When the Press shackles...

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

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

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

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

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

But, whose freedom is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this about censorship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion Polls, NOTA and Intellectual Waste

The word 'ban' is so potent that even those who do not know what is going on suddenly become agitated. Needless to say, these are what we charmingly refer to as the cream of society. This is not elite in the posh sense. You will find crumpled kurtas, jholawaalas, bidi-smokers, Old Monk drinkers in this crowd. Should you dare to even want a discussion, you will be deemed a conservative.

Now, here comes the rub. The rightwing political groups are part of the move against the ban on opinion polls.

Reportage and commentary have stuck to two neat divides of to ban and not to ban.

It is the AICC that has asked the Election Commission for "restriction on their [poll findings] publication and dissemination during elections". Congress party general secretary Digvijay Singh said:

“...These have become a farce. They should be banned altogether. The kind of complaints, information that I have got show that anybody can pay and get a survey as desired...In a country of 1.2 billion people, how can a few thousand people predict the trend. It has become a racket. So many groups have sprung up.”

One may have issues with the man, and also accept the possibility that the party is responding in such a manner because some trends are going against them. However, it is typically churlish to suggest that it is due to fear of Modi, especially as in the past the BJP too had problems with such polls.

Not so now. Narendra Modi is agitated by this undemocratic behaviour:

"Those who have followed Indian politics and the workings of the Congress party after Independence would agree that the stand of the Congress Party does not come as a surprise. The biggest casualty of the Congress Party’s arrogance while in power and its tendency to trample over Institutions has been our Fundamental Right to Free Speech."

How much of freedom of speech and expression could he possibly believe in when his government has banned the screening of films and art galleries have been destroyed in his state? Perhaps he should have asked for opinion polls to find put the public reaction. He has issues with the occasion when there was a clampdown on the social media. It is only natural for him to have expressed "solidarity" because most of the accounts were part of the disruption process. These same accounts are out to discredit anyone who exposes their government and ministers.

It does not in any manner imply that other political parties are not prone to such muzzling, but do we really consider such chaos as democratic?

To digress: The Congress came up with the ridiculous suggestion that the marshes in Madhya Pradesh should be covered because the lotuses in them would be publicity for the BJP election symbol and against the campaign rules. This is asinine, and the party was called out on it.

Modi further writes:

"My concern is not limited to this proposal to ban opinion polls. Tomorrow, the Congress may seek a ban on articles, editorials and blogs during election time on the very same grounds. If they lose an election they may then seek a ban on the Election Commission and if the Courts do not support them then they may say why not ban the courts! After all this a Party that resorted to imposing the Emergency in response to an inconvenient Court Verdict."

A politician will target only his immediate opponents, notwithstanding the fact that he will camouflage it as a principled stand.

There is a rather misguided perception that this amounts to banning opinion. It does not. Polls are based only on random selection. Everybody knows that, like rigging at booths, these too can be manufactured, especially since today the process has gained a certain sex appeal where titillation works. So, you have trends that do not commit and talk about a wave and sway. This is really devious, for they are wiling to to play into selective hands until they can retain the primetime slot. There is nothing to lose for the sponsors, because the end result can be attributed to several aspects, including low voter turnout due to everything from climatic to anti-climactic factors.

If they are so useless, then why want to do away with them at all? My reasoning is that it once again props up a limited number of people as the constituency and the deciding factors. The impact works as auto-suggestion, and we have the great Indian middle-class with its online shopping and yuppie dreams believing in any spectacle.

It is particularly important this time — whether during the upcoming Assembly polls or the general elections next year — for it has become a circus where the competition is between acrobats and clowns. Arvind Kejriwal has used his now-patented idea of having transparency. How can there be transparency in opinion polls? They are safe, for they do not stick their necks out.

To the hyperventilating suggestion that this could be a prelude to banning of other forms of expression, it has been done before and not because of opinion polls. (Not too long ago, a spoof site on Modi was blocked.) The media is often restricted due to commercial considerations that want to cozy up to certain political groups. This is an ongoing bias. However, a reading of any analysis is most certainly less random and quite clearly an opinion. The right to reject that viewpoint is embedded in it.

One cannot say the same about opinion polls where amidst charts and chants you are being bulldozed into believing something that may not even be an outright lie, forget the truth.

Rather interestingly, the Election Commission has confirmed the new symbol for the 'None of the Above' option, where voters reject all the candidates.

Is NOTA an opinion? It sounds good on paper. But it won't have an impact.

The EC has already clarified that the candidate securing the highest number of votes would be declared elected even if the number of electors going for the NOTA option surpassed the votes polled by the electoral contestants.

There goes the non vote. NOTA is a wasted opinion, and chances are that those who have made this choice would publicly claim otherwise, if the party that comes to power looks cosmetically good. Will those who opted for NOTA come out and claim to be votaries of it?

In some ways, the rejection of all candidates is a rejection of the electoral process. If no one is good enough, then just boycott. 'None of the above' reeks of self-righteousness, rather than an opinion.

© Farzana Versey

Footnotes from the ledge

From the film 'The Sweet Smell of Success'

Years ago, a web portal I wrote for in the nascent stages of news and views on the Net in India, decided that it needed a footnote for its columnists. I was accustomed to ones that simply said I was “a freelance journalist” (I crack up when I read “independent columnist” – independent from what, of what, by what? Is that not to be taken for granted?) to the smart “refuses to sit on the fence” (it worked against me after 11 years of continuous writing of that column when I was told I was too independent and don’t take briefs!) to a phrase taken from my blog: “has a healthy disregard for objectivity”.

So, back to that e-portal. As some of you know, I could not imagine ‘writing’ for anything that did not scrunch in my hands. I did not even have a computer. One day, out of curiosity, I was at a friend’s office and casually mentioned this column. We reached the destination and as I scrolled down on my discovery trip, I reached that precious footnote. It was in red, italicised. It said that I, FV, was an “iconoclast”.

I froze. Images of me as Che Guevara flashed on several T-shirts. This was serious, and after a few seconds I was pretty much on the floor laughing, and ROFL was not yet known to us. From that vantage position where I had to look my iconoclastic best, I asked my friend whether he agreed with me that it was a stupid idea; he did. And made it sound more ominous: “It might appear as though you are saying it.”

This is the problem. It is more likely that publications decide. However, the newer lot ask you to send “two-three lines describing yourself”. I once wrote a horribly cheeky one and was told it did not go well with the content.

Sealing my fate!

When I became a serious op-ed addict during college, I recall reading pieces that were written with care for both language and thought. Some were ponderous, no doubt, but many were challenging. For me, this is the purpose of a good edit piece. There was space enough to explore ideas, and not the need to compress because there has to be place for ‘likes’, ‘share’, ‘send’. I understand this is the way to connect, but when some publications ask you to send SMSes to say whether you liked or did not like the column, it is a bit much. The writing becomes another product. Unfortunately, these days it often is.

But I did not know who those writers were. Celebrities and those from other fields had not taken over the business of holding forth on what they were doing. This does not work as ‘inside’ information or adds any authenticity, for they too are writing for an audience and have their own biases.

Do readers care about the qualifications of the columnist? It is a bubble theory. It looks good until you prick it. And the pricking is just giving it a good look-over.

However, mostly the footnote works as a promo for people in different professions. I had once taken a swipe at someone mentioning how his CV exceeded the word limit. It was, therefore, good to read on the ‘Self importance of names and titles’ in Pakistan’s Express Tribune as to how the whole description business has gone overboard. When I was writing for them, I had half a mind adding, “The writer has a degree in Vampirism from the University of Dracula”. (Incidentally, third-person descriptions are supposed to look objective; they make me feel schizophrenic.)

Quite a few publications have these long rambling bottomlines, and most of their columnists are so darned third-degreed, all from the best universities. A good university ideally teaches you to explore, not flaunt knowledge.

We never read any mention of a degree from Gujranwala or Chhatisgarh. Reveals our colonial mindset and, dare I say, adds weight to the publication's reputation. They could probably have a roll-call of Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard types, all with halos. If they can take global roundabouts and quote Greek mythology in Latin phrases with a slight nod to desi lingo, then chances are that more people will notice because snob and blob value go together. They are like the always-open KFC outlets.

The other peeve regarding "X is a former something or the other" reveals our absolute obeisance to the past. Instead of wondering why s/he even at the prime has been rendered redundant, it imbues the individual with the gravitas required of a know-it-all. Much like a divorce might make a discussion on marriage legitimate. If the 'formerhood' has been achieved after much toil, then it works like a tiger's head poking out of the wall.

Now, chances are that if the writer were not a "political economist" or some such and just another bloke with something to say, a piece questioning such self-importance would not have gone through the thinker's pose of editorial discretion.

PS: I posted the last three paras at the website with a footnote that said “~A former ET columnist with several degrees of separation”. It’s still awaiting moderation after hours! (Finally published after 12 hours.)

© 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.

The over-the-top Pakistani press

A Pakistani columnist decides that “introspection is not as fashionable as Roberto Cavalli shades” and goes on to pen an ode to all the brands he can think about, not to mention referring to his country’s foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar as HRK. Is that a trendy take on SRK, Shahrukh Khan, or Her Royal Kink? My views have already been expressed.

Masood Hasan’s column in The News lacks a sense of propriety and proportion. So much like outsized shades, isn’t it? These are the same ‘liberals’ who will take up for a Veena Malik whose contribution to foreign policy was to be cooped up in an Indian reality show. Take a look at the canapé-level arguments:

“Let’s get one thing straight. One dresses for the occasion. Anyone recall Angelina Jolie’s ‘designer’ outfits on her many visits to the Afghan camps? There is a time and place for all things. I think HRK didn’t quite get that right. She has many things going for her but maturity and a sense of balance seem to be virtues that Pakistan’s new foreign minister does not care about much.”

Angelina Jolie did quite the opposite with a devious purpose, by playing up stereotypes. There is also a huge difference between camps and a country. Ms. Khar was a visiting minister to India, a nation that is home to several flagship stores of international labels.  

“While she must have spent an enormous amount of time choosing her wardrobe and accessories – she has a talent for accessories as a gushing designer confided last week, one wishes there were men or women who could have briefed her on how she must conduct herself – but this is unlikely in a country where ‘yes sir, yes sir, three bags full’, is the most successful strategy.”

This tells us a good deal more about the gossip Mr. Hasan has his antenna up for rather than the minister’s conduct. The important thing is not how she was accessorised, but whether she made any false moves in her speeches. The way one conducts oneself depends on behaviour and not on what one wears. Unlike the President Asif Ali Zardari who referred to Sarah Palin as gorgeous in an official meeting, there was nothing remiss about the way Ms. Khar projected herself. She was indeed briefed, but about Pakistan’s political position that she reiterated. Perhaps the “yes sir, yes sir” types are not as adept as spotting labels as Mr. Hasan is.

The dear gentleman is doling out epithets with a double-edged sword. He calls Indian diplomats suave, but adds what can only be considered an Omar Sharif-like standup act. He states:

“The Indians thus dress so simply that you can mistake them for minions whereas they may be billionaires. They go to work in loose sandals and creased trousers or faded jeans but sit and make strategic decisions that run into billions of dollars and have the power to change the direction of their huge country. Simplicity is not a put on like our constant bowing and scraping to the Maker without any meaning or sincerity. Our rulers and high stake rollers live in mansions of glory. Indians richer than their counterparts here live in modest homes. Retired generals there live in small houses or high-rise flats.”

One understands the inherent feudalism in Pakistani society, yet one fails to comprehend the blinkers the writer wears, either while writing or when he visited India. Has he heard about the Ambanis, the Tatas, the Birlas, the Godrejs, the Premjis, the Narayan Murthys, the Reddys? Has he read about their private jets, their parties, their weddings, their lifetsyle, their homes, and of course their accessories? Our ministers often refuse to leave their bungalows even after their term ends and retired generals take their time retiring. He is clearly basing his “loose sandals” observation on something from R.K. Narayan’s books, or perhaps referring to some of the older politicians who prefer to dress in traditional wear, such as the dhoti or the mundu. Rest assured, they are not trying to identify with the common man, for they get into their limited edition vehicles too and have a neat collection of real estate and jewellery.

If there is anyone who reveals caste and class consciousness it is the writer. He obviously does not understand the implication of the term minions. It is insulting that he thinks Indian leaders could pass off as vassals only because of what they wear. Perhaps he was just served his rack of lamb marinaded overnight by a member of the staff who he treats like a minion.

One does not know whether Ms. Khar read up on India, as he admonishes, but he does not seem to have done so. Instead of telling us what he expected out of the discussions, he decides to make a list of the lady’s wardrobe ‘malfunction’. Indeed, Indians went overboard in noting her couture with unbecoming awe and Pakistanis with derision. The internal politics of her tax evasion is a matter that ought to be discussed and resolved by the people and her party. Her shoes have got nothing to do with it. Why should a foreign minister tell India “my country is struggling – with terrorism, suicide bombers, law and order, the Afghan problem, a poor economy and so on but that we would prevail if there is peace”? Mr. Hasan seems to be suffering from a perennial mai-baap hangover due to Pakistan’s helplessness with regard to the US.

Had she highlighted the details that are not a secret anyway would the honourable columnist step down from his pedestal and permit her the indulgence of accessories? Or would he expect her to be dressed up as a ‘struggler’? America is going through its worst debt crisis. What are its ministers supposed to wear? As one who has visited Pakistan a few times and seen both its elite and its interiors, I do not see how drawing attention to the social ills would take the peace process forward. Has Masood Hasan spoken to the law enforcement people, the Afghans, the terorists, the very poor, the suicide bombers and asked them how exactly they view the peace process?

What did he expect from this meeting when there have been others that brought nothing? I guess it would be expecting too much from someone who, while dissing the “lollipops”, spends considerable time reading up on the shenanigans of the “fash frat”. It is a pity that he feels Pakisanis have egg on their face. I suppose it is inevitable if all you concentrate on is the chinks in the chick’s armour.

Rishtey mein Lord Ram hamare baap lagte hain?

It is lecture time. “The interest of ordinary Muslims in new India lies in embracing modernity,” says Minhaz Merchant. The headline of the editorial page piece in The Times of India is ‘Educate, Don’t Appease’. It assumes, therefore, that only the uneducated are appeased and the white knights like Mr. Merchant are not.

I will tell you how they are. In his own precious words:

As a group of visiting senior Muslim clergy from Ayodhya, with wisdom born of great learning, said recently to Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati, the highly respected Shankaracharya of Dwarka: “Even though our religions are different, we share the blood of the Hindus.” The Shankaracharya replied gently: “That makes our Lord Ram your ancestor as well.”

Very well, we are family and all. Then, rishtey mein Babar is also daddy dearest to Hindus, no? And most certainly Emperor Akbar? After all, he was married to Jodha bai and used to rock the cradle with Krishna’s idol, at least that is what they showed in Mughal-e-azam. So, if you want to play ball, then you have to be on the same court. You can’t just lob it up in the air.

The author goes on to state:

This is not just about genealogy – it reflects India’s embedded religious diversity.

Sure. The TOI used this picture with the headline, ‘Reinforce the tolerance that unifies’.

Tolerance has to be mutual, even though I dislike the word tolerance. You cannot have one idea of god and a stereotype of another religion paying obeisance to that god and call it diversity.


I had written about just such a narrow vision in the article Mainstream Terror:

It is interesting that while the urban elite has taken over religious celebrations and consumerised it, they use the ‘backward’ idea to drive home the point of India’s colourfulness. It almost seems like they are sitting away and cheering at a spectator sport.

My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?

Grow up and get your priorities right. It is shameless and insensitive that this piece was written as a prelude to the December 6 Babri Masjid demolition’s 18th anniversary. Was that appeasement or modernity?

I have an opinion, so what's your problem?

“Have you been there?” “How well do you know about the place, the person, the idea…?”

These queries have beset me and, I am certain, several others in the writing and more specifically the journalistic field. It is a valid query if one is reporting from the ground. It goes without saying that when you are at the scene, then you would gather some basics by the mere fact of being there. Is this sufficient?

Often the questions are not arising out of curiosity, but to pin you down, to challenge not your knowledge but your opinion. When I had written about the Indian army, among the several responses there was one that assumed that I had never met an armyman in my life. I had, rather cockily, said that I had not met god and yet wrote about religion. In further areas I have been put on the mat for different reasons.

I would like to put myself through self-scrutiny. I do not write on subjects, even opinion pieces, of which I have no knowledge or very little. The financial area is one; technology is another; science is fascinating, so I try and understand some nuances. But, it is not possible to have first-hand knowledge about everything one opines about.

So, how does one form opinions? There are strong opinions and reasonable ones. There are opinions that are reactions or come from a strong belief. The responses to them are also opinions. We consider a viewpoint reasonable when it confirms our beliefs or when it ostensibly looks balanced.

I am mortified of balanced opinions; you can give two sides of a story but it is as you see it, not as it necessarily is. Therefore, the balance lies in sitting on the fence and watching both sides and it includes the experience of sitting on the fence and the sore-ass it causes.

A logical opinion is one where the person tries to string together the threads of disparate thought processes; it is essentially seeking to make sense of the noises in the head, but you’d never be able to tell! While we use the term loosely, ‘personal opinion’ is tautology. All opinions are personal, unless you are sponging on someone else’s views or relying on research even to form an opinion, which is the last refuge of the scrounger.

Now, there are some opinions that are considered kneejerk. As the recipient of this honorific often, I must say that such rashness is possible when you know you are entering where angels fear to tread. It is akin to a satanic rite of passage, perhaps the predecessor of the more honourable devil’s advocate that I love playing. There are certain subjects that one has internalised or understood or discussed before and what comes forth is impulsive and spontaneous, but it is also a reaction. To assume that a reaction put in words has no merit makes little sense; it springs from a strong feeling. Are feelings opinions? Indeed, they are. Belief or disbelief without emotion is mercenary. The expression of it need not be emotive, though.

So, how does one form opinions? I think conditioning plays a very minor part if you are highly individualistic. The environment is crucial not because it influences you, but it makes you respond to it for what it is and how it ought to be. In this ‘ought to be’ aspect lies one’s ability to chart a mental course. It could be a tried-and-tested formula or out-of-the-box thinking. Some people change their opinions according to what is convenient. These are chattels to the available material. However, if the alteration in perspective arises due to deep thought or disillusionment with an ideology, then it is not turn-coat behaviour.

This long but necessary preamble brings us to the queries posed to opinion-makers. There is much scientific endeavour expended on finding things from little tubes. Here, hypothesis is an opinion that is sought to be proved. An artist’s painting on canvas is an opinion of an event or an abstraction; s/he may have not been there in the first instance and it is not possible to do so in the other. A writer of fiction is expressing an opinion through the characters.

If you were to ask anyone what they think about a political event, party, figure or a film, film star or celebrities or even the person in the street, they will have something to say. 

Why then is the person writing in the newspapers made answerable? I have not been to Bihar, just as Manmohan Singh has never contested an election. One has to have some basic knowledge, some facts, some ideas formulated in the past to reach certain conclusions. We know about poverty, about the caste system, about crimes, about feudalism, about lack of basic facilities, about the economic elitist idea, about politicians…there is a process of transposition and an understanding that conjecture is based on some edifice or precedent. We can be on different sides but the basic facts remain. How we see those facts – whether we take them at face value or bore holes into them or hang them from a pole are opinions.

One may question opinions but not the existence of them. It is like wondering about dreams, but no one can deny the existence of sleep. Of course, it is possible to argue that daydreams are more potent. But that is just my personal opinion.

And, yes, if some people think I am opinionated as hell then they must thank me for giving a sneak preview of what they too have no clue about!

Pakistani circus comes to town!

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then comes to the point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bared? Marilyn, Oprah, Sunanda…

I do not know which of these ‘outings’ is the worst.

THIS:

Fans of Marilyn Monroe will be able to bid for an intimate snap of the star at an upcoming auction. An xray of the stars chest is set to go under the hammer. The medical photograph was taken at a Florida hospital in 1954 when the actress was being treated for endometriosis. The x-ray shows Monroe’s ribs as well as the outline of her famed cleavage.

I would understand a dress from some film, a personal belonging. This has become quite the norm for the public that seeks such vicarious thrills. But the woman was ill, for god’s sake, and it is an x ray. Isn’t there any shame left? And, why is there a mention of her cleavage. This is beyond disgusting.

OR THIS:

Oprah Winfrey has repeatedly lied about her upbringing and made up stories about sexual abuse to boost her reputation, claims biographer Kitty Kelley in her new book. Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth I have no idea, the New York Post quoted Winfrey’s cousin Katherine Carr Ester as saying in the book. I’ve confronted her and asked, why do you tell such lies ... Oprah told me that’s what people want to hear, the truth is boring.

Kitty Kelly has her kitty full of tell-all tales. I have my reservations about Oprah’s modus operandi that caters to the most basic instinct – voyeurism. It has often been camouflaged as catharsis, but you can see right through the tears, which often reveal that some of it has been staged. She is also her best subject, using everything from her weight to her money. Just as well. However, I can understand exaggeration as a possibility, but to make up stories of sexual abuse, especially as a child, somehow seems unlikely. If it is true, then it is cruel. Cruel to the telly-viewing world that trusts her implicitly, cruel to herself for needing such a ruse. Also, I’d like to know a bit more about this high moral ground adopted by her cousin. How much was she paid for telling this 'truth'? If she knew about it and felt so strongly, why was she silent all this time? There are hundreds of tabloids and channels waiting for such exposes.

OR THIS:

Sunanda Pushkar's face recently launched a thousand IPL controversies. However, if you've had enough of it, you could try an older variation. The one you've been spotting these days is only a new and improved version. City sources say that the woman, who is in the eye of the Modi-Tharoor storm, had a nose job done by a leading Mumbai-based cosmetic surgeon ten years ago. Sources said that Pushkar also had two other fat reduction surgeries before the nose job.

(Latest reports say she has withdrawn her stake in the IPL.)

Take her to task for the franchise deal, but this is low. The Medical Council should take note of the plastic surgeon Dr Ashok Gupta for revealing these details. It goes against the ethics of his profession. Incidentally, Mumbai Mirror that carried the story showed the before and after pictures and amazingly in all of them the lady is wearing the same lipstick. Is it her fealty towards a certain shade or is someone tampering?

Besides this, it might help if those who socialise with bottle blondes stopped mentioning this aspect of her. It is amusing to see the ladies who lunch get all concerned about power women, which of course Sunanda is not because she has not yet had a chance to appear on Page 3. She is an insult, apparently. She is telling us what to think about Tharoor. How dare she? Phew. People who opine about piffle should not be wondering about how her opinion does not count.

- - -

The sainted and the tainted - Lalit Modi with the Dalai Lama:

No Comments

My Indo-Pak TV Moment

At 5.45 PM today, Indian Standard Time, I was on television. You couldn’t see me. No, I had not magically transformed into an invisible creature. This was a phone-in where someone calls you and says you will soon go live on air. It made me check my breathing. Sometimes one does not feel so 'live'. Thoughts of me floating somewhere in the ether were quite tantalising. Then I could hear the host of the Pakistani channel (that is also beamed in the US) making important comments about some major political issues regarding India and Pakistan, and then I heard my name.

I mean, I have been called my name, and several names, many times. But someone telling an audience that here she is felt like a magician presenting a rabbit from a hat.

He was exceedingly polite and polished. I did what I always do – grrr…whirr…well, I had lots of opinions which should have stayed in their place, my head. The problem is that where this issue is concerned my views are rather unconventional. Here they were asking me about peace and I effectively said, what peace, we are antagonists. Why can I not just sometimes say things that sound good?

I also had the luxury of not being visible. This is a tip for people who do phone-ins. Please dress up as though you are on TV. I was in my home clothes, which might sound ridiculous to someone who does not know about home clothes. Home clothes are what you never ever wear outside the home. In fact, sensible people would not wear such clothes at home. So, I was, if anyone is interested in these details, wearing a rancid lemon T-shirt and a pale blue skirt that Monika Lewinsky would not wear even if someone else was on the phone. I gave this interview on Indo-Pak affairs lounging like Barbara Cartland. I know I should not state this publicly but it is all about sleeping with the enemy, no?

Then I had this bright idea of quoting a poem by a Pakistani woman poet. I have wanted to do that several times and always something happens. This time they had breaking news, so the poem went unheard. Nawaz Sharif came in the way. And I thought it was my use of the word “Damn’ that made the host say, “Humse baat karne ke liye bohat shukriya (Thank you for talking to us)”.

I think I sighed in reply.

Anyhow, I have no clue how it went and whether I sounded like Caligula doing a Cleopatra or Hamlet blowing hot air into a skull. I know it sounds arrogant to imagine that I got anywhere close to a Shakespearean tragedy. Maybe, it is much ado about nothing.

It isn’t the first time. Over a decade ago a BBC World correspondent wanted to talk to me about Indian sexuality. I met her at the hotel and she had this really big contraption into which I had to pout about Indian sexuality. She was quite surprised I knew so much. I said I was Indian. And, well, I read a lot about sexuality. I think she liked me because after she shut the contraption, she opened it again. This time she wanted to know my views about the bindi, the dot on Indian women’s forehead. I did not know these were two disparate themes and immediately jumped in about how the dot denoted something sexual.

A few years later, I got another call from the BBC. I started to get quite intellectually horny now. After all, we did have some good times, eh? Anyhow, the voice sounded like a gentleman's in the classic mould of gentlemen. I imagined him wearing a bowler hat and carrying a parasol as he walked down to the pub and sat on the leather chair, the wood-panelled walls making honeyed reflections in his glass.

He cut my internal monologue short with a matter-of-fact question about a high-ranking police officer who had misbehaved with a high-ranking female administrative officer. He had patted her on the butt and she had taken him to court. Because he was solving terrorist issues in Punjab, no one was taking any action against him. Apparently, the verdict had been announced and it was in her favour. So, what did I think? I wasn’t aware of the verdict. The Indian news channels had not yet announced it.

I honestly said I did not know. Well, I was not supposed to know because you see the BBC always gets the news first. I asked the gentleman to call back because I wanted to confirm it! I had an opinion, of course I did. And I said what I wanted to, including that it wasn’t just about the rear. It denoted a whole emotional and physical space.

Okay, thank you, it was wonderful speaking to you, he said.

It was? I can imagine him later chuckling into his glass of lager, the froth curving along with his smile.

I like to make people happy.
- - -
PS: It is hugely embarrassing that for an Urdu show - which the one today was - I requested to speak in English. I do not feel proud about it and for one who writes okey-dokey stuff in the language (or at least close to the language) this was not on. The reason I did it is because we were talking politics and I did not want to goof up more than I might already have.

Buying and selling Gandhi

Why do we Indians wake up so late? Now that Mahatma Gandhi’s personal belongings are to be auctioned in the US, we have got into a tizzy. Did anyone bother to reclaim them earlier?

This is clearly a political move. We need Gandhi at all odd hours of the day and night to make some stupid point, including non-violence, this occasionally by trishul-wielding blokes.

Anyway, I am not a big one to get back our belongings. What do we do with all those swords and funny-looking outsize clothes of former kings?

Haven’t we seen enough of the steel-rimmed spectacles and lavatory sandals? I have seen them in quite a few museums, which makes one wonder how many pairs he had. Also, every public service campaign will draw an outline of those glasses and they have come to symbolise the man; the message is as hazy as it always was.

A report talks about an “action plan” to get all those precious items back:

...the government has devised a three-pronged strategy. “We are approaching the owners not to auction these articles and requesting to offer them to the government,’’ the official said.

If that doesn’t work, the second option is to prevail on the auctioneers to take these items off the auction to enable the government purchase them on a reasonable negotiated price. The third option is to request an NRI or the local India-American association to participate in the auction, purchase the items and donate them to the Indian government, he said.

Re. Plan A: The government of India is going to be indebted to someone out to make money. Will they add a little footnote ‘Donated by Mr. X, resident of Cincinnati’?

Re. Plan B: The Indian authorities want to shamelessly bargain for what they claim is their national asset? We name every damn road after the Mahatma, build expensive statues, and we are talking about reasonable price?

Re. Plan C: Oho, I can imagine all those NRIs going around with a hat. Let me guess. Not one of those big-shot guys will pay up because Gandhi is not going to get her/him anything concrete, not even a well-publicised wedding mandap. But they will convene at some charity dinner, get some singer/tabalchi to perform, donors will ‘buy’ a table for their tandoori night out…then they will reclaim Gandhi for us. What happens next? The government will have to do some ‘sopping’ for the grand gesture on the part of those who feel so much for our heritage.

No one has talked about Plan D. But one of these days some local industrialist will jump in to save these item numbers and become the messiah who brought back Gandhi where he belongs.

Maybe a liquor baron?

Hey Ram…

Style kosher of the natty neta

Maverick: Style kosher of the natty neta

By Farzana Versey

Covert, December 1-15

Elections are not about braving the cold, heat, dust, old age, ennui to cast your vote. They are about politician-watching.

The young must give way to the old, we wail. We have no new names to pull out. All are the babalog of big men, and the occasional woman. Our attitude towards the young turks, a term that ought to make us smile at the irony when applied to these novices, is superficial. Look at them, we say, they at least look presentable in international conferences.

The flapping, translucent dhoti has given us many a moment of suspense, unless it swayed round the legs of a well-spoken ‘old boy’ from a touted alma mater who knew how to work his way with expensive toys that squeak and squawk.

Today’s politicians are chic, well-to-do, educated, or at least have some pretence to it, and seem to prefer Bordeaux to battle.

This is not a sudden development. We have had stylish people in public office, and even during the Independence Movement. Then came a period of couture drought. Netas decided that if they had to hide so much loot they had better not look as though they were hiding it. So they dressed down as kisans, chaprasis, the kind of people they pack into trucks. Some did tog themselves up as local goons, but that is because they were local goons.

When did the change take place? And why? Is it visible to the naked eye? Who benefits most from it?

This so-called style has been the unique contribution of those who can stay in power irrespective of who is in power. They represent the ‘cashy’ face of society that the respectable business communities feel safe about.

“Fund-raisers” are not renowned for political merit and their purpose is to play goodwill ambassadors. However, the moment the money dries up, their power too dwindles. Fortunately, the concept of allegiance is as dry as their martinis.

Besides, the new breed of ‘public servants’ are bosses in their personal business ventures, or successful professionals. It can be safely assumed that being well-heeled such a person could be trusted with party funds. However, the game is quite different. Rich they may be, but 60 per cent of the amount that is collected for party or election purposes goes in the dear MP’s pocket.

Of course, they won’t give you that impression. Élan is something they can project with ease since they know the business of surviving in pimp land. Touch feet, open doors, be part of the exclusive club where sycophancy pays, and no one complains.

The paraphernalia is important. Earlier going around in an Ambassador car was looked on as a necessity. Now, your humble leader will get into a BMW, even talk knowledgeably about its merits, and flaunt his assets – nifty suit, pricey haircut, and things that constitute the good life. Fundamentalist leaders too talk about their love for cigars and champagne. Golf is their sport, and vacationing abroad a regular occurrence.

Is hypocrisy finally dead? That is one way of looking at it. But why do they suddenly change track when it is election time? In the rarefied circles that they move in they continue to talk about globalisation and the liberal economy, yet they do know that life does not begin and end at Malabar Hill and Golf Links. There are Malegaon and Karol Bagh to be dealt with as well. So, they become ‘accessible’. Huge hoardings and full-page ads appear where they flaunt their own sincerity. If they are lucky, then a bunch of their friends will laud their efforts, not only regarding stray dogs that made life miserable when they went for their evening constitutional, but also how the sincere gentleman provided clean drinking water to the residents of Chinchpokli or Muzzafarpur. They have probably never heard of these places; it just sounds good.

I don’t know whether it conveys arrogance or plain ignorance. For those of us who can afford nonchalance, it surely makes life seem beautiful if you don’t have to hear a politician talk and let him flaunt his baubles instead. As for the unwashed millions, even the hick-town politician does not care about them. He is too busy getting his dhoti starched.

Quote uncoat -14

“Silence is of different kinds, and breathes different meanings.” - Charlotte Bronte

Have you experienced that about to say something feeling? That tip of the tongue feeling? That bite my tongue and swallow every morsel of a sentence feeling?

I am thinking about this. We interpret and misinterpret words. Have we ever thought about the way silence can work? I have had conversations with people who want to know why I have not expressed an opinion on something or the other. “You have not said anything about the curfew in Kashmir, what is happening in Orissa, Malegaon, Assam…”

They are topical and it isn’t that I don’t have an opinion. Sometimes, I cannot formulate my thoughts. Sometimes, my thoughts cannot find words. Sometimes, my words run ahead.

So, in that sense, my silence is indeed being perceived and conclusions are reached.

When I hibernate, there is a reason. That silence is melancholic, meditative. Or it may not be silence at all. It may be numbness. That is not akin to silence, which is a choice. When you are numb you feel nothing.

Despite my written output, which essentially amounts to speaking through words – and this is post #1001 on this blog! – I do leave a lot unsaid.

For, in the large desert I am only willing to share my vision of a sand castle with you…maybe you will be here on days when there is a sand storm or I spot an oasis. It will be conveyed as I take a sip of grit and let the water drip off my lips to form a patch of a temporary memory.

They are no match for Musharraf

A short note on this for now.

They are planning to impeach Pervez Musharraf. So what? Bill Clinton was impeached. Did anything change? He still rocks (and rolls), mucks up his wife's chances like he always did, and gets himself a tan. Musharraf needs no tan. I am just so amused by some statements:

Asif Ali Zardari, leader of the coalition's biggest party, expressed confidence it will succeed. He called the move to seek impeachment "good news for democracy" in Pakistan.

The idiot should know that he is the biggest slap in the face of democracy. And what is he doing making such statements? The leader of a political party should just see that everyone is well fed and drunk...is he really taking his role as the "Sonia Gandhi of Pakistan" too seriously? Does he forget that he got where he is because of Benazir Bhutto's arrangement with Musharraf? Does he realise if the judiciary was truly fair it should be going after him? But no, no, Pakistanis are told they have to uphold this democracy thing... Then we hear this:

With his (Musharraf's) popularity at rock bottom and civilian political forces arrayed against him, the outlook is gloomy for the leader who pushed Pakistan into the U.S.-led war on extremist groups after the Sept. 11 attack on America.

Chuckle moment ...is his popularity low because he led the war on extremism? Then what democracy are these people talking about? And if his popularity is so low, then what are they afraid of? Oh, how can we forget, this is upholding of democracy. Even if he is impeached, he will have it good...like any officer and a gentleman would. I know people think this amounts to supporting a dictator, but I don't compare chalk with cheese. Get me a better Cheddar, then we will talk de-mockery-cy.

India and the Dalai Lama’s Middling Path

The Dalai Lama's famous 'middle path' is the biggest cop-out. It works only at the level of Hollywood art-house cinema and to make sure that Richard Gere remains the certified American gigolo of the movement.

India and the Dalai Lama’s Middling Path
by Farzana Versey
State of Nature

India is trapped. “This will be a ‘Tom and Jerry’ show. The cat may have powerful fangs but the mouse will ultimately win,” said Tibetan leader Tensin Tsunde.

- - -

The Tibetan Refugee Camp in Delhi was quiet. The stalls where they sold carvings, trinkets, and shawls and woolens in winter, were empty. They stood like cages, iron meshes separating one from the other.

Some monks were sitting on the wooden platforms. Young people in trendy clothes were walking about aimlessly. I spotted two young men in their late teens. For a month in March all shops were closed in protest. Wangchuk stayed here. The lodgings are very basic, but certainly better constructed than the hovels of the poor. Both these boys were attending college. One lived here; the other in a mainstream locality. The latter was far more forthcoming. What was Wangchuk afraid of?

“Not afraid. I just don’t want too much prominence. We are going through conflict.”

“With the Chinese?”

“Yes, but also amongst ourselves.”

At the centre of the discord is the Dalai Lama. At the time I was there last month he was sitting in an air-conditioned suite of a five-star hotel. The protesters had been shouting slogans. These two teenagers are tired. “For four days we sat there, it won’t achieve anything. People are going on and on about boycotting the Olympics. We don’t care about all that. We want complete independence.”

The Dalai Lama’s famous ‘middle path’ is the biggest cop-out.

It works only at the level of Hollywood art-house cinema and to make sure that Richard Gere remains the certified American gigolo of the movement. The Dalai Lama says that the recent aggression and riots that took place did not involve Tibetan monks at all. “They (Chinese soldiers) dressed like monks. So, for a lay person, they will look like monks. But the swords they had were not Tibetan, they were Chinese swords.”

Yet, he does not want a separate state but autonomy within China. It is time for him to visit his people as a political leader and drop the His Holiness garb. But that won’t sell. He has got a nice little resort to himself in India, a horde of celebrity endorsements and a typical Occidental support system. Steve Tsang, a China politics expert at Oxford University rightly asked, “How many people watching these images in the West will buy China's story? Instead, what you see are these heroic monks who are risking a lot for their cause. That is something your average Westerner is very sympathetic with.”

The average Westerner makes Chicken Soup for the Soul a bestseller. Monks are cute, and the Dalai Lama really enchants everyone. An Indian editor just could not rein in his excitement when the Tibetan leader slapped his wrist after every joke. Here is one such ‘joke’: “The Chinese accuse me of orchestrating the protests. I call for a thorough investigation. Let them investigate if I am responsible. Let them investigate any and everything—except my lungs, my stomach, my urine and my stool.”

I had once attended one of his lectures at an auditorium in Mumbai. Standing in the queue to enter the hall was quite a lesson. There were foreigners with backpacks, the usual activist brigade, a few chic ladies in summer wear, some were into the holistic healing fad, and there were the Tibetans in their orange-maroon robes.

When the gates opened there was a predictable rush. You could have been to a rock concert, but there was a silence punctuated by laughter that was echoing the Dalai Lama’s giggles. He laughed because he goofed up on his English and everyone laughed because he did. Charming, but that’s about it. He said India was their guru; he was only stating the obvious. He was barely audible let alone intelligible.

Besides, when the West is busy bashing up ‘Islamists’ for making a hue and cry about faith, why is their poster boy publicly airing his religious views?

He vacillates between international intervention and then insisting that “the real solution to the Tibet issue can only be found between the Han Chinese and the Tibetans and no one else”. Almost immediately he avers, “I appeal to the world to save the Tibetan nation, which has a unique cultural heritage and is facing extinction as a result of the cultural genocide taking place in Tibet.”

In one of those supremely confusing moments, he has said that culturally Tibetans were closer to India and politically to China.

To start with, the problem is political. Tibet was established over 2100 years ago by Raja Nathi Chenpo, the first king. Around the middle of the 20th century, October 1949 to be precise, Chinese aggression began. With the advent of Communism, the attempts became bolder, resulting in forcible entry into Tibet, the butchering and massacre of 1959 which finally made the Dalai Lama and millions of others seek refuge in India.

Very soon the refugees realised they shared many similarities with the people of the Himalayan regions. What the Indian government does not realise is that joining forces with Tibet is detrimental to India because China has laid claims to Arunachal Pradesh, did not recognize Sikkim as a part of India and has supported many separatist movements in the North East and continues to occupy Aksai Chin in Ladakh.

Some of us who are considered ‘concerned citizens’ got an invitation to join in the parallel torch relay two days before the Olympics torch arrived; it was sent by some Indian Opposition leaders. That we are still struggling with our own separatist issues does not seem to drive home a discordant note. Also, since the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama have been crying themselves hoarse that they do not have a problem with China hosting the Olympics, why is India falling into the rat-trap?

People like Wangchuk have begun to question the concept of the very culture they are fighting to save. “We are not blaming the older generation but how long can we wait? We believe in democracy that is the reason we quietly protest. It is unfortunately mistaken for being soft. So far we have not thought of arming ourselves because that would not be good for us either. Yet when people keep telling us that we are Buddhist and must therefore follow the path of peaceful appeals, we find it a little unnerving. Recent experience has shown us quite clearly that the sound of bombs resonates very loudly but not our voices.”

An elderly administrator, Teng Pasang, is worried about this call for complete independence. “That is why the Chinese should speak to the Dalai Lama. After he is gone it will be difficult. If the Tibetans want they can become terrorists overnight. They could have become like Kashmir.”

Did it not strike him as a bit unusual that for a people who live in refugee camps they have given up their means of livelihood for a month? “This is a small price to pay for the sacrifice of the Tibetans. Besides, most have made enough money and saved up.”

He is happy with how the international community is responding. “It is good, UK, France, America, all coming and supporting.”

They have never shown such support for Kashmir, Afghanistan or Iraq, I tell him. “See, I told you Tibetans are non-violent. They are not terrorists.”

The Dalai Lama’s own position regarding terrorism is rather interesting. He had told the Daily Telegraph some years ago that terrorists must be treated humanely or terrorism will spread, “If there is one Bin Laden killed today, soon there will be 10 Bin Ladens…The new terrorism has been brewing for many years. Much of it is caused by jealousy and frustration at the West because it looks so highly developed and successful on television.”

Clearly he watches a lot of television. Perhaps he is unaware that it was the West that made the Gulf war into the first reality soap opera. It is rather surprising that for someone who fled because of atrocities he does not understand the depth of dissent. Osama bin Laden was a highly successful ‘Harry’, much admired in the teakwood-paneled clubs of London. No terrorist movement is even remotely trying to ape the West or showing any evidence of materialistic aspirations.

Today, the walls at the camp are plastered more with announcements of music programmes rather than political slogans. What do they want? Their voices are asking to support the proposal to demilitarize and denuclearize Tibet and put a stop to Chinese aggression. They want India to raise the issue of Tibet’s independence. And finally they cannot see why His Holiness cannot be accorded the status of Head of State-in-exile. That will be a truly political statement.

As Wangchuk says, “We will not compromise.”

How long are they willing to wait? “Till the end, till we get what is our right. We have seen many difficulties in the past, so it is time for looking towards a good future.”

I am given a “Free Tibet” badge with some diffidence. I put it away in my bag. One of these should reach the Dalai Lama.

Dis n Dat

Oprah no more queen of talk shows

The talk show queen’s popularity has diminished after she declared her support for Barack Obama, even though she knew it could destroy her career. She has publicly backed Obama as her choice to replace George W. Bush.

She is reported to have said, "What is the cost to me for doing it? Am I going to lose viewers? I made the decision that I have the right to do it as an American citizen. But I will not use my platform. I can use my own personal voice. I know him well enough to believe in his moral authority. And that is the number one reason why I am supporting him."

Big deal. Lots of people in Hollywood and media icons in the West openly support candidates of their choice. This ‘right to do this and that as an American citizen’ is getting tiring. And why will she not use her platform? It is her show. She can do what she wants. If she can promote books, she can do this. And what is this about moral authority? These Americans keep talking about moral authority which they carry on their zippers.

Besides, I am amazed that no one feels any pangs of shame when donations are solicited. And then they have the gall to throw corruption statistics in the face of Third Worlders. These are people who are being sponsored and their campaigns financed by sundry film stars and hoteliers. That NRI Sant Chatwal guy is irritating me, the way he keeps popping up each time Hillary is around, especially Hillary with that big smile and dazed eyes trying to second guess when Bill will open his mouth and she will have to ask him to shut up.

Aw, get on with it, you Yankees.

- - -

I like Mayawati. I like it even more that she went ahead and commissioned her own statue and unveiled it herself. Because no one else would. At least she did not get some chamchas to do it. Great going. Okay, she is saying that Kanshi Ram made her his sole heir, which rings a bit sharply considering she has been rubbishing Rahul Gandhi of late for doing his time out with Dalits.

But I still like her insouciance. She did not care about what people said and thought about her relationship with Kanshi Ram and has truly stood up to the fascist forces. Did she use strong-arm tactics? Of course. Isn’t it better than batting her eyelids?

- - -

“Did Priyanka Vadra recently meet Nalini Sriharan, one of those involved in the assassination of her father Rajiv Gandhi?”

Here is a portion of the front page report in The Times of India:

According to what Nalini told her lawyers, a visibly emotional Priyanka made Nalini sit next to her and asked several short questions related to the assassination. Why had it happened? For what purpose? What was Nalini's involvement? Nalini replied, “I didn't know anything till the end. But it is true that I went to the spot.” Nalini is the sole survivor of the five-member assassination squad.

Priyanka is quoted by the lawyers as saying, “My father was a good person. It could have been resolved through talks. Had you known about my father’s good nature, you would not have done this.” Nalini apparently kept quiet. Then Priyanka asked, “When did you see my father last?” Nalini said, “When he got out of his car.”

Initially I did not know what to make of it. Now I suspect it is this election year thingie. Sonia Gandhi had reduced Nalini's sentence from death to life imprisonment because of her little daughter. Now Priyanka might get Mommy to do something more.

At another level there is something very crucial: Does Priyanka have the authority to conduct such an enquiry? How the hell does it matter whether her father was a good person or not? We are talking about a hugely serious issue that is still on the boil: the LTTE. The newspaper has implied several things but we want to know how legally valid is it for the meetings to have taken place, for anyone to file a petition on the basis of Right to Information and, most importantly, whether the media ought to carry such stories at all?

- - -

Tittle-tattle:

Pottering around

JK Rowling was attending the Galaxy British Book Awards where she was honoured for her outstanding achievement when her purple satin gown slipped off her chest.

Mark Hutchinson, her press aide, was at hand to cover Rowling's modesty, and holding up the front of her dress. It's not the first time Rowling has been left feeling overexposed - on a book tour of the U.S. last year, her dress slipped during a reading, exposing her white bra underneath.

Takes the term ‘press aide’ really far, innit?

- - -

I am not newsworthy, but just thought I’d let you know that there is a bit of fresh excitement in life. My internet cable wires have been robbed. Had it not posed accessibility problems, I might have had a good laugh.