Aamir Khan's Khap Panchayat

What happened? A man is killed after appearing on 'Satyamev Jayate

'.

Is there a limit as to how far reality shows can and should expose the participants? When people are willing to have cameras placed in hospital rooms to capture their battle for survival, or even impending death, how valid is the query?

I have consistently questioned the ethics of Aamir Khan's show 'Satyamev Jayate'. The host had begun to believe he was a messiah, riding on lachrymose glands. One thought, disgusting as it was, this is where it would end: Sunday mornings of chicken soup for the soul, followed by the main course of 'this is life' shrugging.

Unfortunately, the attitude remains one of arrogant consciousness.

Abdul Hakim eloped with Mehawish in 2010 against family opposition. The difference in status was the reason cited. The khap panchayat issued a death edict. Adoli village in Bulandshahar district of Uttar Pradesh became more than a dot on the map of India.

On Thursday, Hakim was on his way to get medicines for his pregnant wife; five men pumped bullets into him. Was this a family dispute or honour killing?

Had they not appeared on the TV show would they be saved? Other people are indeed killed even when they don't appear on television. Yet, when a case is highlighted and ordinary people are transformed into media-propped bravehearts, then the irresponsibility of the medium ought to be questioned.

Aamir Khan, upon hearing the news, said: "It was completely their choice. In fact, when I met the couple before our show, they expressed the fear of being killed. They were already getting threatening calls."

Why, then, did he not dissuade them, since the purpose of the show was to help society? Or, wasn't it? 'Satyamev Jayate' was catering to voyeurism, not conscience. It had a clear agenda to mimic soaps, but make it sound realistic. Is that why their faces were not blurred nor their names changed?

One notices this sort of 'authenticity' increasingly creeping into the electronic media. Real people are like us or those around us. It is about being a bystander at an accident site, or even a neighbour of someone who commits suicide. We become part of contemporary events, some of which are deliberately exaggerated.

The manner in which such shows sit in judgement is a form of khap panchayat. They too issue diktats and use the vulnerability of those who suffer. Abdul Hakim was a casual labourer. How did he benefit? Was he desperate to appear on TV.

One would think there'd be some introspection. Instead, Aamir Khan said: "Disturbing and unfortunate incident. Will speak to the government authorities in UP to help and ensure the family is safe. The culprits must be brought to the book. The case is registered on the basis of right facts."

How does he know? If he has the clout to talk to the government, then why not talk about the role of such TV shows?

The case is registered, we know. Now, it is time for 'talaash'.

Aamir Khan: Only a matter of Time

It is not the fact that Aamir Khan is on the cover of the September issue of Time magazine that is as important as how he is projected.

Recall how our beauty contest winners won with that finale answer about their idol being Mother Teresa? The purpose was a clear need to sell beauty products to the huge Indian market. Once that was achieved, we had the Bill Gates-Warren Buffett philanthropy where our industrial bigwigs were lectured about the art of giving, something they had mastered thanks to income tax exemption to channelise black money. Publicly aired social consciousness is only a part of this.

The extracts from the Time story makes it seem as though the Indian population is a willing hostage to one actor.

The blurb itself sets the tone:

"He's breaking the Bollywood mould by tackling India's social evils. Can one actor change a nation?"

Would they say the same about Hollywood stars who speak on social issues or take strong political stands? India’s social evils have great demand for a hungry media, at home and outside. For the outsider, this obviously has some exotic appeal.

"Now, with his groundbreaking TV show Satyamev Jayate (Truth Alone Prevails), he has dispensed with commercial considerations to indulge his conscience. With it, Khan has taken on the mantle of the country's first superstar-activist.”

Has he dispensed with commercial considerations? We have been through it here before. The conscience does not gather a herd. What does being the first superstar-activist mean? There have been films from years ago that raised social issues - Duniya Na Maane, Do Bigha Zameen, Mother India. These were not a candyfloss look at farmer suicide, widow remarriage, dowry, poverty. And I am not even talking about regional cinema and parallel cinema.

The piece is obviously a paean when it says:

“It's a ballsy move, and potentially jeopardizes his status as the beloved idol of millions.”

If anything, it has got him a new audience, the sort that attends rallies by Anna Hazare or Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Art of Living sessions. It is utterly patronising to read that the show tackled subjects that “are precisely the sorts of harsh realities from which many of Khan's fans seek escape in his movies”; it probably works for this group.

If anything, the actor fancies that he does films that have a message, whether it is Lagaan, Rang de Basanti, Taare Zameen Par, Mangal Pandey, Peepli Live. He makes a point to go on a road show as a ‘messenger’.

"Can a movie star affect the mores of a nation of 1.2 billion? It might just be possible in India, where a national obsession with cinema, unparalleled in the world, gives popular actors an influence beyond the imagination of Hollywood scriptwriters.”

Such a limited understanding. There are places where cinema halls have been shut down. Films are banned. If the national obsession is an escape, then it applies to realistic cinema too, for that reality is not mirroring what people go through, but what characters go through. Cinematic projection of such truths is like sharing misery with others, if we really wish to look at films in that manner.

Hollywood actors use a particular issue and take it to a forum to push for change. One may be cynical about their motives, but the public does not assume they will bring about change.

“Whatever Khan chooses to do next in his quest for grace, there's a good chance it will lift India a little closer to what he - and fellow Indians - would wish their country and society to be.”

This is just so weird. It builds up an individual as a messiah, that too on a personal “quest for grace”. India has several dreams and different people have different dreams. This certificate of granting one person the keys to the kingdom is so feudal. I wonder why Time magazine did not make him wear a maharajah turban in the cover picture. Or, perhaps contemporary maharajahs just look intensely into the eyes of the camera.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

The rest of my pieces on Satyamev Jayate are here

Domestic violence, pesticides, alcoholism: Half Truths-Satyamev Jayate

SMJImpact is a typically superficial and arrogant assumption that a television show has made a huge difference. We titter when any of the private channels, star anchors and even newspapers claim to expose cases. We raise doubts over sting operations. We question cops, soldiers, government officials and ministers even when there is palpable change. In fact, we do not see any impact when cases are cracked, when terrorists are stopped, when bore wells appear in villages or panchayats solve issues or women in rural areas form protection groups or become part of the cooperative movements. We do not care to see anything positive in political initiatives. 

We are right to a large extent. We say these are for votes, these are sops, these are tokenisms, these are drops in the ocean. 

When did Aamir Khan become the ocean? Is Satyamev Jayate really having any impact? Don't we know of how corporate groups ensure that the 'good work' they are involved with gets enough publicity? It would be foolish to imagine that change is taking place. A film star host has become the marketing vehicle for different causes, not unlike Bill Gates. Except that Bill Gates forks out his own money. However, philanthropy is never a free lunch. 

I did not write about the past three episodes. As I said the last time, one is not opposing everything. It is the stance that bothers me, and how a section of society helps in propagating it as the ultimate truth. If you need such a show to even know that domestic violence exists or to buy the one-dimensional view of the use of pesticides, then it is more sad than shocking. 

Let me recap my views on a couple of aspects:

Domestic violence, we all agree, is a serious issue. It is not only about being battered. There are other aspects, and mental cruelty is considered a legitimate ground for divorce. Again, the emphasis was on show and tell, giving it a vicarious tinge. Also, while it is essential that women are self-sufficient, the law has some provisions. A TV show has no business to expect a superwoman to be manufactured in the studio. One of them said that after taking a beating from her husband for years, one fine day she slapped him and that put an end to the torture. The sound byte here was that you have to take that step when it first starts. That's not how it works. The first time a person does not see it as the beginning of something horrible. People are used to being hit by parents, so this is seen as another paternal figure. 

At this point, I must commend activist Kamla Bhasin who explained the patriarchal construct. 

The show now follows a pattern of bringing in one or two well-heeled cases to tell people like us that people like us also suffer. The host dramatises the moment by starting off with, “So, we think this happens among the poor, uneducated? No." And then he shakes his head, sighs, and brings on a lady with blow-dried hair/lipstick/jewellery. There are so many stereotypes here already, and it is rather insulting to both women because they are put in these boxes and the only thing that 'identifies' them are scars of a kind. 



Pesticides are bad. But, Mr Khan should have asked his audience to put up their hands, as he does in school master style, whether they use mosquito repellants, DDT, and other sprays in the house. This was, of course, a show on pesticides in food, but he did begin by discussing how many women cook, go to the market to purchase their veggies. Yes, only women. 

Do you trust the organic lobby? I am as confused about its intent as other packaged foods. In what appeared to be a truly revealing exposé on the use of pesticide, and I must confess  that much as I like the natural I have been disappointed with the 'movement', what we got was just one aspect. The host demonised one manufacturer, and it became a joke. How much did his audience know about organic farming? It is not only about paying a bit more. The organic product lobby caters to the ostensibly aware segment. They are supposed to be either rich or concerned about health, the latter has become a big money-making industry. 

Unless grown in personal terraces or gardens using natural manure, nothing is without chemical traces if produced in bulk for the market. Fungicides are used in organic farming. It is a question of degree of how noticeable traces. 

I am sure there are health benefits, but not unless you wash these as well. Do not assume that what you get in healthy packages is always clean. But people lap this up. A little study will tell you some nasty truths. 

We are just not into that. It was pretty disgusting that the show started with a researcher telling us about how she found pesticide residue in mother's milk, because the woman had consumed non-organic food. I wonder how all those women with silicone implants would react! Honestly, there is too much of a good thing. 

I have not watched the episode on alcohol abuse. Lyricist Javed Akhtar was one of the guests and spoke about his battle with alcoholism. 

However, let me recount a conversation with an expat. She is impressed with the show. I am not surprised. 

"Imagine, Aamir Khan got a respected man like Javed Akhtar to speak about alcoholism," she said. 

"And he must have been feted for being frank, fearless, bringing the curse out in the open, opening the eyes of people..."

"It does. You realise how bad it is."

"You don't read the papers? You don't know of people who are addicted to drink? There were others too."

"But this is someone we identify with."

"What about Mr. Akhtar do you identify with? You are from disparate worlds."

"He is from the glamour industry, so it takes courage to come out and admit it."

"Sau choohe khake billi Haj ko chalee...anyhow, I read an article that quoted him where he said that drinking makes a person three things: 'ghinoney (filthy), gadhey (an ass), or both'."

"See, alcohol makes you like that too," said the lady.

"I don't think you need to be an alcoholic for that."

She is part of the "dream response" that has made Mr. Aamir Khan opt for another season. Obviously, he would not have done so unless he was "convinced", "moved", "sensitised". I should hope a lot of people discover life and different sorts of people, finally. And they can recall real people with similar issues. 

Perhaps, we will get to watch a show with more celebrities in confession mode. How about the philanthropy partner's bossman Mukesh Ambani on his chemical industries polluting the environment? Or, how babus are bought? 

Just a thought, for truth's sake. 

Half Truths: Satyamev Jayate (Doctors in trouble)

Doctors and medical frauds should concern us all. I have had some horrid experiences that made me revaluate the dependency we have on medicines. Capsules, doctors, hospitals have been a prominent part of my life. So, I was truly glad to watch yesterday’s episode of ‘Satyamev Jayate’ because there are many of us who have no option but to blindly trust our bodies with those who are qualified but treat us as organs, rather than people.

This time, the host cut down on the vicariousness and concentrated on more information. However – yes, there is a clause – for much of the show the emphasis was on how people are forced to take medicines when they do not need any. One particular example was of a man who flashed a packet of ORS and said that he could have been cured of his diarrhoea and vomiting with this at Rs. 15 instead of the few thousand he spent at two different hospitals.

There are such cases. But ORS is available over the counter or can be prepared at home. What if people start thinking that since most doctors are going to fleece you/mislead you, it would be better to self-medicate? What if it indeed turns out to be a serious illness?

The solutions were simplistic. Go to a chemist for generic medicine and you save money. This is for drugs that are expensive and for major illnesses. What about those we take for common ailments?

It would have been topical had the show also brought up the recent case of a poor man whose wife was denied admission to a hospital after an accident and his sorry tale of running from one to another to another till she died.

The tale of a village in Andhra Pradesh where all women had their uteruses removed should have been seen from the population control perspective rather than medical malpractice. Someone is responsible at a higher level; this cannot be doctors just wanting to make women sterile to earn money.

It is perturbing to know that India spends only 1.4 % of its budget on healthcare. And it was good to see the efforts made by some to use the pay-in-advance scheme, where the poor and the rest can benefit based on their capacity.

The racket and the treatment are two different aspects. Aamir Khan, it is being said with much appreciation, grilled the Medical Council of India (MCA) chief. All he managed was a schoolmaster version of extracting a promise to behave. Taking away licenses from doctors for malpractice is all very well, but how many doctors do we have with regard to ratio of population? Many people still visit quacks. Then, there is the ancillary industry of homeopaths and ayurveda, and these days they are all meshing.

I only hope that we don’t see a spurt of ‘actions taken’ and then the lull. This is an ongoing problem, a tragedy of our country.

- - -

Let me share something I had written earlier about exposing a doctor:

A few years ago I had followed up a case of neglect that could have led to death. A wrong blood group diagnosis prior to surgery. In a chawl at the far suburb of Ghatkopar in Mumbai resided this lower middle-class family; they put all their papers and trust before me. It was late night when I left them.

Next morning I decided to meet the doctor. I entered the clinic and after a very long wait his wife, also a doctor, told me he was not in town. It was a lie for the fruit vendor outside had in fact given me the exact address and also confirmed his presence.

When I went out, I told him he wasn’t in. “Aisa kaise ho sakta hai? Hum ne khud dehka aatey hue aur unki gaadi bhi yahaan hai.” (How is it possible? I saw him enter and his car is still there.)

It was raining outside. I crossed the street and lay in wait, hoping for something. Nothing. The showers were getting incessant and I was drenched. It must have been the time of a blink of an eye when I saw THE car get out of the gate. I couldn’t move. Where would I? How? It was a helpless situation. I left. An hour later a colleague from a magazine told me that he had got a call from the doctor, he was a nice man, very influential. The message was that I should keep shut.

I did not.

What happened? Did the family get anything out of it? No. Except that they had raised their voice. No action was taken despite their case being put before the medical council.

Slowly, it was almost forgotten…a year or so later I was shocked to read that this doctor had been given some award by his own fraternity.

The media today has a greater reach, more influence. It should use it as a weapon against offenders and act as a shield for those who need protection.

As for me, that scene still haunts me of a car that escaped and the rain that wouldn’t stop. It haunts me that I could do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Half Truths: Satyamev Jayate (Dowry and Child Abuse)

“At least he is doing something,” they say.

Yes. This charity consciousness may work for those who do not have to go through the problems Aamir Khan’s subjects have gone through. ‘Satyameva Jayate’ cannot expect to be beyond reproach only because of a celebrity host.

Yesterday, it dealt with dowry. Why is it seen as something new and why must it be lauded as one more attempt? There are several. More importantly, why did they interview a man who was kidnapped in a village and made to get married? This is a rare custom of ‘pakadva vivah’. It gives the impression of being the norm and, if the impact of the programme is so great, then would it not justify women being kidnapped and forced into a marriage of convenience? Are women to be shown as only ‘marriage material’?

The other issue I have is with the simple, no frills marriage. Curiously, two Muslim social workers and two veiled women represented this. May I ask why? And what did the gentleman from Burhanpur mean when he said, “In 60 years no woman from our place has been burnt to death”? Is that an achievement? And the host and the audience applauded, instead of saying categorically that this was a crime and they’d have been behind bars had anyone done so. I do not see why women have to be demeaned with such a back-handed patronising attitude.

‘Samuh vivah’, community marriage, is quite common; it saves money spent on the hall and priests, and yet has a festive air to it. People do want nice weddings. Instead of lecturing others, Mr. Khan forgets the expenditure on his own and his nephew’s wedding functions. Of course, there will be some who might say I am getting personal, and I am. You cannot tell people to stinge on bricks when you live in a mansion.

It would have helped to also highlight the price for different categories of men - IAS guys are the most expensive apparently.Why not talk to men, the in-laws? This is effectively putting pressure on the victims to recount their experiences and therefore, in a way, be responsible for holding themselves up to scrutiny.

As for the girl who had done a sting operation on her future in-laws, she got lucky she found someone who she says is understanding. But stings are not the solution. The cases highlighted were of arranged marriages. This happens even when it is a love marriage, and it may not be called dowry. Today, a working woman is prized for her ability to earn and contribute to her husband’s joint family.

If some people do not know about this, then you can see it in one of Ekta Kapoor’s serials. Ah, but you might feel a bit ashamed to admit you watch those. So, it’s ‘Satyameva Jayate’.

- - -

I skipped commenting on last week’s show. It was dreadful. Child abuse is. Talking about it is. Getting exhibitionistic about it is. Before the painful details, the host informed us that we may not want the children to watch, so we should take them to another room (his audience will not live in a one-room house, ok?), but close enough to bring them back to the TV set towards the end. Those participating went into the details. One young woman, when asked why she came out and spoke, said that indeed she was single, but who knows after this show she might meet someone, for she did not want to be with a man who would not accept her past.

I don’t know why we have standard ideas of empathy. I feel for what she has been through, but she has coped well, and it is not imperative that she would reveal her abuse to a suitor.

The male victim also went into details. I would have liked the psychologist to discuss the case studies and help them. This man endured it from the age of six till he was 18; his body and hormonal changes would have transformed in this period; he is now gay, but says it has nothing to do with what he went through. These are questions that need to be examined. I am not being judgmental. But the emphasis on story-telling and cutting short genuine analysis makes it just another show. I have seen a dramatised version of abuse where a 12-year-old even got pregnant on 'Crime Patrol', based on real-life incidents taken from police records.

The man I mentioned said he led two lives, and in the other he escaped into the world of films. He adored Sridevi. Later, the actress made an appearance. If at all, sending a message would have sufficed. This is not ‘make a wish’ show. But then the lady is making a comeback to films, and we may see other such ‘appearances’ in later episodes. Already, Nita Ambani is a participating sponsor through the Reliance Foundation. Every cause needs money. And every business needs tax exemption. It is wonderful that someone is helping out, but we do not need one more lecturer living in a bubble to take us on a discovery of India trip during the breaks.


The worst was yet to come: A workshop where the host told the viewers to bring the children into the room. Hiding them would have already filled their minds with ideas of something secretive happening. Now they were made to watch a group of obviously well-to-do children (child abuse does not seem to afflict the poor) being educated. “What is danger?” they were asked. Then they were shown two figures on the monitor – male and female – and the chest, genital area and buttocks were highlighted. These were ‘danger’ areas and if anyone other than parents were to touch them there they should shout.

This is just horrible. Most children are taken to isolated places, or abused when no one is around. I am perturbed by the identifying of these parts of the body with ‘danger’. Imagine when they grow up and get attracted to someone, will it not impact on physical intimacy?

Can we stop these simplistic solutions? Are parents not the culprits sometimes? The problem is that such shows will skirt many issues that may be difficult to swallow. We had the prominent Mira Road case right here in Mumbai where the mother actively encouraged the father and a tantrik to sexually assault both her daughters. Why did the show shy away from such cases?

Or, of quasi religious ceremonies where young girls are offered and virgin blood is considered a cure for impotency? What about someone from a remand home where some of the worst such crimes are committed? Think of Madhur Bhandarkar’s 'Chandni Bar' and 'Page 3', in which high-flying industrialists entertain their foreign guests with boys procured from such shelters. Why were there no such mentions of these wonderful people?

Is the purpose only to make us cringe? Please understand that you are getting half the story, half the truth. Those reading this and watching the show are perhaps exposed to such cases and are enlightened. Think about the many who are not. They will sit wide-eyed thinking of those images expressed by the participants. They will imagine them.

This is dangerous.

- - -

No one can accuse me of not dealing with such subjects. So, I do plan to write on this show with the same fervour. To small minds, it might appear like I am using it, but it is less vile than using people who are suffering.

Half Truths and Image-building: Satyamev Jayate

It started with the promos. Sunday, day to laze, wake up late, lounge in bed, have a cuppa. Then switch on the TV to watch the reality of India. Satyamev Jayate: Truth shall prevail. Walking near the sea, the host addressed us, telling us how he could not remove himself from this truth, how we cannot. And then we faced an audience. Yes, we faced the audience – they cried, they were moved. This was the idea. We were being judged by the standards of how a studio audience was judging, and the audience mimicked the host.

I will not take a swipe about what a superlative actor Aamir Khan is. But he is missing the reality more than anyone else. This is not Rancho of ‘3 Idiots’, who can do a techie version of Munnabhai, including the jaadoo ki jhappi, the magical embrace.

I did not watch it at 11 am on Sunday. I was not sleeping, therefore I am not his target. Some of us have other things to do. I did not watch the repeat late afternoon. At night, after the music show I catch often on weekends, he appeared again, with the wind in his hair, the sunset framing his silhouette. As you can see, I have not mentioned a word about the content. This is the problem.

The “most talked about show” is like any other reality show, even the much derided ‘Sach Ka Saamna’. The difference is that the host comes with a squeaky clean record of involvement in socially-relevant projects, never mind that all those are timed to promote his films/his ideas.

I do not grudge him the money he gets for every episode – reportedly Rs 3 crore. What I have issues over is that he assumes we are a bunch of ignorant people who do not know the truth. Every ‘discovery’ by him showed members of the audience with a set of expressions: wide-eyed, open mouthed, hands on lips, shaking head. It is clear that Mr. Khan did not know much, until his researchers ran through reams of work on the subject that exists and is read by many people, at least the ones who watched his show.

The subject was female foeticide. Three women were invited to give their personal examples of being forced to go through abortions or discard their female offspring. Two were from small towns and one a doctor from Delhi. This was to tell us that it does not only happen in the villages.

Have you not seen anything like this before? Also, the important saviours were men. He is promoting a patriarchal notion where women have to suffer, and if they brave it to give birth to female children then they have to leave home and manage on their own. There was no mention of male responsibility.

This was so disgusting, because many women do not have the means to earn. A strong message about taking the men to task, to insist on maintenance should have been made. What this programme did was to create a ‘ladies special’. The fact that the first show used a woman’s subject, knowing well that the telly-watching audience comprises largely of women, was marketing strategy.

Worse, via teleconferencing we got to see a bunch of men in their 30s in Haryana who cannot marry because of the skewed gender ratio. Instead of getting them to speak about the problem that has been created by their own, he let them talk about the lack of women and how they should get Salman Khan to be with them. Aamir said that Salman’s problem was different – he was surrounded by women and found it difficult to choose. Clearly, this man is a sexist under the garb of a women’s rights proponent. The message being that if you are a hero of sorts then women will follow you everywhere and such problems like female foeticide don’t mean a thing. As I said, he is scoring brownie points with his little huddle group.

I’d like to see him deal with other real issues that he might be more familiar with: the casting couch, promiscuity, lower pay for women in the glamour industry, extra-marital affairs, nepotism in the niche professions. Deal with your own weeds, too.

Is it fair to judge based on one show? It is. If you are talking about the ‘truth’, then don’t behave as though it is a bolt of lightning. And I dislike the idea of the sainted Aamir Khan writing a letter to stop this practice and asking us to send a SMS saying Yes or No. What the heck does this mean? What if there are a considerable number of ‘No’ responses? Will he wear purple robes and appear on the balcony to give his blessings so that the poor ignorant are washed off their sins? And if there are a majority of ‘Yes’ replies, will he take the credit for bringing about change?

Rather tellingly, he writes out ‘Satyamev Jayate’ on sand. It’s about impermanence, about being washed away by the waves.

This show is about making people cringe for a while as they watch real people reveal the burden of living lesser lives from our forced seemingly vantage unreal positions. This is the only way the host can wave his magic wand.

(c)Farzana Versey