The cement man: A R Antulay

The perennial brat

A. R. Antulay reminded me of the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. He looked like the brat that popular tales about him in the media reported. His death only brings to the fore the realisation that in his last years his life was fairly invisible.

He was the first victim-villain of an exposé. Long before sting operations, there was Arun Shourie. In the 80s, he, backed by the owner of Indian Express, went all out to unravel what came to be known as the Cement Scandal. All constructions of that period, with peeling plasters and shaky banisters, are attributed to one man. Antulay was the kickbacks man. He gave out-of-turn permits for more cement to builders who then 'donated' to the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan he had set up. To even a casual observer, it would be evident that you cannot start a trust in the name of the prime minister and get away with it unless the PM knows about it.

Cemented ties: with Indira Gandhi

Ramnath Goenka detested Indira Gandhi. Unlike media owners today, he did have an ideological reason. Arun Shourie was to be his hitman. In a series, he built up his case. It became a sensational piece of journalism in the truest sense of exposing the chief minister. The courts pronounced him guilty for the extortion of Rs. 30 crore. It sounds like peanuts today, but was a huge amount then. He, a barrister from Lincoln's Inn, could not defend himself. He probably knew that his only defence was that he was a 'loyalist', a word that encompasses all the flaws of chamchagiri but also possesses a kernel of genuine loyalty.

In Maharshtra, as one from the Konkan region he knew the terrain. It was his territory. But he would only be remembered as the man who gave cement a bad name, and of course as the man Shourie vanquished.

But he was not quite done. A little after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, he was back in the news. Unfortunately, even as he spoke out those words — “I said a man like Karkare is born among millions... Who pushed him into the trap of death? Who sent him there to be killed by the Pakistanis?’’ — I had a queasy feeling that he would be used.

Suddenly, Muslim leaders came out of the woodwork; maulanas stood up for him. That is what bothered me. To question something ought to be a part of democracy and civil society. Antulay had never been a Muslim leader. So, for him to be anointed the “Muslim messiah”, even though he had mentioned Pakistan terrorists, was reducing the argument to the lowest common denominator which we as a society are so good at doing.

Why did he speak out? “Nobody spoke. But I did. I said so because it has been found that a number of things are pushed under the carpet in the name of a state subject. A federal agency is being made... I said it at an opportune moment as a reminder of duty.’’

Many people want to know about Hemant Karkare. Many people were interested that the probe into the Malegaon blasts must not stop. Some wondered about bad timing. If anything, that was the only time to talk.

Antulay was planning to resign. He said so: “I am a self-respecting person... forget the resignation. That is a very simple thing. I had resigned from chief ministership of Maharashtra...when 100% of Congress MLAs were with me.’’ Asked about clarifications, he said, “A clarification is sought when something is hidden.”

I thought then, that whatever be his agenda if any, he should at least stick by his decision. He copped out, instead, with the take-home package of "too err is human" from the UPA-1 PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh for his rebellion. Antulay forgot all about what was pushed under the carpet. He returned to that wonderful portfolio of Minority Affairs Minister, the totem to beat all totems,

Was he an extortionist or a contortionist? A victim or a villain? Or will Antulay now be just the grey of a RIP?

Bitter vs. Insecure: The Natwar Singh-Sonia Gandhi Saga

Natwar Singh is right about one thing: Sonia Gandhi should have kept quiet. The one-time Congress loyalist and senior minister has written his memoirs in which there are some unsavoury references to the Congress party chief. Irrespective of whether he wrote it out of bitterness (he was made to leave after the oil scam), it would be quite a natural thing for him to talk about his tenure in the government, and it might include his perspective on the people he was interacting with.

Sonia Gandhi told reporters in Parliament:

"I will write my own book and then everyone will come to know everything... the only way truth will come out is if I write. I am serious about it and I will be writing."

This is disturbing. It assumes that her truth is truer. Just as there are people who will not buy all of Natwar Singh's 'truth', there will be others who would question her version. The one incident that seems to have had an impact is that she refused the prime ministerial position not because of the "inner voice", the touted reason, but because Rahul Gandhi gave her 24 hours to refuse because he thought she too might be killed like his father Rajiv Gandhi was.

To any observer, both seem relevant. A son wanting to protect his mother is a most natural emotion, and a woman cast as an outsider might realise that this space has its own niche and abjure overt power. A good sixth sense, or inner voice, has saved many.

She is a politically pragmatic person. As I wrote in The Accidental Prima Donna:

While her slain husband and two children were hesitant to enter the fray, Sonia Gandhi was never a reluctant politician. Her refusal to be the prime minister was also a political act that stood her in good stead. Indians connect emotionally with detachment. She came across as one not ambitious for herself.

Therefore, the Natwar natter would have just fallen by the wayside had she not responded. Now, people with some sense will expect a sanitised book from her. They will read it, but might doubt its veracity even more. For, if he is a "bitter man", then she is a defensive woman. Such statements make it only worse:

"I can't be hurt (by revelations), I have seen my mother-in-law riddled with bullets, my husband dead...I am far from getting hurt with these things. Let them continue to do this, it will not affect me... They can continue to do this if they so please."

By saying this she has exposed her hurt more sharply. Which secure person would in a flash decide to write a book to clarify their own position? And why is former PM Manmohan Singh saying, "Private conversations should not be made public for capital gains"? An expensive book in English reaches a limited number of people.

Dr. Singh probably does not like the fact that he is portrayed as someone who had no real power, and all files went to Ms. Gandhi. In retirement he would want to salvage his reputation. Circumspection is a good thing, but responding to the rash isn't particularly circumspect.

The Congress Party members will all huddle together anyway, and certainly not protest against their leader only because she listened to her son. If anything, they will see him as someone who has real influence on her and is therefore the leader they believed he ought to be.

Natwar Singh quit the party only in 2008; he was forced to resign in 2005 for the Iraqi food-for-oil scam. This itself is revealing. If he was bitter, why did he not leave the party immediately or prove his innocence then, as he claims now?

It would take naïveté of some kind to blindly fall for his interpretation, especially if he comes up with statements like these:

"No Indian would treat a man who was loyal to family for 45 years who had been very close to her and 30 years older. .... It is just not done in India. There is a part (of Sonia) which is ruthless."

And further:

Asked if that was her Italian part, he shot back, asking what else can it be adding, "some part of it is not India. Jawarlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi would not be like that".

He is sounding like a political rookie, treating this as some sort of soap opera. By emphasising his loyalty he is inadvertently justifying her arrogance that he seems to have issues with. The India of his imagination is certainly not real. Age is not respected even in everyday social situations; in this case it was professional. His insistence on making it unprofessional is grating and obsequious, for ultimately he is holding a candle for most of the Nehru-Gandhi family even if it means ignoring their ruthlessness.

Natwar Singh also needs a quick visit to Italy to discover how they uphold family values. Or he can just get DVDs of 'The Godfather' series. The Italian mafia too respected the unit. In Don Corleone's words: "A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man."


© Farzana Versey

Have stings replaced news?

The anchor held up a piece of paper and shouted down a politician with the precious words: "I have this secret information." A rival channel did its own bit of smirking: "Our sting operation will give you the whole story."

It will not. This too is fed information. The reason there is a surfeit of 'stings' — how can a formal letter by a cop to his bosses be called a sting operation when he has written it and sent it? — is because newspapers and TV channels have saturated the regular routes and want to entertain. Many of the readers and viewers too wish to be entertained, and news stories, however controversial, become more interesting when they stink.

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.

A few noises are being made now about some of these exposés. I wish it had been done earlier, too. Then we would have been spared this rush and rash of scoops where dirt covers only more dirt.

I've said it in earlier pieces, and instead of repeating myself I shall reproduce two extracts, one from 2010, the other from 2007. [Unfortunately, opinions do not qualify as scoops and exposés!]:

Stings that stink, 2007, Asian Age Op-Ed:

Have sting operations changed anything? Have people stopped having their palms greased? Is there more awareness about wrongdoing? Are the culprits shunned by society?

You know the answers. They have, on the contrary, become even more important.

A reporter of a Delhi television channel tried to expose a teacher for forcing her students into prostitution. It turned out to be fake. It was done on the prodding of a businessman as a planned strategy to hit out at the teacher for owing him Rs 100,000. He called up a reporter who we are told harangued her to make a few quick bucks by getting into the flesh trade and supply women. It is said she fell for this bait. A colleague of the reporter was sent as a potential girl ready for the job.

The whole story sounds bizarre. Would a woman in a respectable profession be so gullible as to get into criminal activity? If there is any truth, then why has it been labelled fake? This is not a big channel. Had it been one of those fancy ones, do you imagine anyone would have made such a noise about its lack of authenticity? The reporter has been arrested. I would like to know what is being done to the channel owners. This isn’t just a sensational story. It is about an issue that concerns women and any sensible person. Sting operators cannot get away with it.

Is this about vigilantism at all? (In 2005), there was an exposé where 11 Members of Parliament were bribed to pose questions in the House. The website carried tape recorders and cameras to catch them red-handed and a TV channel aired what they thought was a complete travesty. These clippings were later shown in Parliament. Newspaper reports were dramatic: "Parliament was stunned into shamed silence."

Does Parliament feel no shame when elected members throw slippers and chairs at each other? Has no ministry ever been shamed for taking kickbacks by giving a contract to an undeserving company?

And who were the MPs who were paid Rs 15,000 to just over a lakh for asking questions? Were they important enough names? These nobodies suddenly got notorious fame as "the dirty eleven." I can lay a bet that even if they were not bribed and were told they would be given some media coverage, they would still have done what they did. The sting operation only helped make scapegoats of a few unknowns to let the real sharks march around like saints. A whitewash job has never been simpler.

The real scoop was this, and it had been reported in this newspaper: The television channel gave the sting operators about Rs 58 lakhs. Less than Rs 10 lakhs was spent on the entire operation. The bribe amount was less than Rs 3 lakhs. Other expenses were about Rs 5 lakhs. The equipment was available on loan. Was the balance money returned to the TV channel? Does anyone know?

There should be transparency regarding sting operations too. Jaya Jaitly, who ought to know, had made an interesting comment, that it would be honest if a person went to these sting operators and told them that someone was taking money for asking questions or getting things done; the snoops could then accompany the person and catch the culprit in the act.

---

Would they do a sting operation on cultural organisations or famous "respectable" artistes who get special privileges? What about nominated MPs from the "world of arts" who use their position to further their personal causes? What about NGOs that misuse foreign funds? What about media houses that take money from socialites to promote them?

The media as middleman, 2010, CounterPunch

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. 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?

---

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 (Radia tapes) 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.

"False history gets made all day, any day, the truth of the new is never on the news." (Adrienne Rich)

© Farzana Versey

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

Raja vs Rakhi: Digvijay Singh's Sexism

What makes a senior political leader use the example of a woman from the entertainment industry to hit out at a political opponent? Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh is known to shoot his mouth off. However, his statement, "Arvind Kejriwal is like Rakhi Sawant. They both try and expose but with no substance" is senseless, besides being in poor taste. 

The latest news is that he says she is welcome to slap a defamation case against him where she is seeking Rs. 50 crore in damages. This is just so arrogant. 

It is not surprising that much of mainstream media will not take up for Rakhi. She is not in the top league, and started her career as an item girl performing to titillating dance numbers, which is what heroines do today. She has been called drama queen, attention seeker and several other names, even as she was used by these same media channels to spice up their programmes.

It is to her credit that while she superficially reinvented herself – better clothes, better shows – she essentially remained grounded and, in some ways, coarse. I liked her before she got legitimised by Karan Johar on his talk show ‘Koffee with Karan’, and everyone suddenly started taking up for her being oh-so-frank when she made the famous comment, “Jo Bhagwan nahin deta woh doctor de sakta hai” (what god does not give the doctor can) regarding her several cosmetic surgeries.

Most times, she is cannily self-deprecatory. Like getting excited about designer clothes. She knows that she can afford them now, but she is also aware that whatever she wears will be seen as ‘cheap’. The same slit gowns, the same clutches, the same limited edition baubles that a top star might wear, and promote after being paid for by the sponsor, will be seen as favours done to her.

This is the sad state of our perceptions, of how we view people, especially women.

What Digvijay Singh has done is in the same league. However, like the others, he felt the need to use her name, a name that has become a symbol. There are many who expose, but he could think only of her. Or, he was too afraid to name Vidya Balan or Kareena Kapoor. The analogy was about Arvind Kejriwal exposing people’s names without any merit or substance to his accusations.

How does Rakhi Sawant exposing herself come into the picture? She is revealing her own assets, not anybody else’s. Besides, on what basis does he say she has no substance? This is her substance. This is what has made her, at least partially, what she is. This is her bread and butter. This is what people pay to see. This is how the respectable media exploits her.

She has written letters to the Mumbai Police Commissioner and the Maharashtra Home Secretary against Digvijay Singh. CNN-IBN published her letter, but not before stating:

“Here's the full text of the letter written by Rakhi Sawant, which has been reproduced in its entirety with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors”

So what? It goes without saying she has not drafted it. This works for the English-educated, Oxford-flashing mob to bring down the ‘vernies’.

Even if Rakhi Sawant is a drama queen, she is way better than these microphone queens who think they can change the world. Oh, not just that. They think they are in charge of the world.

Rakhi's letter raises a few important points:

“…outraging modesty of a woman/female, charges of passing lewd remarks and eve teasing, abusing, mischief, passing defamatory remake and false statement and rumour etc…”

Some may think the reaction is exaggerated. It is time to at least address these issues. 

• Outraging of modesty can be verbal.
• What he said is lewd.
• I don’t like the term eve teasing, but such comments do amount to harassment of a woman.
• It is abusive.
• It is mischievous, for it immediately grabs attention
• It is defamatory.
• It is false because Digvijay Singh does not know her, and there is no reason to drag her name in.

I do understand that she has not been advised too well, though, for there is no relation established between her and Kejriwal nor is it about her gender.

It is also possible that she will renege on her own position and retract the case. But, then, so do politicians. Mr. Singh said he was "an old fan".

The same hierarchy prevails here, too. The lumpen politician passing sexist remarks is immediately pulled up, but a posh Raja Digvijay Singh will get a bemused reaction. He has chosen a target who even feminists would not feel comfortable standing up for.

The whole “objectification of body” argument will be raked up. She has paid to get that body with her money. And she did not ask a politician to objectify her with his comments. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Gadkari's Basic Instinct

BJP Prez in Sharon Stone moment

This is your friendly neighbourhood BJP party president, Nitin Gadkari. If I were to deconstruct this photograph and the attitude of L.K.Advani and the RSS towards him - the former thinks he should uphold certain values while the latter has termed him the "Nagpur boy" who is pretty much okay - then it is clear that Gadkari does not quite care about what anyone thinks of him. 

His legs are crossed at an extreme angle while his gaze is straight ahead. It means he keeps an eye on what's going on, and yet does not lose touch with who he is and who he is with. 

The generous exposure and view of flesh also conveys that he might preempt his opponents with a 'show me yours, I am showing you mine'.

BJP's Backroom Boy: Kejriwal

The only person who is probably surprised that Nitin Gadkari’s name has come up in the grand Arvind Kejriwal expose would probably be Nitin Gadkari himself.  

Not because of the accusations of financial deals, which no politician likes exposed, but due to not being even recognised as a politician at all:

“Gadkari is not in politics, he is not a politician. He is using BJP to further his business interests. It is sad that BJP amended its constitution to give a second term to the BJP President.”

So, cry hoarse as much as you want to. Kejriwal is the BJP’s backroom boy. After outing Robert Vadra and Salman Khurshid, he had to portray a semblance of parity in corruption. His India Against Corruption (IAC) is not breaking new ground. In fact, his target is the UPA. Here:

Kejriwal said that Gadkari was illegally favoured by Maharashtra government in allocation of farm land and also alleged quid pro quo with the ruling political party in this land allotment. Kejriwal said that Gadkari was in league with Congress-NCP to get undue personal favours. “Is BJP the opposition party or the partner of the ruling party?" Kejriwal questioned.

When he accused Robert Vadra, it became a Gandhi family and Congress issue. When it was against Salman Khurshid and his Trust, it again became a Congress issue. Now that it is the BJP President, why is he not as scathing against the party?

One has to be naïve to imagine that when it comes to making a political choice Kejriwal will not join hands with the BJP. His revelation against Gadkari has two purposes:

1. Show that he is non-partisan
2. Choose the out-of-favour BJP man as target

Neither works as intended. 

Gadkari has a business empire. So does Sharad Pawar. Why has he not named Pawar? Why has he not named other BJP leaders who stashed money? Is corruption only about acquiring wealth or also about ensuring that you stay in power by disbursing wealth and permits? In the Vadra and Khurshid cases, he was certainly more clear.

Everyone knows that certain people in the BJP want Gadkari out. Kejriwal is playing for them. More importantly, he has made the BJP into some sort of martyr trapped into making this tough choice. There are the usual noises in the BJP. It seems too pat, in some cases rehearsed.

Would he like to stretch the argument and ask how the BJP president, by denying the farmers of what was theirs, managed to hold on to his seat in the ‘clean’ party? Was he possibly keeping some people happy within? Does it mean that every single person who is in a position is capable of doing so?

It is unfortunate that every single day for a few months now, Indians are being treated to this bizarre tantalising show. After the Anna and Ramdev tamashas, Kejriwal – the most self-righteous among the lot – is indulging in what he accuses others of: playing politics. That is his aim and that is what he has always been from the very start.

Forming a political party on the basis of exposing others is churlish. However, we give him space and time because we are spoon-fed this sort of weak ideology of uprightness in contemporary times. It is essentially an advertisement for the man. He is selling himself.

Why are we buying him? Does everyone believe him? Is he the new messiah?

The answer to all is an emphatic no. Arvind Kejriwal will be swallowed into the big party and sent off to handle farmers.For all his concern about them, he knows that in the Indian political scheme this is "chillar" (small change), a word Nitin Gadkari used for his expose.

Seedy CDs and Hollow Exposés

I am not particularly interested in what lawyer and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi does in his spare time, and especially not in his private moments. Apparently his driver shot his boss getting intimate with someone and circulated the CD.

I do not understand why the courts have to put a stay on news channels from airing it. The news channels should know that it is not important to air it. They did the same with the BJP MLAs watching porn on their mobile phones.

Whether the CD has morphed images or not ought to be probed legally. It is not the business of the media. If this did indeed happen, then the person invading such privacy ought to be pulled up, not Mr. Singhvi. Irrespective of the political side he belongs to, he is entitled to a private life. Was he caught taking bribes or giving money for a deal? Was he caught trying to buy off members from other parties?

What disturbs me is a report that quotes someone who happens to know the lady, a lawyer, and the comments made on a social networking site:

• Happened in his office. She is about 45-50yrs old. it has to be consensual or else he can much better/younger girls if he wants to exploit."

As I said, one is not judging what happened. I am questioning these know-it-alls. This person happens to be a woman. She assumes that only young women can get exploited, that men, however old they are or whatever they look like, always have the option. Looks like she does not read reports about how those in power – and it could be the power of physical strength or of being in an isolated spot or of revenge – can take advantage of women irrespective of their age or looks.

I find such an attitude disgusting. She further expounds:

• “I do not agree that they had sex just for judgeship. U think it's that simple to become a judge? NO!...see she too is v rich and v influential also has a great legal practice. So sex only for favour is unlikely.”

So, now being rich and influential makes a person above-board.

Such tittle-tattle is reported as news? There are legal procedures that can be followed, although I have no idea what it would be about – that he granted the woman some favour? Or that he used his office for the act as is being said?

Some old pictures of him wearing a kurta and shorts are being posted that have nothing to do with the present controversy.

As someone who has done a few of these ‘chill out zone’ type stories with prominent people, let me tell you that the magazine (and channels) want the subjects to let down their guard, to show their ‘human side’. It does not mean that the person ‘drops his pants’ at the drop of a quote.

An intrusive media should know the difference between an exposé and idle curiosity. Going by their ‘tauba tauba’ reaction one would think they are all celibate. It would be really interesting to watch some CDs that show our honourable members of the Fourth Estate in compromising positions. We have seen them in the missionary position, but that is only a stand they take when they are holding forth on topics of ‘national’ interest.

Seriously, will we ever have an tell-all about the hallowed newsrooms or the cabins of revered editors? (That they occasionally write memoirs in semi-retirement exposing members of their tribe surprisingly makes them look good to the ones who were saved from the hawk eyes.) Can we also ask the media if they get their scoops by being rather ‘kind’ or sending their special scribes/anchors? After all, during those sting operations they do lay the honey-trap. What do they do when they are not 'stinging'?

The least we expect is that they should not join in the chorus of anonymous 'opinionators'. This incessant caricaturing of others just makes them into caricatures if you look from the other side.

Radia Tapes: Open Sesame?

We have seen how the 2G scam unfolded. Important people were packed off to jail. The really prominent names were not. No Tata, no Ambani. The role of the lobbyist thawed. Nira Radia became a ghostly figure making court appearances.

Now, the tapes that were at the centre of the controversy have been given a clean chit. I say tapes deliberately:

The Centre has argued before the Supreme Court that the Nira Radia tapes that were leaked to the media were tampered with. The tapes contained conversations between lobbyist Nira Radia and various industry leaders. The government has also stated that the tapes were not leaked by government agencies. The government said there were eight to ten agencies, including service providers, involved in the tapping of telephonic conversation of former corporate lobbyist Nira Radia.

Is this a victory for anyone? Was it not the government that was culpable, to begin with? So, how is the government version acceptable? What are government agencies doing? Why was the inquiry handled by the Ministry of Finance who appointed officers to investigate into the case?

The report says the starting and the end point of the conversation do not match with the original tapes, Justice Singhvi said referring to the report. He said the report also says that officers, who had conducted the probe, do not know who has leaked it."It is quite possible that someone else has done it," the bench said.

This is the SC making such vague statements. Of course, it is possible. We have seen the Shanti Bhushan case; Amar Singh is now a veteran in these false tape cases. Is it not crucial to ask who leaked the tapes and why?

Why should we accept the government statement when we doubt it on almost every other occasion? It is a seriously flawed argument, for the government got trapped in the scams. Why would it leak the tapes, anyway? To clear the main decks?

The other possibility is business rivalry and ego.

I had written the following a while ago:

We are witnessing this farce as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while not yet giving a clean chit to Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani, has been talking about their honesty and how candid they have been. Niira Radia has been called “evasive”.

Ratan Tata, when asked about his letter to the Tamil Nadu chief minister praising Raja’s work in the telecom ministry, with some gumption said, “We had a chemistry problem with (his predecessor Dayanidhi) Maran.” Yet, he claimed, “I didn’t manipulate the system for 2G licence allocation.” Did not Mr Tata file a petition regarding breach of privacy about the leaked tapes? The political machinery does not wish to completely alienate the corporate lobby, so it accused Radia of being anti-national and an agent of foreign intelligence agencies.

Both sides are getting trapped in quick sand and they need to prop each other up without being seen to ostensibly do so. Why did they not produce records of the Rs. 300 crore that Radia had accumulated? Of course, there is every possibility of impropriety, but for whom and for what?

If foreign agencies were involved, how did they pay her so that the authorities would know the amount? Have the finance and other departments tapped those calls from foreign agencies? What foreign agencies have interests in seeing to it that the Ambanis and Tatas get the prime deals? Which foreign agency would be interested in what portfolio Raja got? It might be important to examine how these players then can be indicted for such foreign connections as well as anti-national activities, including the governments, past and present, for accommodating them.

This is a morass. Now, we come to the media. There was a huge noise by those who were acting as whistle-blowers as well as the ones defamed. The strange aspect is that both groups have continued with their work and moved on. Vir Sanghvi had, in fact, sent the tapes to a couple of laboratories abroad that showed there was something amiss. Will the government use this as evidence? What about the magazines that carried transcripts – will the courts file a case against them?

How much of it is fake? If the “starting and end point” do not match, then what happens to the middle? Besides, who will be seen as culprits in these tampered tapes – will there be a hierarchy of favoured ones and those who can be put to pasture? The politicians, the businessmen and executives, the media persons – if some of their conversations have been tampered with, then does it follow that everything is? Does it, therefore, falsify the whole case and we discover there has been no scam at all?

And to think that a whole people’s movement started by riding on this wave. It is the people who will have to live with such half-truths.

Do read The Media as Middleman for a background and more

Mohamed Haneef and the Middle-class

Mohamed Haneef and the Middle-class
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, December 22

Julian Assange has given the Indian middle-class and the media the thumbs up. He is probably not aware of the lobbying controversy. Besides mentioning our “vibrant” journalism, he told an Indian newspaper that he was optimistic because “you have a rising middle class. You have more people getting access to the internet. So, I am quite hopeful of about what is going to develop in India”.

The middle-class, whether rising or otherwise, tends to be complacent. Such leaks have worked as scoops before; we have had politicians eat crow and then gone on to crow about it. That’s how it works here and that’s how it works elsewhere. The moralistic middle-class did not flinch about a Bill Clinton and it elects parties that have $1000 ticket events for fund-raising, not to speak about celebrity endorsements. And in Australia how many middle-class people booed out the former Prime Minister John Howard for his anti-immigrant statements, specifically targetting a certain religious group?

This brings us to the closure of the case of the Indian doctor, Mohamed Haneef, who was arrested in Australia, where he worked, and imprisoned for two weeks without a charge against him only on the basis of a suspicion of involvement in the Glasgow International Airport terrorist attack. He will be paid compensation, reportedly worth Aus $1 million. The manner in which his inquiry was conducted, the lack of evidence or rather the wrongful use of evidence, shows that there was a vicious attempt to incarcerate him, probably also the first showpiece for its 2005 Australian Anti-Terrorism Act. Since July 2007 when he was arrested to now, he has had to fight to prove that he is innocent.

The rising middle-class did not come out to support him, not in India, not in Australia. A ‘public outcry’ has become just another ruse for demonising the victim, for it furthers the case for kangaroo courts. The internet is obsessed with people and events that are ‘happening’. There won’t be any leaks about these incidents, even though none of this can happen with the connivance of the powers. This was a cross-continental case. Why are the authorities not being put on trial for bungling it, as the independent inquiry has found they did?

Dr. Haneef will get the money, and he had “sought damages for lost earnings, the interruption to his medical career, damage to his reputation and emotional stress”. Unfortunately, the emphasis will be on the monetary aspect and not on the real issue of making a case on the basis of suspicion. It raises questions about how the stereotyping starts at the top and percolates down to those who have access and are ‘wired’ to the world. This is just such a superficial indulgence. I can imagine how the media will want to know what he will do with the money, will he take up the cause of others like him, all hinting at the settlement. Rules have been flouted, but that will be forgotten. He has had to live with being tainted when terror screams out from the power peaks of establishments that terrorise people into believing that they are at risk. It is made out to be some kind of epidemic, and the rising middle-class wants to be safe because it is awfully sorry for itself. This is the package deal of morality combined with upward mobility.

Dr. Haneef, too, talks about moving on. This is the middle-class fallacy. No one moves on; they just move ahead and don’t look back in anger. This lack of ire is what will make sure that any expose remains in the realm of a whodunit. It is time for popcorn.

I was surprised to read a senior official’s comment that the WikiLeaks model would work in India. “There is incredible amount of corruption and a lot of it is well documented. The problem is that our government servants, who have access to these files, are very, very afraid to leak documents. They don’t even trust most reporters.”

Since when has corruption begun to be well-documented? In really big cases, there are files that have been passed and dates with names that can be pinned down. But it is the government servants who are the beneficiaries. It is convenient to point fingers at the politicians, but what about the bureaucracy? Yes, the same much-in-demand, dowry-enabled bureaucracy? Before entering a politician’s cabin, everyone from the trader to the big businessman, has to go through babudom, the kingdom with lost keys. The same one with the middle-class morals has to rise, after all. The uniform changed from polyester shirts, to the safari suit and is now more striped Park Avenue or even the odd Marks and Spenser’s.

This babu is the one who files the culpable files as well as those implicating innocents. Why are we not concerned about the latter? Why is it only about the wrong-doings when the ones who have done no wrong far outnumber the criminals? Look at the undertrials in prison, look at those waiting for provident fund or fighting to get their dues. Is there exposure about such cases?

There used to be a middle-class that cared, even if it sat helplessly, hand in head, chopping onions. Now, it does not. It isn’t only because onions are expensive, but because in the world of quick news you cannot just crib about price rise; you need to have a point of view about onion and the economy that drives it. This is spoon-fed and the middle-class person feels empowered with such knowledge. With this empowerment, sitting in a creaking armchair, now called antique instead of just a doddering old piece of furniture, this person will forget that buying power is being systematically reduced for essentials. The big players sell big dreams on plasma TV screens. It is all about the Big Picture.

The Raj Kapoor cinematic fantasy in black and white has become a mall rat flaunting, “Mera joota hai Japani, yeh patloon Englistani, sar pe lal topi Russi, phir bhi dil hai Hindustani” (My shoes are Japanese, trousers English, cap Russian, but the heart remains Indian.) This heart is now in the right place – at the centre of the hub. It isn’t about donning a cap, but how far we can go with the visiting Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev. Even a song that warmed so many people’s lips has now become a propeller for collaboration and business and the global euphoria.

The official quoted earlier had added, “It is not that we don’t have whistle-blowers in our system, but they need to be assured of secrecy.”

We did and Satyendra Dubey was killed. The rising middle-class did not have time. And that is what is frightening. Every case is a pushover. Until the next one comes along and we clear the cache.

NDTV Exposes NDTV?

Last night I did not watch ‘The Buck Stops Here’ on NDTV. I caught it on the Net today. The video showed an image with the words, “This is not an envelope.” I geared up for the expose. It happened to be an ad for DHL couriers. Then began the show. First thought: what were they thinking? It does not take long to figure out that what I had expected has happened: The ‘lynch mob’ is now the ‘give-the-benefit-of-doubt mob’. I had avoided taking specific names in an earlier article here because it was taking away from the issue and it would have only confirmed my point about buffering a cult.

Now, things are different. Barkha Dutt came on her own show to answer questions by an independent panel on a channel in which she is the group editor. The host, Sonia Singh, started by saying that they had earlier wanted someone else to ask Barkha because they believed in a level-playing field. They should have continued with that belief. This show was a farce not because of the emotions, which are natural, but because of several other reasons:

1. It was an unedited version. This does not mean an objective one. No one, not even Manu Joseph the whistle-blower, could make a logical argument.

2. What does independent panelists mean? Are they independent of the channel? Are they independent in their views? Are they independent of any association with any of the people involved in the controversy? Are they independent of their own organisations? All of them are from the media.

Dileep Padgaongar went into his intellectual foreplay and he does seem far better equipped to discuss the finer aspects of French cuisine.

Swapan Dasgupta first talked about how he was always pre-judged, which sort of sent out a little message of empathy, but since he had to be independent he made some noises; this man has been a hardcore Hindutva supporter and now in his role as a TOI person he has gone soft overtly. Independent?

Sanjaya Baru of Business Standard tried to discuss the Radia tapes but insisted that ethics was a different issue. Huh?

This brings us to Manu Joseph of Open Magazine that was the first to carry the transcripts of the tapes. His insistence that Barkha should answer the question about why she did not do a story based on the conversations began to sound extremely churlish. It is a valid poser that has been raised by quite a few people, so there was nothing new. She responded that no one can decide about what story should be covered by whom. This is her opinion and there were several other subsidiaries that could have been asked to pin down this same point.

3. Barkha Dutt said that all she can be accused of is ‘an error of judgment’ and ‘naivete’. Yet, she told Manu Joseph that he did not know about political journalism! If we take her word for it, then why did she trust Nira Radia again and again? Politicians are mentioned. The possibility of talking to them is clearly stated. If she was just listening to Radia’s appeals and playing along, then she is not naïve at all. The error of judgment is not realising that these things would backfire.

4. This brings us to Open Magazine. It has brought out some dirt. What does it plan to do next? Does anyone know? When there is a lot of noise about the mainstream media, on what grounds is Open considered non-mainstream? Here is what the magazine’s site says about itself:

The clean, vibrant packaging and uncluttered presentation adds to the international look. And it comes in a new size—more than an inch wider than the standard A4 size of most magazines—giving the reader more content and the advertiser more ad space.

It is also “boredom-proof”.

All this make it essential to have content that sells. There is no need to be apologetic about that, but Open is owned by RPG Enterprises. Here are some details:

The RPG group is one of India’s fastest growing-conglomerates, owning premium brands like Ceat Tyres, SareGaMa and Spencer’s, with a turnover touching Rs 14,000 crore. The group has diverse business interests, owning more than twenty companies in areas like tyre manufacture, power transmission, IT, retail, entertainment, carbon black and life sciences.

No mobile phones and 2G dreams? What if…?

Is that the reason why the editor insisted that he has not accused Barkha Dutt of corruption? Then what is the tamasha about? Lobbying? Media ethics? He did not accuse her of these. He just wanted to know why it was not covered on NDTV when Barkha Dutt was privy to so much information.

Did any of the panelists believe that they would get an answer? By becoming a part of the show they have in fact lost at least partially any independent thinking. Vinod Mehta declined to be on the show. Manu Joseph should have done the same. If you believe in the material you have, then use your own forum and the processes that civil society grants you. If need be, file a suit in the courts.

Nira Radia is being questioned by the authorities. Let us see what she will squeal. She is more likely to defend her corporate employers than the media people. The corporate guys won’t care about individuals; they can start a media company anytime. The politicians are used to horse-trading.

And the media? How many media-propped celebrities who fight against the corporate lobbies have come forward and spoken about this particular issue? What about their silence – those who know they need the media for their ‘war against big guns’? The same coteries will be back on the panels discussing other people’s ethics. Everyone has a story to sell.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents. They have uploaded the video.

If you are sick of Amitabh Bachchan…

...and me writing about him, then read no further.

But he is lying. You want to know that, don’t you?

1984. Mr. B was campaigning for the Congress in Assam. The helicopter landed at the wrong destination. It belonged to the Opposition.

Don’t ask me how an area can belong to the Opposition and how on earth a politician canvasses only in his constituency.

“As I sat back in the plane, a young student broke the cordon, ran up to me, thrust his fist through the glass window and handed me a piece of paper. It read: ‘Mr Bachchan, I am a big fan of yours, but I am with the opposite party. Please leave this state, you are making life very difficult for me for I am torn between two desires’. I felt that for 25 years I had tried to woo my audience to love me as an artist, as an actor. And once I had accomplished that, I was now telling them to love my politics as well. Not acceptable to me...I was wrong. I was dividing my audience, my fans. I was asking them to sever a leg from their body and donate it to my party...My reticence towards politics is governed by that incident, and it is why I shall never ever go in that domain.’’

Did that student break the window? How was the actor making his life difficult? It is like saying a person cannot stay married because he likes Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt. Actors do ask people to love their other activities as well, which is why we have celebrity endorsements. Isn’t he worried about that? Why should a fan like some oil or chyawanprash if s/he likes him as an actor? The audience and the voters are not fools; they can see the difference. This is why not all actors are successful in politics. His dramabaazi is getting really bad…what is this about severing a leg and donating it? Kasai khana hai kya? Don’t people have minds and wasn’t he appealing to that?

His reticence is because of the scams he was caught up in, perhaps by default. If it was some student from Assam then he would not have called politics a cesspool. He would not have tried to get his PR machinery go full throttle to do damage control.

And I know what I am talking about. The day one of my articles appeared on him with a reference to Bofors, his PRO landed up at the office. The next issue had a cover story on him, a nice laudatory account.

Sting Operations: Beyond reproach?

Maverick: Stings that stink
by Farzana Versey
The Asian Age, Op-ed, Sept. 18, 2007

Have sting operations changed anything? Have people stopped having their palms greased? Is there more awareness about wrongdoing? Are the culprits shunned by society?

You know the answers. They have, on the contrary, become even more important. Isn’t the woman politician who was "stung" a perennial commentator on panel discussions? Hasn’t the out-of-work villain, whose claim to fame was a string hanging from his pyjamas, now become a huge draw?

Let us not forget that the Antulay cement scandal and Bofors issues were brought to light long before sting operations became fashionable. These are perhaps the worst form of voyeurism because they come garbed in designer morality.

This has been brought out in the open rather swiftly in the recent case where a reporter of a Delhi television channel tried to expose a teacher for forcing her students into prostitution. It turned out to be fake. It was done on the prodding of a businessman as a planned strategy to hit out at the teacher for owing him Rs 100,000. He called up a reporter who we are told harangued her to make a few quick bucks by getting into the flesh trade and supply women. It is said she fell for this bait. A colleague of the reporter was sent as a potential girl ready for the job.

The whole story sounds bizarre. Would a woman in a respectable profession be so gullible as to get into criminal activity? If there is any truth, then why has it been labelled fake? This is not a big channel. Had it been one of those fancy ones, do you imagine anyone would have made such a noise about its lack of authenticity? The reporter has been arrested. I would like to know what is being done to the channel owners. This isn’t just a sensational story. It is about an issue that concerns women and any sensible person. Sting operators cannot get away with it.

Why do you think the new reporters are taking up snoopy journalism? To ensure that in future they can enter bedrooms and closets for their low-level scoops.

Is this about vigilantism at all? Two years ago, there was an exposé where 11 Members of Parliament were bribed to pose questions in the House. The website carried tape recorders and cameras to catch them red-handed and a TV channel aired what they thought was a complete travesty. These clippings were later shown in Parliament. Newspaper reports were dramatic: "Parliament was stunned into shamed silence."

Does Parliament feel no shame when elected members throw slippers and chairs at each other? Has no ministry ever been shamed for taking kickbacks by giving a contract to an undeserving company?

That sting operation in fact gave political parties a halo — they got the offending MPs to resign. They started talking about ethics. Senior politicians who have been corrupt and booked for scams were holding forth on the "indefensible" acts. The "exposé" did nothing except to buffer a few egos.

And who were the MPs who were paid Rs 15,000 to just over a lakh for asking questions? Were they important enough names? These nobodies suddenly got notorious fame as "the dirty eleven." I can lay a bet that even if they were not bribed and were told they would be given some media coverage, they would still have done what they did. The sting operation only helped make scapegoats of a few unknowns to let the real sharks march around like saints. A whitewash job has never been simpler.

The real scoop was this, and it had been reported in this newspaper: The television channel gave the sting operators about Rs 58 lakhs. Less than Rs 10 lakhs was spent on the entire operation. The bribe amount was less than Rs 3 lakhs. Other expenses were about Rs 5 lakhs. The equipment was available on loan. Was the balance money returned to the TV channel? Does anyone know?

There should be transparency regarding sting operations too. Jaya Jaitly, who ought to know, had made an interesting comment, that it would be honest if a person went to these sting operators and told them that someone was taking money for asking questions or getting things done; the snoops could then accompany the person and catch the culprit in the act.

Journalists and TV channels use soft targets. Politicians, film stars, gangsters are already in the public eye and no one assumes them to be aboveboard, anyway.

There is the myopic notion that only political pressure plays a major role. Politics is easy game if you want to camouflage the bigger scourge — commercial considerations. Would these brave-hearts do a sting operation on industrial houses, many of which are run purely on the ability to bribe their way for licences, prime land, modifying export-import policies to suit them?

Would they do a sting operation on cultural organisations or famous "respectable" artistes who get special privileges? What about nominated MPs from the "world of arts" who use their position to further their personal causes? What about NGOs that misuse foreign funds? What about media houses that take money from socialites to promote them?

Are these sting operations themselves unbiased? Who is sponsoring them? It is facile to believe that the market decides who calls the shots. Do you have any say in what you get to watch? We are being told that truth can only be reached through a spy camera. The public is a victim of such auto-suggestion. They are all faking it, honey, for only bees really know how to sting.