-productive. While the violation of a woman's body/person in any manner is reprehensible and should deserve punishment, the media and the cops tend to divert their energies towards motives and extent.

That is the reason I feel that Preity Zinta is doing injustice to herself and the cause of women speaking up. She should have taken action sooner, and helped the investigations. Without a full statement, it appears that she is as privileged as Ness Wadia, who should have certainly not said that he did not imagine she could "stoop to such a level".

This is the usual damning indictment when any woman raises her voice. If only many of them would raise their voices. And that at least a fraction of those showing support now would gather around them even after the media glare fades.

Note: Had withheld this hoping for more information. Have decided to post it with the proviso that while no two instances are the same, it is society's attitude towards different victims that reveals how we are and will be.

UPDATE: June 15, 11.30 am IST

Some reports have now added details about the case. Some of it is here.

The more I read about victim blaming/shaming, the more I realise that there is no sense of proportion. If we cannot compare this case with other instances of abuse, then why should we use the standards of other cases for this? The law applies the same sections for all, based on the complaint.

Some newspaper websites are carrying slideshows of her previous affairs. While she is called an attention-seeker, he is referred to as a mamma's boy, and his mother too is dragged into it. Wasn't there talk of a soap opera? Besides this, anyone with an internet connection becomes a commentator. Worse is that the 'concerned' are posting the insulting remarks by anonymous people, only adding to the shaming they are fighting against.

On the other hand, a TV channel was showing clips of her films, as though it was an award-winning moment.

Regarding her appeal for privacy, the case happened in the public domain, witnesses who were present there will be questioned, the police are talking to the media. And would respect for privacy have resulted is any support that she is getting?

I am aware of 'everyday misogyny' as much as any other woman, but I refuse to consider all crimes against women as "rape culture", a despicable and horribly misogynist term used liberally by feminists too.

Whatever anybody says is based on available material, and all speculation will rely on this as well as a general attitude. No one can take the moral highway on what is right or wrong. If this was not a one-off incident, then I do believe that Preity Zinta should see it as her duty to use her privilege and not just her right.

© Farzana Versey

When the Press shackles...

Turn the pages of a newspaper, surf television channels, visit news websites. What you get to see is plenty of freedom. Everybody is free to say what they wish, in a language they choose to, for a motivation only they might know about.

Together with freedom comes responsibility is not just a cliché. When you celebrate World Press Freedom Day at least understand what is expected of you:

Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

2014 Theme is: Media Freedom for a Better Future: Shaping the post-2015 Development Agenda.

How many are bothered about this? Editors who censor pieces and kowtow to masters of varied stripes are talking about press freedom? Even reports are cut to make space for ads, or if they go contrary to what the sponsors might like. Opinion pieces are censored because, again, they will cause problems.

But, whose freedom is this?

The regional press that has a much wider reach and better understanding of people in the villages and small towns, and certainly has an urban audience as well, is largely ignored.

A few months ago, two well-known TV anchors were said to be planning to quit their jobs. The immediate reaction was that they were under pressure. Op-eds in the international press too gave their example even though both had clarified that no such thing had happened.

More recently, a young lawyer collated some Modi myths to be busted; it was published in DNA. A few hours later it was not there. The immediate reaction was that the fascists had started working.

Let us get this clear: the fascists will. There are several examples. Yet, had anybody bothered to call out the newspaper, ask for an explanation? Had anybody bothered to raise questions other than the one that suited the current anti-wave? This is surprising, for nothing in that piece was new or more damning than some that have preceded it. There was no sharp opinion.

Would it not be more proactive to get the newspaper to respond instead of just riding a, well, wave?

We are already on to other stories, other minor ripples.

Is this about censorship?

The media that seeks the right to write has crossed the line several times. Have you noticed that while film stars and politicians are soft targets, industrialists are treated with deference? And what about the media houses themselves? It is rare that a Tarun Tejpal case comes to light, but even here it became a matter of professional rivalry.

I will only be repeating myself when I say that the deals the media strikes with politicians, with corporate houses (if they are not owned by them), with the underworld too will not be outed. Even in the Tejpal case, two factors were important.

1) After the media had given the Delhi gangrape primetime, sexual abuse has become an issue that cannot be ignored. I won't go into the dynamics of how it twists the victim's situation to suit TRPs and advertising.

2) Without in any way taking away from the crime, there was the political-corporate aspect that oversaw how justice was to be delivered.

In the FoE overdrive, there is rarely any discussion about the reporters on the field, especially in sensitive areas.

It is disgusting to read about how some in the press cling onto their peers who might be unfortunate victims of violence. It is time to wake up. Such incidents take place not because the media houses are outspoken and free, but because the perpetrators of violence won't have it any other way. They have targeted even those who are silent and have no media access. If the press wants to act as though it is upholding democracy, then it better learn to practice the freedom across the board within the organisation, and not be selective.

Or they should make their position/agenda clear. To the readers, their sponsors, and their staff and contributors.

Do they have the courage? No. They keep their options open because they want to curry favours. They do not know who will come to power, which industry will have its projects passed, which celebrity will be feted. So, we have a mélange of people of dubious worth featured consistently until such time that they become redundant for the 'free' media.

Couples DO consciously uncouple

If you have not walked down that street, stop spraying near every lamppost. Those commenting on how others decide to term their personal lives is the stuff of gossip, and does not in any way express the concern for relationships they claim to uphold.

The phrase under the scanner, and that caused sniggers, is 'conscious uncoupling', used by Hollywood actress Gwyneth Paltrow and her musician husband Chris Martin after a decade of marriage. It was a joint statement, but Paltrow has had to bear the brunt of "sickly self-serving twaddle". This should tell us something about the stupendously 'unconscious' lives making lobotomised decisions that are holding forth.

Parting is never easy. In intimate relationships, you have to reclaim yourself. You do seek euphemisms, because it has to do with how you project your life from past to future. You feel like shit even if you are the one to opt out. You feel like shit even if you knew it was coming. You feel like shit when you stand bare and look for warts because you must have screwed it up. You feel like shit as vultures view your vulnerability with binoculars.

You have to look the voyeurs in the eye, with their happy shared-diaper duties, joint-account couplings, looking for your availability, your blotches. You feel like shit. But you have other things to do, even if the relationship was your priority, and not just because you were given the keys to the kingdom in a barter. You may not even have a signed piece of paper. You just have your dignity.

You may not utter the D word or mention the breakup for months, years.

Gwyneth and Chris had to announce it because their lives are public, and they did so gracefully:

"...we have come to the conclusion that while we love each other very much we will remain separate. We are, however, and always will be a family, and in many ways we are closer than we have ever been. We are parents first and foremost, to two incredibly wonderful children and we ask for their and our space and privacy to be respected at this difficult time. We have always conducted our relationship privately, and we hope that as we consciously uncouple and coparent, we will be able to continue in the same manner."

For anyone to assume that only celebrities have to deal with verbal issues to break the news reveals ignorance. On legitimised kingsize beds, in denial about their compromised existence based on mortgages and suspicions camouflaged as concern, they do you.

Take this from Jan Moir in Daily Times:

"An irony-free chunk of classic Paltrow pretentiousness, it made them sound like two camels detaching from a desert train in search of tastier macro-biotic foliage...Like a pair of tights who suddenly find out that they were stockings all along. Being ‘consciously uncoupled’ certainly made breaking up the family home and ‘co-parenting’ nine-year-old Apple and Moses, seven, seem like something holistic and pure; an experience you’d order at a wellbeing spa, along with the coffee enema."

Besides the use of terrible metaphors (unless she has an organic acquaintance with camels), this bilge will not fathom that It is holistic to be conscious when you make a life-changing decision. Being free from dithering is pure.

It is pure when you don't live on dregs of how you are measured. It is holistic and pure to not be stuck in a groove of a fake smile and the warmth of nostalgia for what you were when you are. It is pure when you are fair to the roads you travel through, not just the moss that's gathered around you.

When you decide to uncouple, you can't just 'unconsciously' walk away into the sunset.

© Farzana Versey

Patriotism and the Sahara Parivar

A big business magnate gets jail time, aggrieved investors shout slogans against him, someone throws ink as he leaves the court. The Indian middle class, quick to find conscience keepers in any nook and cranny, will pat itself for justice delayed but not denied. They will applaud Indian democracy.

The default beneficiaries will be political parties. Look, they are likely to preen, we put the big man in Tihar Jail, he will have to sleep on the floor, eat prison food.

Subrata Roy has essentially done what big businesses in India do: withheld information and cheated investors. A report states:

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) says Sahara failed to comply with a 2012 court order to repay billions of dollars to investors. Sahara says it repaid most investors and that its remaining liability was less than the 5,120 crore rupees it deposited with SEBI.

Roy had evaded arrested, and when he was caught the cops took him to a forest guesthouse where he held court. This Tihar Jail stay until March 11, close to the general elections, will be a great showpiece for the idea of the 'power of politics'. Assisting it are the investors who shouted, "He is a thief, he has usurped people's hard-earned money", and then appeared Manoj Sharma, a Madhya Pradesh lawyer, who chucked black ink on Roy's face within the premises of the Supreme Court, an illegal and nicely acceptable anarchic act. He even managed to show his torso, and the inked words in Hindi scrawled on it: "Azaad Hindustani", the free Indian.

This was a moment.

Roy is also a huge celebrity magnet, partly because unlike many other industrialists he does not have lineage. He patronised and was patronised by the governments in power, Bollywood actors, cricketers. The nouveau riche.

Some of them even had a press conference a few days ago to support him, but had to stop mid-way. Former cricketer Kapil Dev in a letter to the media, which he said he was sharing "in the best interest of the people of the country", no less, wrote:

I came to know though TV channels that Saharasri has surrendered and is in police custody. I have known him as an extremely patriotic man who has done so much for the country. I wish that he comes out of this situation soon."

Patriotism is the key that opens many doors. Roy had mastered this art, and in some ways by calling his organisation a 'Parivar', family, he truly played into the emotions of the Indian psyche.

Our memories are short, though. At the height of the CWG scandal, he had issued huge advertisements in the newspapers titled ‘Commonwealth Games Emotional Appeal’. It was signed by ‘A Humble Citizen’. Himself. He used words like "pride", “respect and hope” and “our recent economic growth”.

This is the fantasy of the millionaires. The economic growth has not reached most citizens. In fact, humble people who are not sponsored by big men's logos.. Is this our “rich heritage”?

Roy had written:

“Due to this continuous and extensively negative coverage, we are creating a withdrawal feeling in thousands of organizers, 23000 volunteers, who are feeling totally demoralized and dejected. This would totally mar the successful conduct of the Commonwealth Games and give a bad image to our beloved country for all times to come.”

Clearly, here it was about self-image and well-being. Roy had a stake in IPL and iwas eyeing Liverpool. It is such grandiose efforts that make us believe we are global citizens by marketing our heritage, which has been taken over by those far removed from it.

It is rather shocking how Roy came forth on CWG and felt “the culprits most definitely need to be punished with all their misdeeds thoroughly investigated and all sorts of checks and audits duly conducted by going deep into the matters related to purchase, negotiations & payments etc. But if should all be done after our country's greatest ever sporting event is over. Of course, all the culprits should be severely punished, thereafter”.

This is a classic way of pushing the dirt under the carpet. These culprits will be the visible face of India.

It is no surprise that a businessman would think narrowly. Some of his supporters have shown concern for members of his Parivar and their wellbeing. Subrata Roy, even when down, remains in the Indian public imagination a benevolent patriarch, the head of the extended Indian family. By default, it is India. India Incorporated running India is not just about money gained and lost. It is about the gullibility and guile of the upwardly mobile middle class, the vote bank that dares not take its name.

It can be the victory even in downfall of many a corporate house of cards.

© Farzana Versey

An unnecessary death

It has been shocking from the word go.

Sunanda Pushkar, wife of minister Shashi Tharoor, was found dead this evening in a Delhi hotel room. It seemed messy the moment I first switched channels yesterday and saw the “twitter catfight” about an affair all over. Today, it has resulted in a death.

All I can say right now is that the media should exercise some restraint. They did not do so a day ago, and they are not doing so now. The 'concern' too is nosey. ‘Friends’ are telling us different versions about her health. Reporters are giving contradictory accounts. It would seem that half of Delhi’s media was onto something. And I hear people are going to politicise this? Lay off.

It is asking for too much, especially since the people involved started this. But catharsis and personal anger, however ill-advised, is one thing. Voyeurism by the rest of the world is another. I read some nonsensical bytes in the newspaper where a TV anchor whose channel ran a big story was asking the two ladies to “stay totally civil in public”.

The social media has been used to settle scores, to slander, and that is worrying. It has resulted in an extreme step, but many of us have had to put up with absolute muck in public spaces that has little to do with our public positions.

Not only is it difficult to judge people’s personal lives, it is intrusive and distressing. 

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

Where honouring Sachin Tendulkar means securing popular vote

It is not about Sachin Tendulkar being honoured with the Bharat Ratna that is the issue. It is the timing, the manner in which the highest civilian award is handed out for a personal milestone. Sachin has played well for India, no doubt. But, why did the government not wait to confer this award? It seems now that it is a populist choice, almost as though bowing to public pressure and thereby scoring political points.

It is no secret that the Padma awards and Bharat Ratna too are driven by political considerations. At the run-up to the former, there is heavy lobbying. The lobbying for Sachin to get the Bharat Ratna has been in the public domain for a while now. I watched Lata Mangeshkat, who has taken on the role of advising on awards and political positions these days, root for Sachin on a TV show, as he played his last test match.

What exactly does such retirement mean, in days when the game offers so many options? Sachin, like many other cricketers, has used his position for commercial advantage. It is fair enough to say that he will continue to endorse products. Today's paper had this ad:

In wanting to pay tribute, it has inadvertently sent a message that here is the hero who has everything that you may not be able to aspire for, but at the very least you should have something to return to. There is something a little sad here.

On November 16, Sachin played his last match as people before him have done. His statistics are better, way better. His record as a 'clean cricketer' made him a middle-class icon. Here is the dichotomy, and to an extent it is a bit disturbing. Indian streets are full of gully cricket. There were people from humble origins who played successful innings.

Sachin came from a decent, educated background. Let us not for a moment forget that this would have had an impact on perception of him. He moved out of the literary enclave where he spent his childhood, he drove swishy cars, wore designer clothes, opened restaurants, was seen in the best company. Anybody else would have been seen in a different light. His persona did have something to do with it, but one cannot entirely ignore the middle-class propensity for accepting upward mobility and business acumen that does not come with any obvious taint.

This squishy image, bundled with achievement, has kept him safe from any slurs. Indians are cricket crazy. They think of Sachin as god. These are not streetside boys, but the educated. Those who can rub shoulders with the big people because now there is that little hope where smarts have replaced knowledge. The behaviour of his fans is no different from that of the bhakts of some politicians being built up as cult figures.

The cult of Sachin is in a different league with celebrities endorsing him. Should one have a quarrel with the honour for Tendulkar only because of this?

No. But, why does public sentiment not matter where it counts? The government comes out looking like it wanted the popular vote and decided to ride the crest.

There in the audience was Rahul Gandhi, sitting not in the VIP box, but with the spectators. There was Krishh Hritik Roshan, our version of Superman. There was Aamir Khan who has made his activist career with selective televised truth through 'Satyameva Jayate'. There was Nita Ambani, the owner of IPL team 'Mumbai Indians', who has already announced that Sachin will continue to play an important role. Another party at Antilla will soon be announced.

Tendulkar is the first sportsperson to be awarded the Bharat Ratna. This should make us feel ashamed over how the Indian government treats sports, and ought to make it obvious that this has nothing to do with love for sports. Yes, Sachin will get the facilities to run academies. Therefore, the highest civilian honour is like any popular award.

However, one must grant it to the authorities who made the final decision. They knew there would be suspicious minds, so they announced two recipients. The other one is Professor CNR Rao, the man behind India's maiden Mars mission. The papers have given him a footnote paragraph:

Prof CNR Rao is an eminent scientist and a well recognized international authority on solid state and materials chemistry. He has published over 1,400 research papers and 45 books.

Good move. Sachin fans can continue to hog the limelight because no one will be unduly bothered about Prof. Rao and the government can breathe easy it can fool most of the public that it has not been biased or opportunistic.

Yet, a maiden Mars mission? I suppose it is all about the confluence of planets and stars.

© Farzana Versey

---

For those who came in late, Justice Markandeya Katju had been lobbying for Mirza Ghalib to be honoured with the Bharat Ratna. Read my take on that: Writers, Patrons and Politics

---

Second image in collage is Sachin with Manjrekar, Vivek Razdan and journalist Shekhar Gupta in 1989 tour of Pakistan. I've used it before here...the lipstick boys.

Ageism as monstrosity

Why is old age fit enough to be a Halloween costume? Heidi Klum chose to dress up as one for the annual party. As Jezebel reported, "She's honestly unrecognizable — look at the fake veins on her legs and hands. She must be wearing fake skin over her skin, like a festive version of Necromancer pants."

These pants are made of human skin. We won't go there now, but Halloween is supposed to commemorate the dead, martyrs and loved ones who have left. What message does this 'costume' convey? To begin with, it does not look like a costume. It is realistic. It makes it appear that the end is near for old age, and the body must be ravaged and sag and wrinkle.

As an international supermodel who has seen a lot of cosmetic intervention around her, Heidi ought to know that this is not how old age always looks. I am not against the fact that this could be the natural consequence, and there is nothing to be squeamish about it. But for Halloween — when everybody wants to do a make-believe? Had she chosen a gothic version, it would have been more than fine. This, however, is eerily reminiscent of the real, and it does not appear to be granted the respect it deserves.

There seems to be a whole attitude towards ageism that props up not just the Botox industry, but more damagingly the thought process. Youth, irrespective of maturity, is seen as the final authority, the mantle-wearers, the shining knights and primped up goddesses.

Had these fake veins been real they'd hurt like hell. Fantasy reduces them to a caricature.

© Farzana Versey

---

I had written about how Halloween made me Somebody Else

Saturday Snapshots

A quick weekend roundup of what made news and what it means.

The Tehreek-i-Taliban chief Hakeemullah Mehsud has been killed in a drone attack. Liberal Pakistanis are jubilating that at last a drone has hit the right guy. (How often did they point out the wrong targets?) The problem is that they do not even try to put pressure on their government to deal with such men. I'd like to know how the Americans manage to get it right this time. If they are capable of good targeting, why is it that so many civilians have been killed? Was this a chance encounter that gives them enough ammo to live on before their exit from Afghanistan? (Incidentally, Mehsud has been 'killed' before, too.)

And then there is Imran Khan. His tragedy is that every time somebody from TTP dies or is killed Pakistanis start mourning for his political career. They don't even realise what an unhealthy obsession it is. But, then, he is a few words away, unlike dealing with the real McTalibs.

---

Just got news that Rohit Sharma has scored a double century in the ODI against Australia.

Due to too much hoopla, I've lost interest in cricket. But seriously, scoring over 200 in a one-day match is like cooking biryani is a microwave oven.

---

Lata Mangeshkar has declared:

"Narendrabhai is like my brother. All of us want to see him become the Prime Minister. On the auspicious occasion of Diwali, I hope our wishes would come true."

Surely, Lataji cannot speak on behalf of all Indians. She is using a religious festival and has done what amounts to campaigning for Modi. We are aware of the family's leanings towards the Hindutva ideology and its support for the Shiv Sena in Mumbai. We also know how she made a noise about the proposed flyover on Peddar Road only because it would affect her. (She resides there.) Such political interference is not new, and when she was not getting an assurance she sulked and threatened to leave the city. Her sister Asha Bhosle spoke of moving to Dubai, which happens to be convenient because she owns a restaurant chain in the UAE as well as other Arab countries and London.

Wonder why Lataji has not sought a haven in Gujarat.

Meanwhile, Modi's reaction was amusing:

"With their (Mangeshkar family) divine voices, delighted crores of people making them stress-free with music and making their minds and bodies healthy."

PS: My views on Lataji predate Modi's appearance on the political scene.

---

No comments:

Michael Fassbender is fed-up with everyone obsessing over his penis.

"It wouldn't be acceptable, it would be seen as sexual harassment, people saying (to an actress), 'Your vagina...' You know?"

Camera vérité

Of all forms of photography, I am drawn most to portraits. Faces. Forms. Expressions. The result is less about technique and more about what that fraction of a second captures. Is it the essence or the superficial? Does it convey more about the photographer than the subject?

Today is World Photography Day and each of us with a smartphone camera can claim to be quite adept at instant access to what may be loosely termed history in motion. We see it when pictures about catastrophes and revolutions are uploaded. Then, there is the history of ordinary people, which is another story for a sequel.

Now that Princess Diana is back in the news with reports of another twist to her death, one cannot but recall her name without the mention of the paparazzi. Those men — there are few women giving the chase — who will risk life and limb only to snoop on a celebrity getting drunk, or involved in a brawl, or caught in an intensely private moment. They and the celebs feed each other.

However, some famous people do not quite get posterity on glossy finish prints. They are the characters that a camera waits to unravel.

It would be so predictable to mention the portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson, and I have decided to be predictable. There is a reason: he photographs minds.

---

It was not easy for him, it would seem, for he had said, “The most difficult thing for me is a portrait. You have to try and put your camera between the skin of a person and his shirt.”

We are so accustomed to seeing Che Guevara in the iconic posters, the pose of angst, of a rebel on his way to rebel, that this smiling man enjoying his spirits — two glasses at that...was there a companion, a comrade, a visitor? — comes as a surprise. It also makes us question our stereotypes. The revolution is indeed on as is evident, but surely a person is not merely one thing?

This is not a great photograph, but it is a revelation.

---

Robert Kennedy lounging on a deck chair is expected. It is the contrast that is brilliant. Machismo against innocence. Or perhaps the innocence of machismo, if we look at Kennedy's almost meditative expression and even the hairy overgrowth that harks back to another age, less sophisticated than his lifestyle. His son seems to want to know what is in the balled fist. There is also a sense of detachment. He is not looking at the boy, who too has his face turned away, although his head rests on the edge of the father's thigh.

The connection established here is of give-and-take role-play.

---

Cartier-Bresson believed, "Photography is an immediate reaction, drawing a meditation."

Carl Jung's portrait is nothing less than a fine piece of meditation. It is not candid and he might well have been sitting for an artist.

His own words somehow coalesce into this photograph: "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being."

The use of light and shadow is always interesting and here it adds dimension because of Jung's own conflict theory about the conscious and unconscious. The trickle of light in the background, the ever-so-slight swirl of smoke that stops short of being cocky, the deep furrows on the brow and the compact manner of sitting are at once disturbing as well as almost holy.

For Jungians, this would make a whole lot of sense. And for others, it would still be about a man with several tales to tell.

---

Henri Matisse loved colours, the more lurid the better. Cartier-Bresson used monochrome and even then managed to capture the shades.

This photograph is a bit of a tease. The main subject is not even in the foreground, but he grabs our attention. Matisse loved his still-life, and the birds do look like one of his works. That the cage is empty and they are poised atop it could be seen as the artist's own freedom from using standard templates for his art.

It looks like a scene from a film. This is not Matisse in a typical studio setting with painting equipment. He is surrounded by life, almost bare and rundown. Like a blank canvas in an attic.

---

These are all famous names and we would have seen them in numerous pictures. It takes someone like Cartier-Bresson to not just transform them into subjects, but real people with more than the single dimension they became known for.

I'll have to answer my own question posed in the beginning and say that in complexity the superficial is also the essence.

© Farzana Versey

---

Images: Magnum Photos, Washington Post Magazine

Murdering a suicide: Jiah, Depression and Misogyny

Should a suicide case that has led to an arrest be decided in the media? Are lawyers permitted to discuss the possibility of a police case holding up in court or its outcome?

When actress Jiah Khan committed suicide, I did anticipate the electronic media rushing for sound bites and social networking sites transforming from RIP factories into warring camps. What I did not expect was the judgmental, callous attitude towards abuse and depression. Those who look down upon Bollywood were quick to jump in with their supposedly contrarian views.

I have desisted from commenting, but now I shall because all barriers have been broken. The first shocker came from Jiah's mother Rabiya. Her pain, anger and suspicion about who was responsible are understandable. I only felt that she should not have called a press conference. A police case had been registered. Jiah's boyfriend Suraj Pancholi was arrested.

Immediately, the experts — real and fake — passed their judgment: It was too hasty, they said, anyone can make such accusations. The accusations were in the form of a six-page letter written by Jiah

It really does not matter when she wrote it. Relationships grow over a period of time and spoil just as slowly.

The latest news is here:

Sooraj Pancholi, arrested for abetting actor Jiah Nafisa Khan's suicide, has allegedly confessed that he had beaten her up following a fight in Goa eight months ago, after which she slit her wrist. According to Juhu police, Sooraj has admitted to being in a live-in relationship with her. Police are contemplating adding additional charge under Section 498-A (harassment of a woman by husband or in-laws) of IPC. Police have also received the medical report from a Juhu hospital where Jiah, also known as Nafisa Khan, had undergone abortion.

I will only repeat the reasons these same lawyers gave about it being tough to pin him down — he has admitted to abuse and a live-in relationship. The law can recognise it as domestic violence.

It is time to visit a pathetic little post that was uploaded on Facebook by an intellectual of sorts. Let me add here, that he is not the only one who thinks this way, although his ‘courage' to stand out and be counted has been lauded. Seriously. Mahesh Murthy's note has made way into the Indiatimes website. It starts with a typical masala formula:

"So this note is likely to piss off many of you, but still...So it's the usual story. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, they are happy, then they break up. Then he sees someone else. At which point over-wrought girl decides her life isn't worth living. Seriously - this is a 25-year old who co-starred with Aamir Khan in a hit film and then later thinks her life is value-less without the continuing attention of some unemployed star-kid?! How the heck was she brought up? What kind of foolish adult mind thinks that someone else's attention is so important that her own life pales in comparison? How dare her parents blame her ex for this ridiculous state of mind? Who gave her these values where "death before losing in love" is a virtue?"

By beginning with a 'this contains adult content' type warning, he grabs eyeballs. He bases his thesis on assumptions about his boy-meets-girl thesis. Was Suraj an ex-boyfriend already? And since when has a young woman with one hit begun to be considered a success? She debuted with 'Nishabd', an unusual story about an April-December relationship. Her co-star was Amitabh Bachchan. The film flopped, partly because of its content. Later, she acted in 'Ghajini', where Aamir Khan hogged the show and she was the second lead.

Curiously, and I shall divert from the bilge here, director Mahesh Bhatt compared her situation with Parveen Babi's. Bhatt was in a relationship with the late actress and has been 'inspired' to make more than one film on her life. The first, 'Arth', had agitated her. She was successful, though, and together with Zeenat Aman, became the face of the 'modern' film heroine. She was also the first Indian movie star to appear on the cover of Time magazine. Her depression was severe, seeking solace in the Church, to the extent of complete isolation where her neighbours did not even see her. They had to break open the door to find her dead body.

Clinical depression is different from mood swings. These may have to do with personal loss or a sense of failure, but not always so.

To return to Murthy's questions about her upbringing, it is clear that he, like quite a few men, are filled with dread of dealing with "difficult" women. Has he ever met a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst to understand that people are not brought up to take their lives? When children commit suicide after failure in exams, do we read reams about 'How dare anyone blame the parents'? In fact, parents are never held culpable, although there is tremendous pressure from them on the kids.

At what point in that letter does he get the idea that Jiah thought taking her life was a "virtue" that her supposedly bad upbringing taught her? Would it be fair to ask why he is so concerned about the moral dimension? She lost self-esteem, and although she also lost her baby she was not pining for that loss. Indeed, she was obsessive, and enough to fall for an unemployed guy. (A small omission is that he was to be launched in Salman Khan's production.) But, what about him? There is not a word about his upbringing, and I raise it only because the other side is being rubbished.

Aditya Pancholi, the father, has had several affairs, is known for his public spats, and his wife, the older Zarina Wahab, had accepted his philandering. This is in the public domain. Although it is a choice between two people, if someone decides on pop psychology it might help addressing this as well.

"So she writes a latter (sic) saying she had an abortion when she got pregnant, presumably by him - again, no one told her about contraception? And even if they decided to forswear protection - it's his fault she got pregnant? Wasn't she equally part of it?"

This is such a load of rubbish, besides being libellous. Who is he to cast doubts about the parentage of the aborted child? Perhaps, his own obsession with "virtue" rears its head when he puts the onus of contraception on the woman. Her letter talks about him forcing her to abort, which is different from saying, "I did not want to have sex with you because I was not on the pill". Did he bother to ask why Suraj was not wearing a condom?

"So yes, she had an abortion, she set her mind to have him, but he moved on after they mutually broke up - but she wanted him back, and he said no, so she took her life?"

Oh, Sherlock Holmes decides they mutually decided to part. There is never a definitive moment when both people decide at the same time and with equal determination to go their separate ways. It may happen technically, but in this case they were meeting. And it is for the cops to decide whether they have a case. Why is he jumping the gun?

Part of the reason for this sort of thinking is insecurity, and it becomes evident soon enough:

"So what's a guy to do if he doesn't want to marry a girl? Or vice versa actually. Report to the cops when he's been proposed to? Take anticipatory bail before he says "No, I don't want to marry you"? Call the counselling lines so they make outbound calls to the partner in advance of him saying no?"

I do hope he has seen more of the world and couples who have broken up and moved on. Not everyone commits suicide. At this point I'd like to know what happens in cases of marriage. The law would immediately come into the picture. So, why can it not in an intimate relationship? Is it the good old "virtue" where a legitimate relationship has more value? Would he say the same about dowry deaths, wife battering, suspicious spouses, womanising all when a couple is married? He has said elsewhere he does not think much about the institution, yet he does not realise that intimate relationships mimic marriage more often than not.

His take on marriage sounds just like what he dismisses:

"In India, you don't need to be married to have a child legally. Or even to inherit and pass on property. Marriage is just a social custom where a bunch of old people shower rice on your head and believe they're giving you their permission (or direction, in some cases) to sleep with someone. As you can imagine, it has little or no legal necessity or significance."

The couple being discussed were not married. They did not seek anyone's permission to get intimate. And, again, why does he assume Jiah wanted the baby? Very conveniently, it makes it appear as though it would have been her responsibility. She did not pop the pill, remember?

In what he probably thinks is his philosophical contribution to this debate, he writes:

"No one grows up with a right to be loved. It's a privilege you earn for yourself. It doesn't come naturally. You earn it. And very often, love comes. And love goes. And love comes back. And goes again. And so on."

People are born with the right to life and to dignity. If either or both are abused, it can cause harm, physical and mental. Not everyone breaks down. And you cannot earn love. This is just too calculating a way to look at it. Of course, love does go and there is new love waiting. But there can be extreme situations.

It is stupid to believe that Jiah Khan lived for marriage. In fact, she wanted a career, until she fell in love and was abused, something her boyfriend has admitted to.

Acting as a PR agent for Suraj, he asks people to stop the "witch hunt", while himself hunting for prey.

"And let's stop glorifying suicide in the name of unrequited love."

Just as people have a choice over their bodies, they have a choice over their lives. It may be a wrong choice, just as getting into idiotic relationships is. It is not about glorifying anything. And it was not unrequited love. It could be that idea of love differ.

I would like to address the issue of depression. I've read celebrities and others discuss this case. It is assumed that women are more prone to it. It's time for a reality check. Many men suffer from bouts of depression. They are suicidal. How is jumping from the terrace of IIT more respectful of life? Is this not about rejection and despondency, too?

What has made some men so concerned about this particular suicide? Are they worried that their rejection will result in suicide and they'd be trapped? Unlikely. For there are many more examples of people who don't. The survival instinct of men can whiff out signs of trouble and they scoot. Men resort to emotional blackmail before getting into a relationship. It is to 'capture the booty'. Depending on how well they mesh, there is an attempt by women to aspire for an equitable equation.

And let us not forget that men too want marriage. They want their sperm to spread and 'create' the world. (There are men who are reluctant to use condoms even when they visit sex workers. Why? Because they will not return to haunt them?)

I will flip the coin. What if a desperate young man who is yet to prove himself in his career, woos a woman, loves her enough to live with her, but is tortured by the pressure to perform as well as his peers and in this state abuses the one he shares a close relationship with? She acts as a buffer against the outside world. He cannot flex his muscles outside, so he tries it within the four walls. There are the usual passive-aggressive moments.

So, who is the one who is sick?

Think about it. I really don't have the inclination to be glib and discuss marriage portals and Karan Johar films. Nor will I resort to the one-line tokenism of, oh, it is sad a life is lost or oh, I feel sorry for the poor guy but...

There will be ifs and buts in everything. Life is amorphous. It does not mean that we abuse what it meant to a woman we do not know.

© Farzana Versey

The sexual harassment of Mallika Sherawat

Mallika at Cannes and with Obama. PR?

It is unbelievable that a woman who is independent becomes an object of derision for saying what we do almost on a daily basis.  I’ve already made a reference to her earlier and elsewhere. What I’d like to understand is that at a time when we are applauding some women for “having balls” (sexist terminology, anyway), an anonymous female on a social networking site, whose own picture is a pair of legs taken lying down, dismisses a woman as being “all boobs and no brain”. There are many such ‘brave’ people whose vapidity hides their stupidity.

Mallika Sherawat, who we are talking about, is successful partly because we are what she says we are: a regressive society, enjoying a spectacle. Initially, no one was even bothered about the content of her comments; it was the accent that they found weird. Yes, she is speaking with a twang, in this interview to Variety, as much as Aishwariya Bachchan does. It is as fake as that of some urban Indians. Was she dishonest for saying she was the first woman to kiss on screen and wear a bikini? I agree she is not quite on the dot here, but I am amazed that those very people who have problems with exposure on screen are now dusting memory files or running a search to find out who really sucked face first or wore a two-piece. Then there is this business about her wearing too little, especially at major events. Who does not? If you talk about a woman having control over her body, then she is well within her rights to dress as she wishes. If she stated that following such attempts, “instantly, I became a fallen women and a superstar at the same time”, then this is true. In fact, the reactions to her only prove her point.

I first watched her many years ago. She had already become known for her bold statements – yes, she does that too. It was a debate on just such a subject and in that panel that comprised a well-known media person and a feminist, she held her own without shouting down anyone. She made a whole lot of sense, and even as I write this it does seem so patronising. Why do we have to certify others? Who has given us the right?

Oh, but she was running down our country, they say. Ah! An India they remembered after they ran out of jokes about her accent and her body.

If she is of no consequence, why did Aseem Chhabra, the New York-based analyst of all things Indian, especially culture, write an editorial piece in Mumbai Mirror? “How is Mallika Sherawat walking red carpets all the time?” he asked, aghast. And answered it himself: “By splurging on a PR team.”

And then he does what any good man would do – pit her against other women.

“She is not a former beauty queen turned actress like Aishwariya Rai, with a major contract with a cosmetic giant, who has actually worked in a few non-Indian productions that do qualify as Hollywood credentials. She is not a former beauty queen turned actress like Priyanka Chopra, who is legitimately trying to establish a signing career in the west.”

What does legitimately mean? Since when have beauty queens, who are recreated in ‘labs’ and taught how to speak, become superior beings? Does Ms. Chopra not have agents? Heck, she needed one to handle the dead body of one of her team because she was too busy being legitimate. And what she sang is essentially mimicking the west, using their fantastic music studios to sound like anyone but herself. And, yeah, heard that accent? Aishwariya has a PR team that her brand arranges for her. Besides, for someone living in the US, it is surprising that the writer does not know that all Hollywood stars have their lobbyists. It is part of the business. But he is doing his business:

“So what or who is Mallika Sherawat and how does she get invited to parties and get pictures with genuine celebrities that she tweets all the time? That question baffles me sometimes, although usually I do not care much about it. The only answer, if any, is that she has spent a lot of money on a public relations team, which ensures she dresses sexy, is spotted on red carpets and paparazzi take her pictures.”

Are the others dressed like nuns? She wore such clothes before she got anywhere near the red carpet; they are probably now designer labels.  If it is a PR team that is managing it so well, then many more people ought to hire its members. At least they do not stage wardrobe malfunctions and make their real celebrities look like rag dolls. Are the big film festivals taking money from PR agents to let anybody walk the red carpet? What does it reveal about them? The same goes for the paparazzi that the stars love to hate.

“It is less clear what she gets out of all the partying and being spotted on red carpets. I know she made Los Angeles her temporary home. Even her Twitter handle - @MallikaLA says so. I suppose she believes that handle gives her certain respectability, an edge over other Indian stars who insist on living in Mumbai.”

He obviously has not seen our Page 3 and the fact that people do party. They do not have to give explanations and there might be none. Is it so difficult to understand? And if she is just doing it without any purpose, does it not mean that she is getting nothing out of it, and is not on the make, so to speak? What exactly does “certain respectability” mean? Is he implying that she lacks respectability? What is his yardstick for measuring it? I’d really like to know, for it was difficult to find any substance in the verbiage of inanities.

He mentioned her being photographed with “genuine celebrities” (I suppose Paris Hilton would figure prominently in the list, although he has missed out on President Barack Obama), forgetting that celebrity is itself a term that has to do with popularity and little to do with genuineness because all possible means are employed to get it.

He dismisses her acting, which is fair enough. It is also true that she does not have big films, although a part in a Jackie Chan movie would be considered an achievement by some, especially when our own biggies do walk-on parts in Hollywood films.  But to take a statement she made and then snigger is no different from groupie behaviour at a dorm:

“So I wonder what kind of ‘a lot of love’ Hollywood was showing Sherawat? Hollywood does do inexplicable things like inviting people with unknown celebrity quotient to parties. But Hollywood producers rarely take the risk of casting unknown faces that do not have much promise.”

If Smarty-pants has the answer, why does he go on and on? Has her PR agent hired him?! (You know what they say about bad publicity, although this is not even bad – it’s a lot of slosh.)

He too manages to get hot and bothered about the “peculiar accent”, but quickly covers it up with the patriot card:

“Sherawat managed to make a few jibes at India – ‘a hypocritical society where women are really at the bottom’. She said she made a conscious decision to divide her time between Los Angeles and India. ‘So now when I experience the social freedom in America and I go back to India which is so regressive for women, it's depressing,’ she said…The interviewer failed to ask her how India was regressive for a woman like her, who presumably is financially successful and a well-known Bollywood personality.”

Does he recall how Indian women and celebs were the toast of news channels after the Delhi gangrape? How every misogynistic statement was paraded so that people could hit out at it? This was Indians discussing our hypocrisy, our patriarchy. Even our prominent film stars discuss inequality when it comes to roles and pay. The writer probably lives in a cocoon where he believes money and celebrity save you from regressive behaviour. The Hollywood he is so in awe of has several such examples of chauvinism.  

But to expect depth to understand pop culture is asking too much from someone who says, “In fact, what has stayed with me about her is that she is Haryanavi and I smile when I think about it, a slight Delhi arrogance I have over people from Haryana.”

Priyanka Chopra poses with Gerard Butler. PR?

Think about how a woman from Haryana, without the ubiquitous godfather, made it. It is pathetic that Priyanka Chopra has decided to oppose her by stating:

"I think we are a progressive nation. I disagree that we are a regressive nation. We are all sitting here and talking about educating the girl child, taking our country forward. I think it`s a misrepresentation of what our great nation is on the world platform…When it comes to Mallika`s statements, I think they were very callous and I don`t agree with her. It was upsetting for me as a woman. It was upsetting for me as a girl who comes from India. I think it was extreme misrepresentation of our nation. I don`t think it`s fair."

As regards the world platform, even Satyajit Ray was accused of marketing our poverty overseas by actress and Rajya Sabha member, the late Nargis.

Unlike our cantonment beauty queens, who live in a protected environment, Mallika Sherawat comes from a conservative family in a region where khaps issue diktats. Mainstream films in which Priyanka acts also misinterpret India. As do Miss Worlds who talk about changing the world. Why, the fact that they want to do something for the disadvantaged means that there are a whole lot of them. And we talk about it because it exists. She said it and so do you. What makes you superior?

© Farzana Versey