Shiney Bling, Nirupam-Uddhav Sting

We have heard about people having to swallow their words, but “Shiv Sena CEO” (a TOI description) Uddhav Thackeray would go a step further with Congress MP Sanjay Nirupam:

“If he persists, we will make him swallow his teeth.”

Another version spoke about breaking his teeth, but this sounds better. So, what is Nirupam persisting about? The Congress MP, who was once a loyal Sena guy, decided he had to speak up for North Indians, obviously as a pre-electoral move with the BMC polls coming up:

“North Indians play a crucial role in Mumbai. We are told that we, Hindi-speaking migrants, are a burden on Mumbai. This is not true. Actually, it is we who bear Mumbai’s burden…if north Indians make up their mind, they can bring Mumbai to a halt.”

1. 1. I am not sure if this can have any major impact on local polls; most of the immigrant workers are registered in their villages and towns and do not vote, so they are not a real vote-bank in the next level assembly elections. It only helps the politician to give a more cosmopolitan face to the varied constituencies the city is peppered with.
2. 2. Bringing the city to a halt should not surprise anyone because the Sena has done it in the past with its bandhs, ‘spontaneous’ strikes and its hold on the trade unions.
3. 3. There is no single body of North Indians and they are unlikely to get together to halt the city.
4. 4. It has become a largely north-centric fight, when there are many South Indians and Bengalis too in the city. We are dealing with regionalism on a larger scale than is being made out.

In a rather surprising move, the report states:

Uddhav has asked the Congress to clarify if it endorses Nirupam’s remarks. “Balasaheb Thackeray had, in his Dussehra rally address, warned that there was a conspiracy to delink Mumbai from Maharashtra. Nirupam’s Nagpur speech has confirmed our fears.”

Mumbai does not need to be physically/technically delinked; it already is. If the Sena is so concerned about all of Maharashtra, why is it that there aren’t too many reports of the party workers beating up someone in Satara or even Ralegaon Sidhdhi, Anna Hazare’s fielfdom? Simple. Few people migrate to the small towns and villages. It is the lucre of Mumbai that attracts people, or the illusion of it.

Like every other party, the Sena too would not want any such delink simply because they too would lose out on big icapital. How many trade unions does the Sena control in the towns, except for the industrial belts?

It is interesting that they want an answer from Sharad Pawar, the Sugar King of Satara, for they know that they have to safeguard the monetary interests just in case they come to power or can benefit in some way from kickbacks and scams.

As for the Sanjay Nirupam Congress talk, it is all hot air. Had he still been with the Shiv Sena the teeth they are threatening he will be forced to swallow would have been biting the same North Indians.

- - -

In another case about disparities, actor Shiney Ahuja is angry. He ‘features’ in an ad for a mobile company. I was put off by it when I first saw it, but for a reason entirely different from the one Shiney has sent a legal notice for: that it takes a dig at his case.

His case is that he was convicted for raping his maid and later released on bail following an appeal. The ad amounts to “willful character assassination”. It shows a young woman exclaiming, “Shiney bought me a new 'Bling' (the name of the cellphone). Her friend retorts, “He bought me one too”, flashing the handset.

Soon a phone rings and it belongs to the maid. They look surprised and more so when she says, “What? Saab bought me one.”

The ad has been taken off air. Shiney’s publicist issued a statement:

“As we know, Shiney had challenged his conviction and the Bombay High Court has admitted his appeal, which is currently pending hearing. For the mobile company to air such a commercial influencing public opinion when Shiney's appeal is pending hearing, is equivalent to contempt of court.”

Shiney and his wife have given extensive interviews where they have tried to ‘influence public opinion’. (My questions remain unchanged.) He has signed films and will be a visible figure, maybe even a good one. What put me off about the ad is not the Shiney factor, but the class aspect. It seems okay for two spoilt young women to be given gifts by the same man, but they are shocked when the maid even possesses it. Her expression is one of guilt, as though owning what the great Indian dream tells us is now a ubiquitous gadget even in the villages is wrong. Besides, a maid being given a gift makes her suspect. Why are those two women not suspect for being he beneficiaries of what the man has given them?

The company may say that it is fictional but it is obviously a dig, and if they call this humour then honestly they have yet to discover where the funny bone exists. It is time the ad companies realised that helpers have mobile phones; not all are gifts. They are available cheap. And if they are given these, it is by their employers who want to keep in touch and know what time they will report for work. This is a job necessity, not to please some saab.

It is not Shiney but the domestic help sector that should be objecting. But, of course, Shiney gets to stay in the news. By hook or by crook.

Here is the ad:

Nannies and Parents

See that little baby in the arms of a beggar? See those eyes looking blankly? He has been sedated. He has been rented out. He could be your child.

This is a real case and it happened in Bangalore, the city touted as the IT capital of India.

A seven-month-old baby of a working couple who relied on their ayah—recruited from an employment agency, and hence thought to be above board—was used for beggary. The unscrupulous nanny would pack off the tiny tot with beggars for Rs 100 a day, while she settled down to a quiet afternoon in front of the TV set.

Begging is big business here and in some cities doctors help amputate limbs to make the emotional blackmail more potent. Children are often kidnapped. These are usually from poor families.

This time an educated couple is in the forefront. The mother who worked for a multinational company returned home to find her son missing. The nanny audaciously told her that he too was out on work. For three weeks this had been going on. Several questions need to be raised about the work culture and careerism. I don’t see why a woman has to give up everything once a baby is born, but biologically a child needs the mother more at this stage. As long as women are the only ones who can reproduce – and for now we will leave out the experiments of pregnant men – then there is some responsibility to be shouldered. The father can attend to other chores, if a woman feels she does not want to be left with role-playing, but her duty is towards the baby. A man does not produce milk.

This lady had obviously weaned the infant away, but there are other dimensions. Why do cities that boast of getting ahead in life not have basic facilities? Can offices not have special baby rooms if they have rooms that lie vacant for weeks until there is some special conference? Why are there not enough crèches run by accredited organisations that will take responsibility?

Nuclear families are important because it helps new families grow up. However, I am sure a parent of the parents or a relative would be happy to help. Since there is a lot of movement to other cities, it is possible that no family members is around. I am afraid this won’t appeal to a one-track feminist mind but I think the woman can take a few months off or work from home. In this information age where you rarely meet people, it is not a far-fetched idea. When the child is slightly older the father can swap roles to make things on par, if it is of such importance, though I wonder how women who cannot trust men with their kitchens, would trust them with a baby…

This couple is moving abroad, and it must have been planned earlier. They are not filing a police case and want to remain anonymous. I can understand their hesitation. But one nanny losing a job from one organisation won’t solve the issue. I dread to think what would happen had the child been a girl. This is not to say that a boy cannot be abused sexually. A girl is just so much more vulnerable.

A seven-month old has been the victim not only of a greedy nanny but of the new social mores that have canonised go-getting. The couple too is a victim. We all are and the only way out is to out our rusting new ideas.