A Mirage called Malala

A Mirage called Malala: Another Daughter of the East? 
by Farzana Versey, CounterPunch, July 15

Had Edward Snowden exposed the dirt of the Taliban, he would have been standing behind the lectern in New York at the UN hall on Friday, July 12.

The contrast, and irony, is stark.

• A young man is hounded by the government of his country for exposing its sly mechanism, of its covert war against the whole world, not to speak of its own citizens. He waits at an airport in Russia that had fought a war against Afghanistan, which was backed by the CIA.

• A teenager’s birthday was officially declared Malala Day by the United Nations. She addressed a well-heeled gathering in the United States that was one of the two countries to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the other was Somalia.

Malala Yousafzai’s speech had a captive audience. 

Malala at the UN - Pic The Guardian

They wanted a cinematic moment. The gooseflesh groupies, including the mainstream media and urban Pakistanis, were not interested in going beyond the script of her address. They became the protectors of a girl who they could not protect in their own country. The legal imperative is not even considered to fight such cases. What bothers them is their pretty position would be threatened and questioned.  

Politician or puppet?

If we are to treat her as just a courageous 16-year-old, then perhaps we ought to disregard her role as activist. She cannot be hoisted as a symbol of resistance as a cocooned marionette.

In the very first sentence, Malala said it was an honour to wear a shawl of Benazir Bhutto. This was a political statement. From being a victim of the Taliban, she appears to be a “mind-controlled victim” of the elite. Like Benazir, Malala’s power comes from being wronged. Nobody will deny that they indeed were. However, the dynamics of power play are not about the literal, and this the souvenir dealers do not wish to understand.

When she was being treated at the hospital in Birmingham,  President Asif Ali Zardari visited her wearing a coat with a lapel that had her photograph on it; to honour her, he pledged $10 million for girls’ education to UNESCO because “sending girls to school was the best way to combat extremism”. While Malala’s school in Mingora, in the Northern region of Swat, was renamed after her, the President did not offer this money to a local organisation. To get legitimacy, it would appear the issue has to have global appeal.

The Interior Minister at the time, Rehman Malik, was quoted as saying:

"Until terrorism is over, she will continue to have security until we feel she is OK. You never know the circumstances, what will happen. The Taliban might be zero tomorrow. Still [while] we think or successive government feels she needs security, it is of no issue, to be honest, because she has become the icon of Pakistan, she has stood against terrorists and Taliban and she has become an icon for the education of young girls.”

Why do many Pakistanis refuse to see this as a convenient ploy by the leadership to put the onus on iconoclasm to deal with the issues, knowing well that this would work only as a mirage? Where are the political initiatives to tackle terrorism? Benazir Bhutto too supported the Taliban regime in its initial years to ensure that her position was not threatened. The progressive discourse overlooks the fact that she did not expunge any law that was anti-women.

Ever since she was shot at by the Taliban, the cheerleaders have expressed cursory concern for the “other Malalas”; the sidelight is brought out only as a nervous tic. Malala too made a nodding mention of her friends, now forgotten by everyone. They were also shot at, but not as grievously. Where are they? Are they protected? Any school named after them? No one seems to notice that despite her environment, she managed to learn, to seek peace, and to take on the militants.

The omission of any inspiring contemporary figure in her speech was startling. Yet, she managed to please the activists when she spoke about “hundreds of human rights activists and social workers who are not only speaking for their rights, but who are struggling to achieve their goal of peace, education and equality”. 

Students in Mingora (Pic: Pak Magazine)

It would have been politically incorrect for her to add that her sponsors and their allies not only kill civilians in the regions they occupy, but also employ child soldiers. In an earlier piece, I had raised these points: Is this courage or just canny marketing by consumerist consciences? Do we even pause to think about the consequences of creating or supporting such vulnerable ‘revolutionaries’? …Just think of the kids the US forces fought in Iraq and then took them captive to Abu Ghraib. Think about them in the Maoist Army in Nepal, as human shields in India’s Naxal groups, of them in Israel, of stone-pelting Palestinians now holding guns. These are representatives of their countries, not fringe groups.

Malala even sent out a message of forgiveness for the Taliban using time-tested figures: 

“I want education for the sons and daughters of the Taliban and all the terrorists and extremists. I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there was a gun in my hand and he was standing in front of me, I would not shoot him. This is the compassion I have learned from Mohamed, the prophet of mercy, Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha. This is the legacy of change I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. This is the philosophy of nonviolence that I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa.”

This is what Barack Obama says. This is exactly what the West, specifically the US, has done with its neat division of good Talib, bad Talib. Besides, as America is due to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, it will have to deal with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Whoever drafted Malala’s speech was taking no chances, even carefully omitting Hinduism, aware that it is a touchy issue in Pakistan where the infidel is associated with the idol-worshipping faith more than any other.

Besides, what change did Jinnah bring about? His major contribution was before the Partition and in helping to formulate the idea of Pakistan. He did not live to watch it veer away from the avowed secularism he hoped for. Malala recalling Mandela and Gandhi seems like a staple politician-beauty pageant fortune cookie moment, but Bacha Khan? He did not want to be with Pakistan and had specified that he should be buried in Afghanistan, to retain the purity of his Pashtun dream. Violence of thought is not something to be shrugged off.

Who is educating whom?

Like the caricature of the Taliban frightened of a girl with a book is simplistic, the catchphrase at the UN that day –‘Education First’ – is restrictive, especially when you consider the number of school dropouts in the West. But American kids willingly emptied their kitties for a charity that turned out to not only misuse the funds, but also mislead. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who wrote the bestselling ‘Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace ... One School at a Time’ set up the Central Asia Institute charity that funds schools in the Balti region. President Obama made a handsome donation, and the book compulsory reading for the forces in Af-Pak.

However, the greater crime, as I wrote in the Counterpunch article Fabricated Philanthropy was “one by default – of whitewashing the image of the US administration, even if to a small degree. It has come to light that he was not kidnapped by the Taliban. In one of the photographs of 1996, his so-called kidnapper turns out to be Mansur Khan Mahsud, a research director of the FATA Research Center.”

Those who oppose religious factionalism that the Taliban propagates have been using religious arguments against militancy. Certain clerics had issued a fatwa against those who targeted the girls; the liberals did not know how to negotiate this similarity. Pakistanis have lived with their Islamic laws, so they cannot ignore the mullahs.

Such lounge activists do not take on the Taliban or the government. They merely participate in the usual candlelight vigils and sex up the debate with their passive-aggressive act. Quite reminiscent of what Madonna did soon after Malala became a talking point. At a concert in Los Angeles, the singer had said, “This made me cry. The 14-year-old schoolgirl who wrote a blog about going to school. The Taliban stopped her bus and shot her. Do you realize how sick that is?” As reported: “Later in the show, Madonna performed a striptease, during which she turned her back to the audience to reveal the name ‘Malala’ stenciled across it.”

When Malala mentioned the problem of child labour, it did not strike her that she is now even more a victim of it, albeit in the sanitised environs of an acceptable intellectual striptease.  

© Farzana Versey

---

Do read Our Guns, Children's Shoulders

'Yeh Saali Zindagi' - Life is a bitch, so is the film

Okay, I did not like Yeh Saali Zindagi. In fact, I thought it was a waste of my time. This sounds awfully non-intellectual. You are supposed to like pathbreaking cinema, appreciate nuances. Guess what? I don’t think those guys who were whistling at the cuss words or going “Oye, oye’ at the kissing scenes knew any “maa ki aankh” avant gardism. They probably did not even identify enough with the goonda-gardism.

I took a quick look at some of the reviews and phrases like “dark comedy”, “twisted plot”, “unconventional narrative”, “love with the backdrop of a thriller” hit me. Then there are technical hosannas, especially about pace.

Smart accountant Arun works for slimy boss, falls in love with nightclub singer Priti who can’t sing, who is in love with a businessman’s son, who is engaged to a minister’s daughter, who is angry because he loves the singer, who needs help of the other guy who loves her. Pace? Yeah, yeah. “Bhenchod.”

Then there is Kuldeep who is in jail, wants to reform, has an aggressive wife who he tames with kisses and a son, decides on one last big ticket kidnapping with the help of corrupt cop, gets the wrong girl, who goes to real girl and real father of girl, finally goes to real lover of her singing…nah…of her body...nah…of her soul…well…Pace? Yeah, yeah. “Chutiya.”

Cut to auditorium. People are laughing. Not because the comedy is dark but because a man is killed and his corpse farts. They are whistling not because there is anything exciting but the coarse language seems like their “saala”. It is programmed to sound rough and tough and hard. Oh yeah, they get the weapons and the phallic stuff to convey that.

The film is supposed to give you the underbelly of Delhi. Honestly, this could be in Jharkhand, Patna or Virar or even Sicily. No wonder they have to dateline every event. “Somewhere in Sohna, “Outskirts of Delhi”. Okay, we are such dolts, we Angrezi types that we won’t know the underbelly.

Arun's love for the nightclub singer is shown as some sort of obsession. It isn’t. He moons like an adolescent who has just discovered new use for a water tap and just as suddenly has her accounts in order (where in the beginning he had managed to get the thumb impression of another corpse…dark, na?) She goes “Oh, Arun,” like Saira Banu used to in those old films, except she is “real”. Uff, how everyone is telling us again and again that this is real, and all about subtext and layers and ensemble cast, which is a nice way to create 'confujan' and make it sound like it has so many “bhadva” layers.

It is so ‘witty’ that a bullet that backfires and boomerangs on the unrequited lover becomes the cause of denouement. Geez, the object of his love finally says, “I love you.” Now, is one supposed to go treacly and get goosebumps? No, no. This is serious cinema with layers. So, should one laugh but only slightly because it is a dark comedy? No, no. They are finally snuggled in bed.

Sudhir Mishra has made two marvellous films: Ek Raat Ki Subah Nahin and Hazaaron Khwaaishein Aisi that meshed love and the thriller genres. Yeh Saali Zindagi is neither here nor there. I mean, there are people who think describing the person one is crazy about as rajma chaawal is different and potent. Really? All Punjabis probably do, that is if they are not calling them tandoori chikkan or sarson da saag. But rajma is kidney beans and he goes on about kidney…kaleja…(which is liver)…dil…

Mishra can take a bow. He has finally made a film for the frontbenchers.

- - -

Note: I have used cuss words in the post that were there in the film and passed by the censors. I suppose I got some of the layers right. To the readers, please excuse, but I also had to be 'realistic'.

Pakistani circus comes to town!

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then comes to the point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Media as Middle Man

India's "Paid News" Scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times

Is this funny?

I probably have no sense of humour, but I do not find this ad funny at all. You place a bushman who starts digging the ground, finds something, beats on it, holds it above his wide-open mouth, squeezes it and a drop finally appears. The other bushman shouts out, “What are you doing?” His attention is diverted and the drop falls on the ground. They chase each other around a thatched hut while the voice-over asks, “Thirsty?” A bottle falls and then there is the chant of “lemon, lemon, lemon”.

Just what the hell are they trying to convey by using people who are poor, considered backward, living in isolation? Is this their target market? No. Why are bushmen used at all? There was a film ‘The Gods Must Be Crazy’ but it was supremely satirical about consumerist habits, especially that Coca Cola can falling for the sky. And it was not selling anything.

Parle, the manufacturers of LMN the drink, would have been equally culpable had they used Indian villagers or farmers on parched land. It is insensitive and serves no purpose. How can anyone who likes bottled drinks and lives in relative comfort be motivated? I am not.

If this is considered entertaining and humorous then I seriously don’t think I have a funny bone.

Please tell me if you do and why. Also, would you be motivated to buy this drink after seeing this particular ad? I am not judging anyone; I seriously would like to know if something is wrong with me.

"Youre a hateful writer"

I do occasionally put up feedback received and my replies, if any, here. Many of them are those that disagree. This is not to say there have been no positive responses; it is just that these give a glimpse into a more varied mindset. Positive and negative are anyway relative terms.

The following did not deserve a personal response and came from someone trying to sound like an organisation.

On the fatwa piece

Youre a hateful writer. I was so disappointed to read your disturbing diatribe against muslims and their community leaders. so hateful, so drirty. Shame on you. Who pay you to produce this kind of text?

Damn. If only I knew where to get the monies from…Well, all I know is that Swami Ramdev will get lots of business from the Muslim fraternity for learning how to blow their noses.

As for the “community leaders”, here is a report from today’s papers:

Six days after the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind passed a resolution asking Muslims not to sing Vande Mataram on the grounds that it was “un-Islamic’’, the community’s clerics have reportedly softened their stand. The change of heart came after spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar visited Deoband on November 8 and met Jamiat leaders.

After the meet, the ulema said they did not have any objection to the national song and had left it to the conscience of Muslims who could decide for themselves whether they wanted to sing the song or not.

So ask these hypocrites, Mr. Letter Writer, who is paying them.

- - -

Sometimes, correspondence is really worth it and makes one feel that what one is doing isn’t so bad. Not for me, at least!

The next was unexpected, although I have indeed corresponded with quite a few academicians. It is from someone who knows Structuralism enough to hate it. We have had a bit of an exchange and here it is without naming the name.

On The Savage Mind

Farzana, you are much too kind to Levi-Strauss's incomprehensible fog.

Marvin Harris was a scientific anthropologist & Levi-Strauss's greatest critic.

Harris takes the Gallic charlatan's know nothing structuralism to the woodshed for a thorough thrashing in Cultural Materialism (chap. 7).

There are thousands of academics still pretentiously spouting the rancid bullshit of structuralism.

Reply:

I am kind and do believe that all fog does not denote winter, so one must meander through the mist.

There are anti-Structuralists as there anti Freudians or anti anything, and there ought to be. I was, in my own little non-academic way, trying to question some theories...it was part tongue-in-cheek.

- - -

Structuralism turns anthropology into a delight for literary poseurs.
Try Marvin Haris's expose.

Reply:

I delight in exposes. According to your theory, anything construed as a delight is anathema, or logically ought to be from your perspective on poseurs. Whether it is Levi-Strauss or Harris, they are taking a position which might be deemed as a posture for one critiquing it, which would in turn be seen as posturing. It is a clique of charmed intellectuals, and for an outsider, whose primary interest lies in the human as animal, social creature and sublime wannabe, anthropological analysis can come from the toenail of an ape and I’d be happy. Or, delighted?

I only wish you had noticed that I used the Structuralists paradigm to explore the mundane. Not too many academicians are interested in it, but it might surprise you to know that many of us live it.

Having said this, I appreciate your position and almost proselytising fervour. Harris is a lucky god!

Mine is more like Margaret Mead’s:

“Anthropology demands the open-mindedness with which one must look and listen, record in astonishment and wonder that which one would not have been able to guess.”

~F

Manna Dey gets an award or a token?

Why does everyone feel so humble? Is this a sign of true greatness always? If I were Manna Dey, I’d either sit quietly with a glass of honeyed water and keep doing my riyaz, as he indeed does, or tell those blokes who decide on giving national awards to go stuff it.

A man has sung over 3000 songs, is over 90 years old and some politicians and bureaucrats decide they need to give him something he can die peacefully with? What nonsense. This has been happening for years and these awards have become just a plaything for some people. Who knows? Some babu must have been sitting with his cheap rum at a sidey club and heard the strains of some Mannada song, maybe “Ai meri zohra jabeen” and his wife blushed thinking he looked so happy and hummed along for her, this tubby hubby of hers who spends time pushing files away from his desk and looking for every opportunity to show his power.

So, she is smiling and saying, “O ji, such a lhuuvly song. Reminds me of old days…” even if those old days were as exciting as parathas on the tawaa. Husband realises in his slightly tipsy state that there is this singer and he should propose his name for the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. And they all gather and say, “Haan ji…”

These are mostly such haan ji moments.

To say that Manna De deserved it would be reducing him.

I cannot say I like everything he sang and I find that number from Zanjeer, "Yaari hai imaan mera, yaar meri zindagi" execrable. I also do not like his rendition of "Pyaar hua, iqraar hua, pyaar se phir kyon darta hai dil”. This is an out and out Shanker-Jaikishen triumph.

His range was in the songs, not the voice (the exception being "Eik chatur naar" from Padosan). And I say was because of his old songs. "Poochcho na kaise maine raen bitayee" and "Sur na saje kya gaaoon main" have very strong memories. They were sung at our house since I was a child, a state so pure that it recognises purity and ensures it retains.

I personally like this one because it is so quiet…like a pin in the haystack. It can still hurt. And make you ache…

Ye kooche ye neelaamghar - Manna Dey

Venky’s Chicken

He is obviously doing more than going through his emails. In today’s Times of India he has reacted to the reactions to his reaction about the woes of his inbox. He has apologised for “inadvertently” hurting people.

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan was quite candid as I mentioned in the earlier post. He talked about people bothering him. So, what is this?

I want to make it clear that I was delighted to hear from scientific colleagues and students whom I had met personally in India and elsewhere, as well as close friends with whom I had lost touch. Unlike real celebrities like movie stars, we scientists generally lead a quiet life, and are not psychologically equipped to handle publicity. So I found the barrage of emails from people whom I didn’t know or whom I only knew slightly almost 40 years ago (nearly all from India) difficult to deal with.

And he was psychologically savvy enough to hit out? Did he know the Nobel Committee? And did he not say he congratulated the person who called to inform him about the prize for his Swedish accent, assuming it was a crank call? So, if he can answer phone calls from strangers, he is going to get emails from strangers.

People have also taken offence at my comment about nationality being an accident of birth. However, they don’t seem to notice the first part of the sentence: We are all human beings.

I noticed the whole comment and reproduced it. Being human beings is an obvious fact and even those who go into space don’t cease being human beings. I wish he had the courage of his convictions and stood up for what he had said instead of this rubbish:

Accident or not, I remain grateful to all the dedicated teachers I had. Others have said I have disowned my roots. Since 2002, I have come almost every year to India. In these visits, I have spent time on institute campuses giving lectures or talking to colleagues and students, and stayed in the campus guest house. I have not spent my time staying in fancy hotels and going sightseeing.

Roots are not about giving lectures and staying at campuses. By going sightseeing you do not become less of an Indian. He is coming here on work in his professional capacity and has the audacity to talk about it as maintaining connections with his roots. He could have been going on lecture tours to Jalalabad, for all we care.

Finally, at a personal level, although I am westernized, many aspects of culture like a love for classical Indian music or South Indian or Gujarati food are simply a part of me.

So? I know westerners who love our cuisine and music and culture. What is he trying to prove? He has even given an interview about riding bicycles and all those wonderful memories. Why did he not think about them before shooting off his mouth about some professor making tall claims? Did these memories not seem important then?

Some of us had taken what he said in the right spirit, respecting his privacy and right to be not an Indian. He has, unfortunately, decided to do a 360 degree turn and come across as extremely patronising:

I am personally not that important. If I hadn’t existed, this work would still have been done. It is the work that is important, and that should be what excites people. Finally, there are many excellent scientists in India and elsewhere who will never win a Nobel. But their work is no less interesting and people should find out about what they do. My visits to India confirm that it has great potential and bright young students. A little less nationalistic hero worship will go a long way to fulfil that potential.

We know there is potential. While there are a few of us who do not believe in blind nationalistic worship, there are others who do so. That is why we have Gandhi and Nehru cults. How will less hero worship tap potential? He says he was excited about Gellman’s work and it did not matter what his nationality was. True. So, Indians also worship Michael Jackson and Angelina Jolie. What potential will they be fulfilling? And will anyone take him on about the “less nationalistic” advice? No. Because we are idiots. We will throw stones at our own when they point out certain hard facts, but not at this man.

Is it only about his inbox? If all this was unimportant, he would not be writing this defensive little piece. He would have gone on with his work instead of telling us about how we must look for potential and learn from his work, his roots notwithstanding. Fine. As I said, people will move on. He should too. And I hope he has the good sense now to let go and get into his quiet life and further tap his potential. The Nobel is not the end of the world, as he has so self-deprecatingly implied. Now all he has to do is stop holding forth on India, although the adulation will certainly be hugely appealing.

We are happy for him in his heavenly abode – the West.

The media hierarchy - who gets to say what and other crap

This news would not have bothered me, except that the discussion has been brought up on my blog as well. How many people have ticked off PM Manmohan Singh for asking for the US president’s autograph? And then how many have dissed a television reporter for a banter with Barack Obama?

Since it is being reported in the blog world as well as some sections of the media, there is reason to raise some questions. One bloke even said that he had not commented thus far because he thought he might give a fellow scribe her moment of glory. Ooh, how considerate!

The IANS story mentions:

A young Indian reporter was "walking on air" after being treated to a bit of the old Obama magic at the end of the G20 summit here Thursday.

So what? If it was not important at all, then why even bother to report it? They are flashing her ‘before Obama’ and ‘after Obama’ pictures, for god’s sake, and linking the video clip!

Did anyone diss Neeta Ambani when she talked about the Obama charm and how he remembered to address her by name, which was pinned on her lapel anyway? What about those groupie NRIs who were behaving like lapdogs during the pre-election rallies? What about Hollywood celebrities who were singing paeans about “change”?

We always tend to pick on the soft targets.

The report is by a senior journalist and this is how he goes about it:

When Obama picked her out of nowhere, Ghuman asked how his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went, and whether the two had discussed Pakistan and terrorism.

What the hell does “picked her out of nowhere” mean? She was a part of the press conference where 2500 journalists were present. Is there an element of jealousy here that she was chosen? If so, then it is Obama’s problem, not hers. These fat cats always want to be the first among equals. And please note her question – it is about his meeting with the PM and whether they discussed Pakistan and terrorism.

Why did Obama choose to reduce it to the level of banter (”I am only teasing you”)?

The reporter has every right to say she is proud of our PM, if indeed she is, if the subject of her interview does his patronising act; the report mentions that this was his first meeting with Dr. Singh. So, was Obama walking on air when he skirted the question she posed him and decided to salivate over our PM?

"I think he's a very wise and decent man. And he's done a wonderful job of guiding India, even prior to being prime minister, along a path of extraordinary economic growth that is a marvel, I think, for all the world," Obama said.

I hold no brief for this reporter; I have watched the channel she represents maybe about five or six times. But let us not get all holier-than-thou and give this issue our self-righteous treatment.

The fawning over Obama was visible ever since he became the candidate. And at his inauguration there was a poem “Praise Song for the Day,” written and recited by Elizabeth Alexander.

And those who are talking about being professional please watch some of the seniors in action. Damn, they dress up specially for their interviews with foreigners and make it seem like it is the best thing to have happened to them.

Some TV reporter climbs up a tree to get a scoop on the Abhishek Bachchan wedding; where is the self-respect?

Does anyone question the presence of hi-fi society writers at sponsored events when they would run down a junior reporter for being there? Hey, one of these divas, who did not get the treacle treatment she expected, had the gumption to even say that the journalists who she had invited were sponging on her husband’s expensive whiskey. What do these creatures themselves do when they attend yacht parties and other shit? Oh, I forgot, they go as legitimate saath phere liye hue arm candies.

Senior columnists go ga-ga over a little trot on the ramp by Naomi Campbell while running down our own models.

Where are the bloggers and commentators when it is time to pull up these media hypocrites?

Nuff said.

Burney 'pissing and pissing' peace

Pakistani human rights activist Ansar Burney has received the 3rd annual Mother Teresa Memorial (International) Awards for Social Justice. Despite other numerous accolades, he thinks this one is special: “Yeh dil se dilko jodne wala award hai (this is an award to join hearts).’’

Why? Whose hearts are being joined together in this? He got Kashmir Singh out of prison. And we all know that Kashmir Singh admitted upon his return that he was an Indian spy.

Burney said, “They issued fatwa from the mosques against me. My family members were scared to go out for quite some time as they felt threatened. But I remained committed to the cause. If to save one innocent life, I have to die 10 times, I will not flinch.”

Fatwas are a joke. He has been making trips to India, which means he gets his visa. And just for the record, people are not cats; they die just once. Dramebaaz.

And I repeat for the nth time:

As for all the hosannas being sung for Mr Ansar Burney, what has he done for those missing POWs? I know I have been ranting about it for years and do take a look at ‘54 Indian POWs versus Sarabjit Singh’.

I had written a letter to Mr Burney on January 8, 2002. There was no response. I provided links, offered all help. Zilch.

Meanwhile, it is amusing to see him follow our celebrities’ path. They all go the Ajmer Sharif dargah and the Siddhivinayak Temple to get blessings and provide a photo-op. Here he is with his son Fahan at the temple. The main caption called it ‘DIVINE HELP’.

Now I can imagine if some maulana rants about it and issues a fatwa. Burney saab will say, look, this is what happens for dil se dil jodna. I’d like to remind him that actress Meera too had this fatwa thing issued because she kissed an Indian non-actor in one of those forgettable films. She too talked about being a peace ambassador. He should have at least gone to some mohalla type place and sung, “Jumma chumma de de…” It would be paisa and peace vasool…

The army's new blast: The 'Haryana Hurricane'

Today, the Indian Army has got a “big catch”.

By now most people know that armymen took to me like…well, fish to worm. This time they are upfront and state that Kapil Dev will act as a mascot. But we haven’t won a World Cup test series since 1983. We have not quite produced a bowler like him. And people may have joined cricket after watching him play, but it is unlikely that they will join the army because of him. Unless the youngsters are given inducements like endorsements, visibility on TV channels.

His new rank will be of an “honorary Lt-Col” and the Army Chief will take time off his busy schedule to pin the Ashoka Lion and star on Kapil’s shoulders. Let me add a little about what he will be doing:

Legendary cricketer Kapil Dev will be joining the Territorial Army, the part-time citizen’s force which functions as a ‘vital adjunct’ to the regular army… In the event of national emergencies, they may be asked to become full-time personnel to act in a supporting role to regular army units.

In my article that got a few armymen very cross with me – Rot in the Indian Army – I had asked certain questions when Vivek Oberoi was asked to volunteer:

Even if the actor gets recruited in one of the non-departmental units that cater for urban requirements, he will have to train on weekends throughout the year. Will the Army, that tom-toms its discipline, make exceptions? And if they need recruits why can they not tap the thousands of educated unemployed in the country?

My questions remain. There have been quite a few national emergencies since then. Where was the actor? Busy doing his “Ae Ganpat” act, or seeking obsequious apologies from Salman Khan at public functions, or growing his hair to look like Johnny Depp on a bad Johnny Depp hair and everything else day? Has there been one word from either him or the army about what role he would play/has played?

Therefore, the slightly bitter pill bit that I wrote wasn’t all that off, was it?

I just feel sorry that the real armymen who go through all the struggle during real battles or protect our nation are not considered worthy enough to be role models. But then, they aren’t considered worthy enough for a good enough pay packet.

Wouldn’t it be better to keep them in fine fettle instead of waiting to give them a gun salute, covering their caskets with a tricolour and then awarding them a medal, which their tearful widows and mothers have to collect?

You can flaunt as many mascots as you want, but the public is looking at how the ‘game’ is played.

PS: Cricketers are now taking part in a dance show with glamorous partners. Can the Army beat that?

Deducing reducing

This is how we reduce people…

Toilet cleaners to walk NY ramp

New Delhi: A year ago, Vimla Atwal eked a living by cleaning outdoor pits used as toilets in a village. Next month, she will sashay down a New York ramp with top Indian models.

29 other female toilet cleaners who now have other jobs thanks to a rehabilitation programme run by a local firm, will participate in a series of events by the UN to mark the International Year of Sanitation. During their stay in New York, the 30 women will present a short film on their lives as well as take part in a fashion show.

For 12 months these women have been working in other jobs. Not everyone is so lucky. So why are they participating in anything to do with sanitation? Why are they being made to regurgitate their past? I am sick of these UN-sponsored events that make a mockery of people and the hard work they put in to make a decent living.

“A year ago I was looked down upon as an outcast in my village, but now I am ready to fly in a plane and take part in a fashion show,” said Atwal.

See, this is what happens. Embroidery, making pickles and noodles are not good enough for respectability. Has the UN invited people who do chikankari, who are part of the milk co-operatives, the group that has made a success of a papad company?

And I am emphasising people. Why are only women toilet cleaners being invited? There are thousands of men who are also in this job.

This is one more gimmick.

- - -

Sikh model the new rage in US

New York: One of the key attractions at New York’s Rockefeller Centre is a life-size picture of a turban-clad young Sikh. It has the Sikh community buzzing, with messages pouring in from across the globe praising him for turning his religious identity into a fashion statement.

An ad by fashion designer Kenneth Cole solicited, “A Sikh male, about 25 to 35 years old, who is ‘attractive’” for a worldwide campaign titled ‘Non-Uniform Thinkers’ to mark the brand’s 25th anniversary, with the focus being: “We all walk in different shoes.”

Caberwal was honoured for this achievement during the fifth annual Capitol Hill Dinner organized by the US-based Sikh Council on Religion & Education (SCORE) on June 11. Sikhs from across the world are all praise for Caberwal, especially at a time when the community feels it is being increasingly racially profiled in the US post 9/11 and elsewhere in the world as it struggles to maintain its religious identity.

I agree there is racism. But is being a goddamn mute picture because you are attractive or of a certain age sending out any special message? The fashion house specified Sikh male; they wanted a bloody turban to sell their “different shoes” idea. They were using him, his religious identity.

This is simply outrageous. And to think that he is being feted for it.

We as a society have begun to believe that getting scraps from the West is enough. If they are racist, then they have to solve the issues in their heads. Let us not get carried away by these token gestures. What the hell does “non-uniform thinkers” mean here? Are fashionistas thinkers (except perhaps when they have to think about what to wear and what to team up with which pair of shoes, belts, and accessories)? And non-uniform means different, as in not one kind. So the Sikh is being put up in a cardboard form but he sure as daylight is not a part of the mainstream.

Now go hang yourselves with that long rope you have been given…

- - -

And…

Sharif wants Musharraf hanged

The crowds have been chanting this. The same crowds that voted for democracy and civil society. The same society is even listening to Nawaz Sharif and Zardari, whose histories are not quite without blemish?

Yes, hang Musharraf. But before that do something about the Constitution.

Have I joined the tamasha?

Resistance finally gave way. After two years of being intermittently invited, I agreed. Sunday I was in the television studio at Delhi. Subject: Is politics a men’s club? The real discussion was on the Women’s Reservations Bill.

The panel was high-powered. And I say this because you realise that it does not matter. A couple of the high-powered had hardly any say because what you need is to be pushy. As Lord Meghnad Desai, sitting next to me, advised during the break, “You will have to interrupt.”

I cannot. It is uncouth. Anyhow, I feel only two people were really qualified to speak – Dr. Najma Heptulla, the former deputy chairperson of the Lok Sabha, and Amrit Brar, a police officer from Punjab. They were in professions where the hierarchy is most manifest. The former is soft-spoken; the latter barely got a chance to say much.

Television is a medium of sound bytes and clichés. Just in case anyone is interested, my points – some that got past, some edited out, some remained unsaid…

I am against these 33 per cent reservations for women in parliament and got to comment at the point when a gentleman said that women are the most backward and oppressed caste. Is this what these women want to be considered? Do they want such patronising sops? Yes, I did mutter, “Oh god” under my breath… because…

Women tend to get the soft portfolios …just to give it a facetious though pertinent angle I said since these are kickbacks-potential portfolios, women too should be entitled to their share.

The argument against was full of clichés. Children’s development is not a soft portfolio; these are important issues. No one discusses them in Parliament. And we are living in a patriarchal society where female foetuses are aborted.

(As though I bloody don't know.)

* Shabana Azmi who is pro-reservations talked most about all the ‘right’ things. Throughout she kept mentioning how we need this group of women, and then she said women are not a monolith. I immediately said that she was contradicting herself.

The moment you have a set-up where you say you need these many women you are clubbing them into a hole. This is a monolith. Of course, she did not like it and said she did not know what I was talking about.

Too bad.

The good Lord MD said that gender is a fact and, because he was such a sweetheart (no airs etc), I gracefully accepted the statement as something I had just discovered with a smile. Okay, I said if it is a fact then why have certain things not happened, what has prevented it.

* The final round was about the timeframe for this Bill to see fruition. A century, said someone…as much time as it takes, said another…This only proves my point that you only want to have something on paper.

- - -

The show was telecast on the same day. I got a message from a friend: “You are on TV, which means you are in Delhi, which means you have not informed me.”

So I called. He was with a colleague from Mumbai at the India International Centre.

As soon as I walked into the lounge, he said, “Ah, you look the same as you did on TV”. Dilliwallahs will always be Dilliwallahs. The lady at the next sofa asked me what it was about; I gave the blah in short…and she said she had worked on several projects for “women’s empowerment”.

“What have you got to do with the subject?” she asked.

Rather charmingly I replied, “Nothing, except that I am a woman.”

Strange, strange. I was there despite not knowing anyone on the channel, being completely out of the media eye, being myself.

- - -

It just so happened that M.J.Akbar's Covert was being launched the day I was returning. A call. I turned back from the airport. My first media party. Amazing. Absolutely wonderful to be there because I met some really nice people. Different groups, different conversations. From Pakistan to politics to Urdu and Farsi to the paranormal.

Someone said rather helpfully, “Oh, she does not spare anyone.”

People were leafing through copies. “So, what have you written on?”

I hmm-ed a bit. Here is a hardcore political fortnightly. When I was asked to get my column Maverick on board, I did not know what the magazine would look like…the emphasis, the stories. I decided to steer clear of anything political. I wrote about pornography. The title is: “Civilise society, add a dash of porn”.

There is no e-edition of the magazine yet. Have fun!

Should Amitabh Bachchan retire?

...Who cares? But it is fun watching the slaves...

Okay, so Anurag Basu (Life in a Metro) a film director says it is time for Amitabh Bachchan to retire. I get to read a hilarious rejoinder by another film director, R. Balki (Cheeni Kum).

For his views in full and my comments look here.

Media stunts: IPL, Marriage, Bachchans...

...all commodities!

A few days ago there was a story about Malaika and Arbaaz’s marriage going ‘kaput’ and Arbaaz wanting to remarry. Who they? Okay, Arbaaz is Salman Khan’s brother and has done some forgettable films; Malaika’s contribution to urban Indian society is that she is hot. She works at it. Next day Mumbai Mirror was all martyr:

Turns out we’ve been had. Go to page 2 to read how the two celebs lied through their teeth for money and publicity.

These two are featuring in some skin-care product launch where they will play the Greek characters of Aphrodite and Eros who get married. That was what the whole “remarrying” thing was about.

Now here is what the paper said:

There were many reasons why we thought the story deserved front-page treatment: Malaika Arora is a huge pin-up star and Arbaaz is a celebrity in his own right, and comes from one of film industry's most respected families. In an environment where celebrity unions crumble faster than cookies the two, who have been married for 10 years and are parents of a five-year-old boy, offered a great example of a happy family unit in the face of relentless public scrutiny.

What message do we get from this?

1. Pin-up stars are news?
2. Being the son of a well-respected family makes you newsworthy?
3. Being married for 10 years is an achievement?
4. Being parents is news?
5. Public scrutiny for the above reasons is news?

Oh, tell that to some stupid ad jingle walla. The newspaper cannot be so naïve as to believe anything someone tells them. The couple sent out feelers, and then they spoke. What was the hurry to publish it? And if at all, this goes in the entertainment pages, not the front page. Do you understand? And, yes, we will wait and see if you carry ads of that product or not and whether you give this couple any space in your paper or not. Then tell us that you have been had.

Having said this, and quite certain people will talk about why this is so darn terrible, today’s paper gave us another bit of pathbreaking news: Aishwariya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan celebrated their first wedding anniversary. Yes, the same couple that had a “simple marriage” where the whole media and suicide missions landed up. Now the two of them are in Miami, so Papa B had this brilliant idea. He called his friends and the media for a bash at a five-star hotel and set up this huge screen for a video conference. The couple spoke a bit. Do you know what the real deal was? To promote their film (of which Papa B is also a part) directed by Ram Gopal Verma.

And what happened to the media that was boycotted during the wedding? They get breathless:

Family plot from Mumbai to Miami
Bachchans celebrate Abhiash anniversary, and how!

If you ask me, this is a cheaper stunt than the former.

In the first, the media did not cross-check and went along with what was a parody, however disgusting.

In the latter, you have superstars using their marriage (Jaya Bachchan did her saas act with a tearful moment too…she is missing her beta and bahu).

Was there any need to make a public display of this? Who foot the bill – the producer? Then this too is the buying of anniversary rights. Accept it. Let me see how many will run this grand affair down.

Fashion, my foot

Her skin shone in the bikini she wore, a bright yellow. From the car window her cellophane wrapped body appeared like it was covered with a tantalising sheer garment. She was dark. Very dark. But that is not how you refer to people on the cover of Vogue, even the Indian edition. You say she is dusky. You find new words that convey sex appeal, lusciousness.

I waved my hand to denote that I was not interested. A pair of dark eyes looked at me and pointed fingers at the model. “Madam, le lo, phashun hai.”

Shaking my head, I looked at the girl selling these copies. Her hair was tied carelessly on the top of her head, her eyes were beseeching and she was dark. No one would find words like dusky for her skin, or dark and inviting for her eyes. She was too young for a bikini, but her clothes were torn at the shoulder.

We held each other’s gaze for a long time.

I often wonder about the chasms that exist. What makes one superior to the other? Is it us? Would I have waved my hand had the model stood in front of me trying to market some two-piece at a fashion show?

- - -

Taking of fashion shows, I am just so glad that this ridiculous one currently going on, the Lakme Fashion Week, is finally over. You might wonder why it ought to bother me at all. Because I open the pages of our national newspapers and it is all there. In nauseating detail. Even when an attempt is made to expose how foreign buyers don’t give a shit, it looks ridiculous. For, I watch those so-called authorities on fashion, with their pumped up white porcine faces and their own silly clothes and wonder how they can sit and judge and say things like we need to focus.

We need to shut shop. This fashion parody has been going on for too long and makes no sense. I believe there was one show where all the male models were dressed as Sikhs because it was a sporting line and Sikhs are sporty! What next, a cocktail line should have Malayalis because they drink like crazy, and a lounge line ought to have Bengalis for they are always lounging?

There is this Bong designer, Sabyasachi Mukherjee. I remember his early days when he would smile and do ordinary things with clothes which made them wearable. Now he talks about using leather and jute and all that crap and he invariably gets the models to look deglamourised in a trendy way – they mostly wear large glasses and bindis with any kind of outfit. It just looks terribly stagey and hardly dramatic.

What is the point being made here? That you can be a plain Jane and carry it off? Who the hell is some designer to convey that? These clothes are pricey and lack basic aesthetics. Talking about silhouettes is not going to change the fact that wearing long tunics over short capris will always make you look like you are a behenji who has rolled up her churidar for a little dip in the beach waters because your shauhar said, “Chalo ji, kuchch paaon tau geele kar lo!”

I am really tired of this….then they go on about cuts and lines. We are Indians; we have curves. Real curves. And we like it. As women. We don’t give a damn what some men, and to hell with designers being gay, want. If you care so much for the flat look then just dress your male models as women, like you made them dress like Sikhs. Not too tough. The androgynous look is what you want, and what you will get.

Some of us look like women even when we wear men's kurtas, like I often do. Latest acquisition is one in lime-green, teamed up with brown slacks and a beaded necklace with a bronze pendant that has an elephant motif.

No need for the trumpets, too…