Kiran’s Dance, Illiteracy and Symbolism

Kiran Bedi as performer

After the fast-feast, there are bound to be leftovers. They make for an interesting peep into the psyche of the performers and the spectators. There has been much shock expressed over Kiran Bedi’s ‘ghunghat’ dance at the Ramlila rally.

Bedi then moved on to theatrics and enacted what she said was how politicians behaved. Bedi pulled a scarf from the neck of a young activist on stage, wrapped her head with it and proceeded to mock MPs.

"You remove one mask, then you find another one, and then another. They change words according to time and place. Never trust them," she said.

What is the objection to? That she poked fun at the MPs or that she enacted this parodic scene? Despite my antipathy towards the whole movement, I fail to understand how this alone reduces her stature. Her calling this act a “game-changer” is a bit too delusionary, but at what point in time has there been no drama in this rally?

When Anna Hazare came on the music reality show “Little Champs”, he too sang a few lines of Gandhi's favourite bhajan “Vaishnao jan to”; Arvind Kejriwal asked the kids to come to the rally and give a boost to the ‘andolan’. Many singers and actors did. This was the nature of the movement. Ms. Bedi was just playing her part.

Does anyone recall Asma Jehangir and company singing in a television studio on one of those ‘aman’ programmes? Street theatre is very much about activism. Did not Sushma Swaraj dance, and was the objection to her doing so essentially relegated to tarnishing the image of Gandhi’s Rajghat?

Bedi as cop

The problem with Ms. Bedi’s stance is that she, who claimed to be the dissenting voice against any authority, is now calling herself a mere soldier. She is not even that and seems more like Anna’s nurse.

During the 1984 anti-Sikh riots there were pictures of her, lathi in hand, fighting the mobs. It was an iconic image that has stayed with some of us. But in later years, even as she was honoured as a ‘supercop’, she was accused of being a publicity hog.

Let us not forget that she has endorsed a detergent to show how to clean dirt. Whether we agree with her or not, this is what has been embedded in the public mind.

As for her opinion on politicians, is not the Jan Lokpal Bill fighting against the system’s version?

What I am trying to say is that she is pandering to type and not going beyond the script because it is the best option. As for her saying that our leaders wear masks, wasn’t Atal Behari Vajpayee called the “mukhota”?


Only because some of us – in fact many of us – do not agree with the Anna caravan, I do not see any reason to respect politicans as a reaction. We must respect Parliament and the Constitution. Individual ministers are known to be venal as are individual activists.

This brings us to the other leftover issue. Actor Om Puri got a whole lot of mileage for landing up slightly tipsy and making a speech where he called our ministers illiterate:

“I feel ashamed when an IAS or IPS salutes a "gawar" who is a Neta. We have more than 50 percent ‘gawar’ Netas. Don’t vote for them.”

It has resulted in much semantic knowledge of what really “gawaar” means. Is it crass, or lack of knowledge, or just illiterate? How does it matter? Is this the first time anyone has said this about our politicans? Did not Amitabh Bachchan, a neta once, call politics a cesspoll?

Om Puri in the last couple of years has shown that you may be literate and educated but you can still be crass. Literacy does not imbue people with decency or common sense. If anything, he has insulted the very aam aadmi, the considerable numbers of unlettered people that constitute the Indian population and who this Team Anna is claiming to be the voice of.

Political leaders have been quick to trot out numbers of MPs and their degrees. I remember a forward that was sent some years ago listing out Manmohan Singh’s impressive CV. What does it mean when it comes to the real world of steering the country outside the ‘economic progress’ bubble? How has the educated Narendra Modi fared with the common people? Did not the rustic Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was seen as a standup comic, gain respectability only after he was invited by the posh management institutes to lecture?

What is most amusing is that many of these foot soldiers, by putting their foot in the mouth, are only making Anna seem more saintly than he is. They are the shoulders he can happily fire the non-violent gun from. And to think that some people believe that the elite dislike Anna because he is a poor villager. Oh sure. Had he not been legitimised by candle-light, these barfers would not have been supporting him. Isn’t he too a “gawaar” and we do have a former top police officer saluting him? What a circle within circles. If this is not politics, then what is? Or shall we say politicans trussed up for the kursi, with the readymade words, “We think it will be better to fight from within the system”?

Talking of leftover matters, I wonder why there isn’t much noise about the symbolism of two little girls offering Anna his first drink to break his fast – one was a Dalit, the other a Muslim, we were informed. I can imagine the communal harmony waalas applauding. I find it revolting. As though it is okay to drink from the hands of Dalits and Muslims. The only symbolism here seems to be the poor souls make for good water/message carriers; they cannot be the fount from which wisdom and change can spring.


End note:

Why has Rahul Gandhi been silent? It is the most sensible thing to do. The visible face of the country is the prime minister. By letting him manage with his core group is a smart move. Rahul, once he is anointed, will need the Mr. Clean image. That is probably his only USP.

Too much light

I find it difficult to discuss celebrity lives, but when these lives are thrust on us with details, allegations and clarifications, then we do have a right to comment. Especially, if what is being stated reflects rather poorly on how these public figures choose to behave and yet expect to be seen as role models. In the case of Om Puri (his earlier controversy included) there is also the aura of being a serious actor and not the usual suspect.

He and his wife have decided to get a divorce. Fine. It is how he is going about it that is disturbing. He had moved into his first wife’s office and now he has returned because he wants his son to come to terms with the situation. This is what he said:

“I want to spend my old age with Seemaji. I’ve done her wrong in the past. I need to make amends. And after my back surgery I need to be looked after.”

This is pure selfishness. What amends will he make while she is looking after his back? He went to her when he wanted, walked out when he felt it was required, will wait till his son understands – the son who brought a photocopy of a newspaper story home for his mother to read is already grown up and knows what is happening. What does the first wife do? Wait endlessly for old age?

Meanwhile, what sort of equation will he share with the second wife who knows of his decision to leave?

“Personally, I’ve been going through a painful period. Career-wise too, I’m not happy with the roles coming my way. If this continues, I’ll leave Mumbai and live a life of anonymity in any small town. But I’d think about this only after Ishaan is 18.”

I’d say this about anyone. There is absolutely no sense of propriety here. Two women and a child are at the mercy of a man’s personal trauma, his career. If his career picks up he will be in the limelight. Then he won’t think about anonymity.

- - -

In a related story, our celebrities were asked whether Jennifer Aniston should accept Brad Pitt back since he is splitting with Angelina Jolie.

Is this all about taking back, going back, leaving, being left?

Don’t people care about subtlety and areas of darkness?

Om's Ardh Satya - a story of half truths?

Is this latest story salacious because of what it is or how it has been portrayed? Is it about the man or other people’s perspective?

Sensationalism is not to be condoned, but Om Puri does not sound particularly sensible when he lambasts his wife who has written his biography on one day and apologises the next – both publicly. So, if she gave a TV interview and responded to queries about his sexual experiences, he compounded the damage by clarifying in the newspapers. I have not watched her interview, but I read his views.

From the reader’s point of view he is, for the purpose of the book Unlikely Hero: The Story Of Om Puri, a subject. We might care that his wife has penned it only to the extent that it may have added dimensions of familiarity, although it is not essential.

There are some disturbing aspects to the way he has conveyed his anger and his regret within the span of one day. The few details so far mention his sexual encounter with his 55-year-old maid Santi at the age of 14; then followed a long affair with a woman for 14 years. Here is what he said about his wife and some more:

I was shocked by her revelations. It was so cheap. She was talking about my sexual encounters as though those were my biggest achievements!

In the interview, from the way he talks it appears as though he is more concerned about his reputation and he does mention it. It is like pointing towards a wart and saying, ‘do you think this is my face’? Even those who would not notice or comment on it will be drawn towards it.

Mahatma Gandhi spoke of his experiences with sexuality in The Story of My Experiments With Truth. But was that all there was to his life. I had hoped when my life was chronicled it would be an inspirational story.

We don’t know what has been highlighted and from her account the book is about the actor and the man. And while one appreciates that he had to collect money on the train and wear borrowed clothes, the fact is that he got to the Film Institute. Not many destitutes do. Also, this is the story about so many people in the film industry itself. Some have died in penury. And some made it due to talent or luck. After all, even Akshay Kumar was a chef. As for Gandhiji, he did not have problems marketing his experiments, in fact they may not be all he did but they have come to represent what he did not do!

Om’s wife says:

Om has all the human foibles, just like all of us. He had sex as an adolescent with his maid and then he had a long liaison with the other lady who was also a maid. This was his way of coming out of his other relationships and demolishing class differences. If Om has any objection to her being called a maid he’s just being unrealistic.

Demolishing class differences? Yech. What the heck is this? One would take issue with her over this, but listen to Om’s version:

This lady whom Nandita talks in such an undignified manner was Laxmi, who raised me and my brother’s orphaned children. My relationship with this wonderful woman was a homage to her loyalty for looking after me unconditionally. But it was not a furtive and sleazy experience. It was beautiful. Why make such a tamasha out of these very sensitive moments…

What is this – some sexual asylum? He was paying homage? Why did he not just go ahead and erect a statue or name a tulsi plant after her? Has anyone bothered to even ask what happened to the first maid? I was shocked to read that he is worried that now he’ll be compared to actor Shiney Ahuja (accused of raping his maid). This is sick. It is okay to do it but not be outed for it only because of a case in the news? His attitude of paying homage makes one wonder whether he was as sensitised as a teenager, and if so what did he do?

He is upset that his wife did not show him the manuscript. She did not have to. When he is with her, is he acting? No, right? He knew she was writing his story and he talks about sharing these details with her. It would be silly for him to expect her to only talk about train rides and torn chappals. Yesterday he accused her of sensationalism and today he is apologising:

“My anger should have been projected at the publishers for trying to pre-sell my wife’s book by leaking out only the sexual episodes. My story doesn’t need this kind of publicity.”

As a matter of fact, it does. Most books do. Whether it is Naipaul or Nehru, a slightly sexual angle makes it more attractive, especially when the image is different or a public mask has to be worn.

The publishers will leak out these bits because it won’t be terribly interesting to know immediately how he prepared for the role of the cop in Ardh Satya, the film that truly gave him that push. He has spoken several times about his stint in Hollywood long before the mainstream actors did.

Had the affair been with someone from the same profession or a prominent lady – and don’t tell us there weren’t any – would he have been less virulent? Is he being protective about Laxmi? Then, why would he not be protective about a big name? Can’t such women be vulnerable, especially since time has passed and they may be leading their own lives?

His public apology is an about-turn since his wife has been getting calls and his son is “under scrutiny”:

I’m not in Mumbai to protect them from the damage I’ve caused. I can’t sleep or focus on my work. I don’t want our child to suffer for the mistakes I have made. I therefore sincerely apologise to my wife and to my son for being so rash.

If he had a real problem he could have taken a flight from Chandigarh where he is shooting. It takes two hours to reach Mumbai, and he could have consoled to his wife, called up the person who interviewed her, talked to the publishers. That would not help the book, for people know him and not his wife.

Just when I was to out this up, there is another story a few hours ago in which he praises his wife and her work:

The book is a tribute to my friends, my colleagues, my mentors and the women in my life. I am proud of my story, my childhood and my journey and I see it as an inspirational story for millions of Indians.

Did he not say he had not seen even a page of the book? The tamasha has not only been created but recreated by him publicly. Or was it the publisher’s idea?

Well, shall I just call this my homage to Om Puri’s fine talent?

“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson