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:

Celebrities, Crimes and Media Manipulation

The media flip-flop is far worse than the fresh evidence that is presented in a couple of prominent cases.

Shiney Ahuja and his wife Anupam are reliving the trauma in glossy paper with sepia-toned photographs tracing their happy life that has been mucked up because a maid cried rape.

Today, the media is recording these beautiful moments but holding back on committing because they say the case is sub judice; the ‘victimised’ say it is sub judice. Then, how are they being featured all over the place and, in fact, influencing public opinion?

Shiney-Anupam

If the “hard evidence” was ignored, then did the media report on that? The forensic lab is “unreliable”, so the DNA results are false. The cops did not ask for the phone call records, and the maid was talking on the phone when the rape occurred. Her hair and clothes were apparently not dishevelled as stated because the CCTV images show her hair neatly tied up and her dupatta pinned.

So, who is at fault here? The investigating agencies? The doctors? Why did these questions not arise earlier? If the samples have supposedly disappeared now, then who is to blame? The issue is beyond proving innocence.

The more important question is about motive. Why would the maid want to implicate Shiney Ahuja? Because it was one-sided love and she asked him to confess a day before the supposed crime took place? Then she comes to work in underwear with old blood stains and around the time when she claims to be raped she calls up an acquaintance? The neighbours take her to the police station while their maid who has got her this job waits for her downstairs where the cameras reveal that her gait is perfect? The neighbours were not on talking terms with Shiney.

So, are the neighbours culpable? Is the other maid culpable?

The Times of India in its 'view' has this to say after giving us a long report:

Actor Shiney Ahuja’s wife, Anupam, has made startling disclosures about the rape charges that were made against her husband. She has cited strong evidence in Shiney’s favour and has claimed that this evidence was ignored by the court. But since the matter is still in court, we will not comment on the evidence. But we can’t help draw attention to the fact that the actor spent 110 days in jail and his career was disrupted. If he turns out to be innocent, he has already been unfairly punished. False charges of sexual abuse and rape against celebrities are not uncommon. The legal system needs to guard against media hype in such cases and deal clinically with the facts.

If the initial trial was fasttracked, then the actor’s appeal should also be speeded up through the system. It would be a shame if he had to unfairly live with a guilty tag and have his career ruined due to judicial delay.

This is trying to force collective guilt on the public. Shiney Ahuja was not such a big celebrity. His fame has increased after this case. It is precious that TOI talks about guarding against media hype when it was a frontrunner in this business and continues to be. Just to jog memory, two other women did accuse Shiney of inappropriate behaviour. Are these just sound bytes for a vulture media?

The same media that is now giving us details about how his wife, when she was away, broke her karva chauth vrat (women fasting for the husband's long life) via webcam with him is now wondering that the maid used the term atyaachaar, which could mean any sort of torture. So, what was the atyaachaar? That he did not reciprocate her love? Does she recall saying in June 2009, “Rape is a very heinous crime and in today’s time it can be committed not just by a man. Even a woman can do it and we all know”? What validity does it now have when the argument is against rape itself?

Does the media ask for fast-track justice in non-celebrity cases? I would like to know how many cases against celebrities have come before the courts? What happened to the sting operation against actor Shakti Kapoor? He was invited on panel discussions and is spoofed on comedy shows where he also appears as a judge. Is there not the possibility of a flip side where the victim is silenced because of the so-called clout of the perpetrator? Abroad many of these women squeal and make a neat packet, so such misuse of celebrity is common.

Jerome, Neeraj, Maria

This brings us to that other case. Did Neeraj Grover, creative head of an entertainment channel. demand a pound of flesh from Maria Susairaj, an aspiring actress? Or did she willingly have an affair with him? Then, what snapped? Grover was killed; his body cut up in small bits and burned and then dumped in the Manor jungles just outside Mumbai. Maria and her fiancé Emile Jerome, a naval officer, were implicated. It was said then that they made love right there after they had chopped the body and even went out for dinner.

Now, they have different lawyers and are trying their best to protect themselves. Maria’s lawyer, after three years, claims that she is still a virgin and could not be in a physical relationship with Neeraj. Is that the pivot of the argument when 48 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution?

The mall where she went to pick up three sports bags and a knife had the recordings. The cops are being blamed for not noticing the knife earlier and in fact are being accused of planting it there.

I fail to understand what the police get out of framing people in such crimes because Maria had admitted to the murder. She says it is because her siblings were being held and it was a forced confession. Jerome’s lawyer says no one checked if Neeraj was still alive when he arrived from Kochi.

There are several legal loopholes that can be used. If the media wants to give the benefit of doubt to people who are implicated in dastardly crimes, then it should not follow the trail in a vicarious manner to start with. The verdict will be pronounced in both these cases. Irrespective of the outcome, the motives for the accusation or the crime remain unresolved.

Neeraj is dead. Why don’t they talk about a young life being snuffed out? And what about the maid in the Shiney Ahuja case? You won’t see her in the pages of Bombay Times at a party like Shiney did with his wife soon after he got bail. Why is she not being interviewed? In some ways, she is already seen as the guilty party and, fast-track or no fast-track, her life has been derailed forever.

Rape: Beyond Shiney Ahuja

Actor Shiney Ahuja gets seven years rigorous imprisonment for raping his maid. I am surprised that even now there are people who are claiming his innocence when the judges too refused to accept the maid’s later turning hostile. They have evidence and the DNA samples match. Why is no one concerned that victims can be forced to backtrack, especially in such cases?

And let us not get into the ‘he is being made an example of’ argument. He never was in a position where his example would stand out.

My views have already been clearly expressed in Taking the shiney off him. Someone had wanted to know what I - a "man hater" - would say if he was proved innocent. My position would not change on the subject of rape, even if this case goes in further appeal. But it only shows how insensitive we are and the bizarre nature of social talk.

There is a spurt of articles about abuse of domestic helpers. This is not a new phenomenon. It has been going on, but only now these cases are highlighted. Just talk to the girls and women working in homes or even the hawkers. Some used to give in because of money; some to keep the job. Shiney’s wife had the audacity to call it a honey-trap.

Even more distressing are news reports that mention how youngsters are exploited in places that are supposed to protect them. Remand homes and homes for the destitute are known to send these girls and boys to keep people happy. Imagine a situation where they are mentally or physically challenged. What sort of devious people can resort to such despicable acts?

The respectable person you might meet or have to meet in some office could be a trustee of such an organisation covered with the halo of concern and he might be among the first to take advantage of his situation. Will anyone speak up? Will anyone even know his identity, except for the equally respectable go-between who arranges it and needs to keep her/his respectability?

I have already discussed at length how religious figures abuse their situation. The widows of Vrindavan, having been shunned by their families, are made to shave their heads to appear unattractive. Does it stop the business of being targets of lust? No. It is a thriving industry and the women get nothing out of it. Nothing. For them it is life imprisonment.

Of course, India is all about family values. Scrape the surface and skeletons will stare at you, but we have blunted nails. Numb people.

Taking the shiney off him

"Hey, he is a good-looking guy. I have been dying to tell you about him."

"What?"

"He is a good actor, too."

"So what is the news about him?"

"Oh, he is involved in some rape case. Remember, you liked the film?"

"Yes. But how did this happen?"

"Dunno. His maid has accused him of rape."

- - -

This guy could have got anyone...wonder why he went for the maid."

"Hmm."

"People like that can just be shut up with a few bucks."

- - -

These are conversations between supposedly educated and intelligent people, the first initiated by a woman.

Shiney Ahuja, an actor with not much work to show, 'allegedly' (that's the term being used) raped his maid when no one was at home. He has said the sex was consensual. The cops have found injuries which suggest there was violence used. Also, she is 17-18 years old.

It may be inappropriate to damn him yet but to indulge in the kind of exchange above is rather sick.

His wife said at a press conference that he is innocent and it is a honey trap. This would be valid, if we want to push the argument, were the girl a wannabe starlet. And if Shiney Ahuja was someone in a position to make a difference to her career. Or if he was 18 and she was old enough to ensnare him.

Right now Shiney Ahuja has got a whole lot of mileage. The girl is unknown. So, what has she got out of it? If the motive is blackmail, how can she succeed at it after incriminating him? If he has been framed, then by whom and for what? It is okay to throw around these words but is there a basis?

Why are TV channels quoting the junta? One had the gumption to say that maids are always looking for sex. There is a limit to this citizen journalism and vigilantism. If the maid is using him then these people are misusing the situation.

There is some talk about how he is not a big enough celebirity like Salman Khan or Sanjay Dutt who also had other cases against them. This is puerile. Analogies are fine but does it take away from the possibility of ANY crime?

It is disgusting to see him get certificates based on him being a "disciplined actor" or an introvert or that he did not attend any non-work related parties.

Fact is, Shiney Ahuja is a celebrity today because he has been arrested on rape charges.

The law will decide. Meanwhile, I find it strange that in a case that is sub-judice the wife is permitted to call for a press conference.

I wish the maid's family had such access.

Even if they did, would anyone listen?

- - -

Updated on June 18:

Anupam Ahuja is calling her husband her ‘soulmate’, which is nice. But by asking whether anyone has seen the medical reports, she is casting aspersions on the doctors and the police.

And these are her words:

“Rape is a very heinous crime and in today’s time it can be committed not just by a man. Even a woman can do it and we all know.”

Technically, when a woman initiates it the term rape is not applied. I am shocked that some newspapers are giving examples of Demi Moore in the film Disclosure. That was a woman in a powerful position. I have already stated that there are cases where women can trap men and have. I would like to know if Mrs Ahuja would say the same thing about the men from low income groups who commit rape – would she still insist that the victim could have raped the man?

Has she ever talked with rape victims?

And if Shiney has never made a move on his co-stars, do remember that the consequences would be worse.

Here is one of those sympathetic letters in the paper today:

“I think Bollywood actor Shiney Ahuja is being targeted for all the wrong reasons. According to me few of the reasons are: He is not a Page 3 person, he does not dance at rich people’s weddings, he acts in sensible films like Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi, Woh Lamhe, etc. Only, he refuses to act in films that don’t go off the beaten path. He does not make appearances on reality shows etc. and lastly, he is not a Khan.”

Acting in sensible films makes him non-culpable as a natural course? He is now a Page 3 person. He did a bit role in Fanaa, a mainstream film and the media is applauding him because apparently he agreed to do it because the character shared his father’s name. He is being touted as a proud son! What next?

What is happening now is a reality show. And trust me, his career is not over. It has only begun. Remember Fardeen Khan got into the news because he was caught with drugs and then started getting films. Shakti Kapoor was indicted in a sting operation for making advances at some woman. He was invited on debates in respected channels and his career went zooming up. So Shiney has plenty to look forward to.

We are a starved society willing to bite anything that barks.