Why stings stink: Jindal vs. Zee

Jindal shows his evidence: Pic: The Hindu

The media is shocked. An industrialist-politician has done a sting operation on them. What is less shocking, but rather amusing, is how some of the media people are getting so self-righteous. As though they do not know what happens in the big cabins in their own offices. In fact, the reportage at different news outlets shows their own agendas quite glaringly. People have short memories or selective memories.

Here’s a report from The Hindu:

In what’s being called a reverse sting, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (JSPL) chairman Naveen Jindal has released video recordings which allegedly show Zee editors trying to extort Rs. 100 crore in return for the channel not airing damaging stories on coal block allocations involving his company.

At a dramatic press conference on Thursday, Mr. Jindal, who is also a Congress MP, distributed a CD with a 14-minute montage of footage, which he said was culled from hidden camera recordings of a series of meetings in mid-September between JSPL executives and Sudhir Chaudhary and Samir Ahluwalia, editors of Zee News and Zee Business. Claiming that this was the first time an Indian corporate was exposing media malpractice, Mr. Jindal said: “The government gives channels a licence to show news. They are not given a licence for extortion or blackmail.” JSPL has filed a criminal case against Zee, alleging extortion, and says it decided to make the videos public only because the channel was accusing the company of blackmail. JSPL officials indicated they were also likely to file a defamation suit against the media group in the next few days.

While Mr. Jindal is absolutely right, it is arrogant to even mention about the government giving a license as though it is a favour. Besides, would he have had the same opinion if the channel were giving his company favourable coverage? The answer is evident in his statement that he made the videos public only because the channel accused his company of blackmail. This indicates the possibility that the meeting might not have been for extortion but as a transaction.

Anyone in the media who is pretending that such deals do not take place is lying. Individual media persons might be clean or not involved, but a few things are obvious:

• News depends on advertising; the lines between the two are blurred 
• Every single media house has its own agenda and political slant, and the staff is expected to follow it. There might be the occasional story to appear ‘balanced’, but that’s about it.

In this sting, there are two aspects. The politician wanting to silence a channel and the channel willing to do so for a price. Which one is worse?

Politicians have always used the media, and the media has deluded itself into believing that it is all-powerful. This is not new. Go back to the days of The Indian Express and Ramnath Goenka ‘making’ Arun Shourie who unmade a government. Without any sting operation as we know it now, the cement scandal was exposed. Arun Shourie did not last in the Express, and A.R.Antulay got discredited for a while. Indira Gandhi, his boss for whom it was alleged the whole scam was, remained untainted.

It becomes almost a quid pro quo that when you are exposing one political party the others can use that news. It is obvious. You watch TV panel discussions. They have someone from the opposing groups, who invariably manage to snigger. And the circle continues. These kangaroo courts try to influence the gullible public, who would anyway not have much immediate stake in, say, Jindal’s business or what Zee TV does, as it did not in the past when other sting operations and CDs became public. 

This rigmarole is essentially political and grist for a channel war.

“Anyway, it is not something which I am asking you which is out of the world, out of the blue,” says Mr. Ahluwalia in a conversation near the end of the video. “If you actually look at it, it’s actually a win-win for both of us… Honestly, I am saying when we do a relationship with people, when we do a relationship with an advertiser, it’s a relationship in which I will give you more than even you can ask.” The Zee editors claim they are not the only media outlet which works like this. “At least we are doing a proper transparent deal with you, at least we are not doing a front page story which is paid for….”

The word “advertiser” was used. An editorial team doing the work of the advertising team may seem unusual, but it is fairly common. In some ways, I am glad this is out, because instead of being sanguine the other media houses should be worried.  Are they? When you read big fat editorials and watch big fat debates, just think about what could be hidden, not what is stated. The louder the indignation, the more reason they have to not be outed themselves.

Headlines Today Managing Editor Rahul Kanwal said:

“Stunned silence in the newsroom as journalists watch the Jindal-Zee sting operation. Anyone who indulges in extortion should be exposed…Not correct for Editors to be discussing revenue deal with a corporate at a time when channel is running series of exposes on the company.”

And what about other times? What about the possibility of other channels being happy because they are already protecting the ones opposing Coalgate?

CNN-IBN deputy editor Sagarika Ghose said:

“I joined journalism over 20 years ago, fresh from Oxford, idealistic about being part of India's great free press. Sad, shocked today.”

Had she remained in the UK, wonder what she’d have to say about the News of the World leaks and where that Oxford-earned idealism would go.

There is a counter-offensive:

Responding to the Jindal CD on their channel, Zee’s editors said they were the ones conducting a sting operation to show how far Jindal would go to suppress the story, adding that they had taken a “dummy” contract with them…In a joint statement released later in the evening, the Zee editors called the Jindal CD a “deliberate attempt to malign and defame” them, to “prejudice” the ongoing investigations, and to “silence the growing demand for an independent probe in the Coalgate scam.”

Why have they kept quiet? What mahurat were they waiting for?

The politician-journalist nexus always existed, but now it has become worse because they can be ‘friends’ more easily. Paid news is only one aspect. I don’t understand why the media gives awards to politicians. I don’t understand why the government allots land for media persons to get housing. Does anyone check on the credentials on the Press Club members and even office bearers?

And beat me with a feather, but how many people in the media will reject a Rajya Sabha seat or a place in some fancy government panel?

There is much to be silent about because there are strong lobbies working everywhere. That is why even casting the first stone is done as a herd, so that the ripples are diffused. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Slap of the hijab

A woman punches a man and he starts thinking about the Quran. Right? You know the script. And I have got so used to my daily fix of “Just look at Islam” in my mailbox from the Hindutva folks that I seriously worry about them. They seem to be reading everything specifically aimed at showing up Islam as bad.

Now, here is something from the Toronto Sun . Columnist David Menzies was doing ordinary things:

I was at Yonge-Dundas Square with my nine-year-old son. We ate pizza. We drank bubble tea. And I used my new Canon camera to take photos of this neon shrine.

And then evil descends on him:

Suddenly, a woman wearing a hijab ran toward me. She was part of a group that included two women wearing full face-covering burkas. She was screaming: "We are Muslim! You do not take pictures of us!" (Odd. I can't find the "no photos" rule in the Qur'an.)

Of course, like all liberals – and most certainly unlike Muslims who only read the Qu’ran with a few fatwas – he has speed-read the book and knows there ain’t no such digital restriction. Yup, the Muslims had digital and other cameras centuries ago and were photographing camels and date trees.

Rather conveniently, too, the hysterical woman was in hijab and not full face burqa, unlike the other two. Or how else would the writer see her react and write this heart-wrenching piece?

I informed the lady I was in a public square in a democracy. I can actually take pictures of whomever I please.

No. You cannot. There is something called privacy. The Tutsi tribals object. Westerners object. Indians object.

And then: Ka-pow! Her fist collided with my face. Worse, she almost knocked my new camera from my hands.

My son and I were then surrounded by a mob of about 20 people, many of whom were speaking Arabic. One kept demanding I surrender my camera to him.

It was surreal. Was I in Toronto - or Riyadh?

Right. He assumes that this would happen in Riyadh. Has he been to Riyadh? Suddenly in the neon shrine a mob gathers and they have to be Arabic speaking.

But there was a sliver of hope. Eye-witnesses:

The 50-something couple, originally from Syria, told the police they had observed the entire affair and my allegations were true. The couple said they understood Arabic and knew what the mob was saying.

The token good Arab appears to be witness against the bad guys. He does not tell us what the mob was saying. Were they all saying the same things? You know, the uniform Arab reaction?

After the officer took my statement, he went over to the offending woman. Another constable was inexplicably miffed I was (legally) taking photos in the first place. The irony: Just above our heads a Toronto Police Service sphere was videotaping the activities.

Clearly, he does not know the difference between security cameras and personal use ones. It is polite to ask if it is okay to take pictures of people. Or, is he trying to say that since two of the women were fully veiled they had no business to protest? The point is that it can be seen as flaunting/ridiculing a particular image.

The officer interrogated the woman. She was still hysterical. Good. The constable would encounter firsthand what I had been forced to deal with earlier.

Just look at the use of “good”. Had she not been so hysterical, he might not have an op-ed case. Had she not punched him would he have understood her position better? There are women who might object because such photographs infringe on their space. Would he react in a similar manner if a woman from another culture had taken umbrage?

The cop walked back to me. No charges would be laid, he said, because he believed the woman's story - namely, she was merely trying to knock the camera out of my hands.

Well, she could have wanted the camera out of the way too. He said so at the beginning. Ask the paparazzi.

He is on a different trip:

The fact we have Islamists living amongst us who despise western values isn't news. But surely you can't just sock someone in the mouth.

Well, apparently you can - as long as the intent of the aggressor was merely to inflict property damage.

Right. Taking pictures is now a western “value”. How tinged with moral righteousness this is and ironically as a response to moral righteousness. It is now about Islamists “living amongst us”. How many of them are there? Hasn’t he bothered to visit Gerard Street and seen that not all Muslims are Islamists, although this term ought to be shorn of its blanket negative connotation.

The Toronto cops did the right thing. Because a democracy does not give people the carte blanche to intrude. A hijab wearing woman in Malaysia wanted to take a picture with me because we struck up a conversation. I too reciprocated.

He may be technically right about taking pictures, but so is she. There is also the gender angle. But since the 'victim' is on one track, here's a thought:

Let a typical Muslim man aim his camera at a woman in the West and see what happens.

End note:

We have discussed KAC and Ghulam Nabi Fai and the yadda yadda about the whining by the majority Kashmiris. The Pandit groups had rejoiced over his arrest. Here is a report to give another side that shows that the lobbying is there also from the other side:

Influential Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone has introduced a resolution in the US House of Representatives, condemning violence against the Kashmiri Pandits. The resolution takes note of militancy, lack of religious freedom, and human rights violations in the valley. It also insists that terrorist infrastructure in the region must be dismantled and ultras should be held accountable for their action.

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! Kashmir’s American Counsel?

At the Kashmir border

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! 
Kashmir’s American Counsel? 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, July 22-24

The fact that there is an element of surprise over Ghulam Nabi Fai’s arrest after the FBI exposed his connections to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) reveals that this was probably a sudden brainwave.

The allegation is that Mr. Fai’s Kashmir American Council (KAC) was illegally funded by the ISI to exert influence on the US Congress to swing the Kashmir debate in Pakistan’s favour.

Did the ISI do it? Possible. Did Mr. Fai use this money? Possible. Was the FBI unaware about it all these years? Not possible.

There are a few important aspects to this development:

1.       The FBI keeps track of all funds, so why was it quiet all along? KAC is not an underground movement. It puts up petitions; it has a Google groups forum; there is a Facebook page of its affiliates; its conferences are held in university halls and invitation is free. Often dinner is served.

The huge amount of money discovered should prompt the FBI to question the recipients and investigate as to how it has impacted on US policy. Instead, the focus is almost entirely on the Fai-ISI link. Is it possible to forget that the ISI virtually runs Pakistan and that Pakistan is also the beneficiary of American funds? Ergo, the ISI is by default propped up by the US financially and, given the strategic political dynamics, on the ground too. The ISI is nobody’s fool to depend on a Kashmiri organisation in the US to lobby for Pakistan’s interests in the Valley when it already has its people in the region with help from the Lashkar-e-Taiyba and other forces, including a faction of the local Hurriyat Conference.

This is not a simple case of getting the bad guy. It is about creating one more bad guy, and this is notwithstanding Fai’s role in the larger Kashmir issue and sponsorship.

2.       Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just visited India and set the tone for Indo-US relations. However, the dog-and-bone attitude continues with an emphasis on American interest and interests in Pakistan. There is most definitely an attempt to influence the talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan scheduled for July 27.

3.       The proposed US move out of Afghanistan would necessitate having some presence in the region. In fact, after the Clinton meeting, India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna said, “We have impressed on the United States and other countries who have a major presence in Afghanistan that it is necessary for them to continue in Afghanistan.”

Pakistan is handy for some sado-masochism. Recently, there were video clips in the media of the Taliban killing Pakistani soldiers, in a reversed version of Gitmo.

4.        Osama Bin Laden’s killing is being regurgitated on a tangential topic by implying yet again that Pakistani intelligence agencies knew about his abode. There have been arrests that seem suspiciously like red herrings.

5.       David Headley is deposing before the courts in the US and providing details of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Headley’s departure from the US to India is a major goof-up by security forces in that country as well as the Indian embassy. His implicating the ISI would surprise no one except the US in its studied ‘naïve’ state. It is pertinent that Ms. Clinton mentioned these attacks (with only a cursory sympathetic reference to the recent Mumbai attacks only days before she arrived). This is much like Headley who wanted to fight for Kashmir, but ended up taking pictures of Mumbai’s landmarks to help his ‘handlers’.

6.       One is aware of the ISI’s crucial strategic role in Pakistan. But, how does the FBI function in the US? Does it push the agenda of the party in power? If so, then its bolt from the blue could be another means to assist the current government in the coming elections.

The major beneficiary of Mr. Fai’s political contributions seems to be Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. This has been going on for 15 years. For 15 years the FBI has managed to trace the $23,500 contribution to US lawmakers that is legally available with the Federal Election Commission. What made the FBI now want to dig into the over $ 4 million that was illegally brought in?

If indeed it is true, then the onus ought to be on the security agencies and those who were expected to lobby for the Kashmir cause.  There are murmurs that Fai is only a front. This is a convenient ruse. You have some evidence, claim other evidence, arrest the man based on these and then leave a small opening for the bigger fish, well aware that the bigger fish are not born that way but plumped up artificially in diplomatic laboratories.

* * *

It is time to ask how exactly lobbying works and whether the United States can take an ethical stand when it is open to such influencing.

The political action committee (PAC) is a blatant forum to ensure that groups can help political candidates and parties, which in turn promise to assist them. Contributors range from real estate agencies, insurance companies, defense contractors and oil companies. There are also special interest groups based on race, gender, nationality, and religion too. In less developed societies this might be deemed as bribery. Legalising it makes the process transparent only to a small extent. If KAC has really managed to get in the millions of dollars illegally, then it suggests that there are loopholes in the system.

Fai in a soup

However, does this ensure that the lobbying group will truly benefit? Mr. Fai was a US citizen; he organised conferences as many do. There was one held on February 2011 and the list of speakers included Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Norwegian Member of Parliament Peter S. Gitmark, author and South Asia Analyst Victoria Schofield, Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani. The others listed as “invited” were the Indian ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, Chinese ambassador Zhang Yesui and US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert O. Blake, Jr.

Rather curiously, reports have made it sound ominous by stating, “Another group which has come under the lens is Indian liberals and so-called bleeding hearts who accepted Fai’s and KAC’s hospitality to attend conferences in US on the Kashmir issue…” The liberals go on junkets for several causes, including plane rides with ministers of the ruling party or the opposition depending on their agenda or that of the organisation they represent. This includes the media. Does their presence help the cause? What is their contribution in real terms?

A peripheral but telling aspect is how some Indians view the unfolding of this episode. A Hindutva group functionary sent an email with an article from the Times of India appended with his comments. He writes, “First, the author calls those who have exposed the Indians (either citizens or those who are of Indian origin) as 'Indian hypernationalists and right-wingers' and 'hardline nationalist'.  However, those Indians who attended the seminars organized by the Pakistan's ISI sponsored front as 'liberals', instead of traitors.  Clearly he wants to prejudice the minds of the readers.  But, you cannot hide the truth. The Indians who were invited to the various programmes were obviously those who would be taking an anti-India position, and not ones who would project a holistic picture.  It is absolutely necessary to expose those Indians who attended these programmes.  Actually, they themselves should come forward and identify themselves.”

There is nothing secret about this. As mentioned earlier, the KAC’s activities were open. While the person is quick to label those attending such conferences as traitors based on the implication of the ISI role in the council, he assumes they would take an anti-India stand. One must remember that there are several influential Hindutva groups too in the US. There are Jewish lobbies.

Since I was never invited, let me add that it is more important to first find out whether anyone has managed to score points for Pakistan on the Kashmir debate and how much it can change the ground realities. The US is interested in counter-terrorism that affects it directly. Has it ever spoken about lives lost in the state – civilian and military?

On what grounds can the US plan to question Kashmiri separatists when they were given visas to travel for seminars that were in the public domain? Should it not look into its own backyard and see how and why anyone can lobby for positions that it claims to be chary of?

Pakistan has, naturally, denied any role. What is the Indian position? If it cannot take a stand regarding a person of Indian origin only because he is Kashmiri, then it only reiterates the attitude of disenchantment that people in the Valley suffer from.

In November last year Ghulam Nabi Fai had written:

“Once again, Kashmir is giving proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (freedom) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process. That is a most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for subterfuges is gone. All that is needed is going back – yes, going back – to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time.

“That point of agreement is the one India as well as Pakistan, each independently, brought to the United Nations Security Council when the Kashmir dispute was first internationalized. In fact, the Council itself took that point as the basis of the resolutions it later formulated.

“The point was one of inescapable principle- -- that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

“With propositions of such clarity and character accepted, what room was left for the dispute to arise?”

Is this not the position taken by many political groups within Kashmir, by separatists, by the people?

It would be a pity if due to the ISI angle, the real issues will be pushed aside. America has the arsenal to deal with the ISI, but does it have the will? If Mr. Fai is a front, then why only name the ISI people and not the Congressmen who knew what they were expected to lobby for? Culpability in this case lies across the board. It is utterly ridiculous to make this sound like a terrorist plot when the monies have been traced and people of some stature have been consistently raising the Kashmir issue, not just abroad but at home.

And Kashmiris are not pawns of the United States of America that some official can pocket the money and decide its fate. 

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents , July 24

Shourie's Last-Ditch Hero-giri.. Again!

What should have been thunder is a whimper. Arun Shourie’s accusations against the BJP of which he was an intrinsic part reveal that you can’t be the cat and the cream. He now says he was replaced as a lead speaker in a budget debate because there was fear that he would oppose a proposal that might have benefited Mukesh Ambani. The BJP did not want to be seen as corrupt.

It is 'strike when the iron is hot' time. He did it last year when he called the BJP and some of his party members interesting names (more of that follows). He, of course, was the messenger they were killing. This messenger seems to have nine lives, and maybe more. Some people tend to get blindly impressed by such ‘outings’ without little thought about the machinations at work. Rather impetuously he says there is no difference between the BJP and the Congress. Being no fan of either political party, I would still like to see which way he swings in the near future. Currently he is working on his next book…at Lavassa, I hear!

This was an open letter I wrote to him in August 26 and my stand remains the same. It does not seem dated so am reproducing it in full. Just a small attempt at reviving the messenger to show up the message he did not convey:


Dear Mr. Shourie:

Very impressive performance. But I am disappointed. There was a time when you would quote Faiz and Faraz and not Hickery Dickery Dock…these days you have started quoting damned angrezi fairytales. Where is your swadeshi tongue, sirji? You call the BJP leadership ‘Humpty Dumpty’ and ‘Alice in Blunderland’, the latter is such an overused pun by sophomores. Just thought I’d let you know. You use the term “kati patang” (a free floating kite).

You have taken on the onerous task of becoming notorious. I saw a bit of you on TV last night walking on the green, green grass of Rome, oops, home, in a red shirt. Very fitting, for you have quoted the Chinese chilman, no, no, not the iron curtain but Chairman Mao and said it was time for “bombarding the headquarters. Clean up everybody from top. Bring 10-15 people from the states who are competent and honest and dedicated and reconstruct immediately’’.

I have always maintained that the RSS is the madari (juggler) of the BJP monkey. You have only confirmed it.

A report mentions that you have asked the backstage organisation to take charge, saying that it had been “too democratic’’ and had given too much leeway to the party. You reminded the Sangh that the BJP was its most visible face, its “biggest instrument’’ and could not be left to its own devices. “It should keep an eye on the moral conduct of the party like an eagle.” Then, you challenged the party: “Do what you can.” You have come to believe that there is no space for dissent in the BJP which is being treated like a private property, and no criticism is tolerated or discussed.

This, unfortunately, is double talk. As you know, the instrument, whatever be its size, works on the signals the brain sends out. There is a contradiction when you talk about lack of dissent and at the same time ask the RSS to take charge and do an Operation Expunge. “My prescription is jhatka (one swift execution), not halal (slow execution). Saare, saare (lock, stock and barrel). There should be a transformation.’’

This seems to be your token anti-Islamism. Anyone with some knowledge of biology and slaughter will tell you that in such deaths, the blood congeals and the fright of imminent death poisons the system. You have been a part of it all along.

You talk about “mutual protection and projection’’ within the BJP. Yet, you propped up Narendra Modi as the prime ministerial candidate. Now, because he has banned the Jinnah book, you are on the “it is a scholarly exercise and needs to be seen in that light” trip. For your information, Mr. Modi’s government has banned a few films recently that tackled communal issues; some were art-house types. Did you raise your voice then? It is not as though people were not thrown out of the party before or forced to leave. Remember Govindacharya? Or even Uma Bharti?

In fact, you did not quote any fairytales all these years, and it is not as though the party has overnight had a great fall or blundered through Wonderland. The BJP for most of its life has been in the Opposition. And when it was in power, you supported it with gusto.

If it is the party’s attitude towards Jinnah and why poor Jaswant Singh is being hounded while Advaniji got to sit and play leader-leader, then let me assure you that you can continue to quote Faiz and no one will accuse you of blasphemy. You can even quote Iqbal and it won’t matter.

The current rebellion is also like the mutual protection/projection you are getting ethical about. Watch how the drama is unfolding. Former RSS chief K S Sudarshan has now come to your rescue for handing the organisation the big baton publicly. He said that Jinnah was “a true (Indian) nationalist”. Is this news anymore? But, all those who made these subtle differences between hardline and moderate in the saffron Parivar have been finally outed. The BJP has been soft on you because you have the blessings of the Big Boss. This same RSS and its cohorts treat the Indian Muslims with suspicion. I want to know where is our certificate of nationalism? Not that we need it from anyone, but the blatant hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

You have been a hero. When you exposed that big cement scandal everyone who had never looked at cement beyond what is used for buildings suddenly began to think of it as something very important. A. R. Antulay fell from grace, whatever he had of it. Indira Gandhi, it is widely understood, got a good deal from those deals. You got the smaller bakra. The question is: how much of it was you and your reportage and idealism? You were with the Indian Express, its owner Ramnath Goenka was your guru. He had an axe to grind with Mrs. Gandhi. He had a lot of dope. You got it, did your thing and became history.

Well, these idealistic feeds can be cruel. Goenka was known to not like heroes, especially those he had created. As he had said about you, “But this racehorse will destroy my tonga.”

You were shown the door. It was seen as a huge tragedy. You got to write columns. That is when you became an authority on Faiz etc. Well, your columns were very, very long, so many of us just read the beginning and the end. Some of us discovered Urdu and Pakistani poets because of you. You did this for a while. Then you moved to the Times of India. Imagine that nice little place where every Establishment is ‘mutually protected and projected’. In those days it wasn’t so much about Page 3. It was all Page 1 and editorials. So we still read you because of aforementioned verses, instead of seeing your pictures holding a glass of spiked rooh-afza.

Later you joined the BJP and because you were clean and looked it, we stayed with you. Yet, you never said anything. Now you are doing so. It is difficult to understand. As Alice would say, “I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, Sir, because I'm not myself you see.”

Perhaps a fitting tribute to what you were would best be expressed in the words of the Mughal Emperor, Bahadurshah Zafar:


ya mujhe afsar-e-shahaa na banaya hota
ya mera taj gadayaa na banaya hota
khaak_saari ke liye garache banaya tha mujhe
kaash khaak-e-dar-e-jaanaan na banaya hota*

Yours with hope,
Mad Hatter (“No wonder you're late. Why, this watch is exactly two days slow.”)

*  The rough meaning of the verse: the poet says that had I been given some powers why was the crown to be sought, and if I were created as an example of humility then I rue that I was asked to become the beloved of nothingness.

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.

Attn: Mukesbhai Ambani urf Shahjehan

Dear Mukesbhai:

I am writing to you with lots of pain. I goat coal from friend high up…working in Kanchenjanga type place baba…saying I am useless. Niraben is not coaling me…I am telling him time to time that I love lowby. Nice free fres air in aircondisun looking at peepuls from all walks and talks of life. My favourite is Taj lowby but after tragedy and coming to know that terrorist also liking it, I am not pakka sure. You know newspaper is saying Ratan bhai is moving Supreme Court. My tongue in hanging out like Kali Mata that how gentle Parsi man who doesn’t hurt fly and move head too much like common man style nodding is becoming like Bheema and moving whole big fat court.

I did goggle search to find out full detail and moving means asking judge about leak. Again my tongue hanging out. Why judge must do sulabh shauchalaya work? So I read more report. It is leaking tapes. He is saying it is private matter between income tax and Niraben. I am saying maybe Niraben is adding extra ‘I’ in Nira because of ‘income’. That way I am intelligent. Ratan bhai also is going to say to judge openly he will want crime to be tried, like good man and good citizen. He is knowing this is not Gujarat where Nano and moto (not Motorola baba) problem can be solved with Narendrabhai Modi giving secular blessing.

You think I am saying all this only to get you to give me scoop? No, no. I went to Huggin Das thinking now this Bengali, like Mata Amritanandmayi, is giving hug with ice-cream scoop. I am really pain because my high up friend is laughing and laughing saying no one will coal you to lowby. I am saying maara sam, my swear, nice gentlemens meeting me in lowby many times, shaking hands, looking into eyes and then asking to have chai-pani as if I am havaldar or something. I am saying like Bollywood heroine of long time back that I live on love and fres air only.

But if Niraben coaled me my naak would be little up, my ijat little more. To put solt on my voond you didn’t ask me to come to Taj Mahal also. You are now becoming Shahjehan…arrrarrra…Nitaben 2 G-yo hajaron saal, may live long, long live Nitaben…by the whey, you look like twins now, only she is fair-fair like you done Michael Jackson type skin removal. She is good dancer and all time she does mudra pose newspapers talk about her tellunt. Look no, that day only your Ant Hill housewarming party was on front page of Times of India. I saying to myself, wah, wah, now why no one is coaling this lowby? This is double roti standard na? One day you are Shahjehan next day they saying, uff why media doing like this and why media doing like that? Why, you say?

But I am asking you why you call house Ant Hill, everyone wanting to know, even friend high up. I am saying him, first you tell I am not worth lowby then how I must know all this. Ratan bhai will move court about how it is all private, so what if little detail was in paper about chandelier, food, guests, lifts, garden…you wanted to avoid media so you had housewarming (it is so cold what?) before date, and then see it is in papers anyhow. What is happening to world? Everywhere lowby, lowby. Only no one is saying even inside lowby there is special lowby.

I am knowing little bit also. It is all in karma. Some peepuls will say, look that woman and that man openly writing against Vijay Mallya though they are friends. I am wanting to smile like Mona darling Lisa. Saying negative about Vijaybhai is like beating maasocheest – he is looking forward to whip! My Ingliss getting better, na? All Niraben’s kripa; after Rakhiben Sawant and her jeejus, Niraben is next fatafat.

I am writing to you also to say I talk too much on telephone. Niraben’s record I can break. But no one is coaling me, except friend from high up. I am going to tell him lies and say your house is like 21st century Vrindavan. Only instead Kokilaben is Krishna and has two mothers, you Mukesbhai and Anilbhai. She is doing running from one to other, I am reading like that in papers. She is sitting with dandiya-type flute and having to lagao makhan butter for smooth-sailing of family ship. You not having ship? Helicopter is also okay, sailing in sky and dropping on hell-paad.

I am having another little noting. Mandir is in bottom of house and you are on top of god. Thanks god I am calling it Vrindavan and not Taj Mahal otherwise those mahants and political parties will say, look we will get Mukesbhai for elecsun because he is doing sym-ball and telling world that below Agra Taj Mahal was also mandir, he is making point, he is lowbying for us.

I am only opening your third eye. I know, I know, only Shiva had third eye, but Telelka and all sting wallas having third eye. You don’t worry, be happy. My pain is gone after opening heart surgery with you. All is out of chest. Reminds me, I reading Paremeshwar Godrej was also at party? Nice lady carrying communist baraat many times on head. What? Beret? Haan, haan, how I am to knowing all this? They saying what story to carry. Arre, how anyone can carry story? It is not some bojh, burden, to carry inside sack on head.

Please give Niraben’s reliancing number only. I will give missed call from Wada phone or air tell…most danger like telling in havaa. I am taking risk. I can hear phone is tapping like keyboard on leptope.

Today I made promise to self I will go to lowby. i don’t want my rape-u-tasun to be on stake like Joan ben of Arkansas.

Jai Shri Krishna!

Yours (Radia se kaise na jaley) censurely,
Antilia

- - -

PS: While I cannot 'translate' this into regular English, I'd elucidate that part provocation for the post was the reference to Mukesh Ambani's new house as the "21st century Taj Mahal" by a media person and, when there is so much noise about the media, this private housewarming party made it to the front page of the newspaper.

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

Remember Rajdeep...

How he used to often say, "Iss hamam mein sab nangey hai"?

The answer my friend is this: Iss haman mein sab designer clothes pehne hue hai jo aam aadmi khareed nahin sakta aur designer bechne ke liye sirf 'fit' models chunta hai.

Samjhe na?

- - -


To transcribe: This is an allusion to the 2-G/media/lobbying/blah controversy and how CNN-IBN's head Rajdeep Sardesai used the phrase that means 'All are naked in the 'hamam' (Turkish/open bath). My response is that in this hamam everyone is dressed in designer clothes that the poor can ill-afford and which designers find models that can 'fit' into.