Manufacturing the Greatest Indian

Do we know about who is the greatest Indian before Mahatma Gandhi?

It does not matter. We live in iconic times with iconic figure who did iconic things and deserve iconic status through iconic surveys. So, the question for a survey (TGI) “Based on an internationally acclaimed format by BBC held in 22 countries” is “Who is the greatest Indian after Mahatma Gandhi?” It is no surprise that it is a media-propped poll and “the initiative is to select that one great Indian after Mahatma Gandhi who is the most influential, iconic & inspirational and has impacted your life”.

There could be quite a few or perhaps none of the fifty names mentioned. But why is Gandhiji the cut-off date? I can understand the use of a term like “post-Independence”. If he is the benchmark, then what are the variables by which we are to judge industrialists, sportspersons, actors, scientists, musicians, activists or even politicians? Do they have to be ‘Gandhian’? If not, then does it not nullify the yardstick of the chosen iconoclasm?

Besides, how do we define an Indian as great? Due to their origin or their contribution to what is the ‘essential’ India, and that may be far removed from those featured here?

Indira Gandhi

It is ironical that Indira Gandhi, who had declared Emergency, shares the space with Jayprakash Narayan, who bitterly opposed it and suffered for it? The acquisitive business people stand along with the ones who gave it all up.

Vinoba Bhave

How do we judge? Will the general pool reflect how people feel, and I am not taking into account those that cannot vote by giving a missed call.

The media partners will have a good time. They will be in charge of the decision-making process. Primetime and newsprint will bring you the ‘news’, and then there will be analyses. As for the token of the title, there will be comparisons and whoever makes it will in some way be given a Gandhian rubdown.

The India that existed and flourished in the past does not exist. The India where discoveries were made, art and literature flourished, and political strategy was as crucial as swordsmanship, that India does not exist in the finger-wagging and tapping world. How can they say your vote counts, when they have already decided on the broad spectrum of who matters?

The luminaries are pretty much great in their fields, but what was relevant in say the 50s does not apply to those who came in later. Is there no difference between scoring a hundred tons and working among lepers? Is there no qualitative difference between a Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and a Kanshi Ram? How does Atal Bihari Vajyapee feature for being loved by both admirers and opponents, when that is how politics works?

Achievements are now propped up by commercial interests as they were probably ideologically exaggerated in the old days. Today’s greatness rests on success; yesterday’s on making inroads.

Is Mahatma Gandhi in any way a unifying force? The symbolism of the name is, of course, canny marketing. But it leaves one wondering as to whether the greatest Indian – whoever she or he may be – will also be one who has been truly great for India. If so, then what aspect of India? Ask no questions. A pedestal awaits. Your vote will give you a chance to be part of the icon factory.

(c) Farzana Versey

Obama Talkin'

Mr. President why do you say you have a funny name?

“Well, they think so.”

How do you know?

“I mean the place where I was senator is called Illinois, so what do you expect?”

Then aren’t they the funny ones? Or shall we say 'ill' and 'annoy'ing?

“They are projecting.”

So, are you a Muslim?

“Moslem, Moslem, that’s how we say it here, with a zee sound and an ‘o’, like Mozambique.”

Were you born in Kenya?

“I would say that I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.”

It isn’t about your birth certificate but your roots.

“That would be Hawaii.”

Hawaii is a place, but your origin, your ancestry is more than that.

“Is it? I thought I talked about change. Change means getting out of the old.”

But you are still following Bush’s agenda. You are still in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Maybe it is the Muslim in you.

“Those are just rumours. I don’t believe that Pew Research Centre poll."

That 18 per cent Amercians think you are Muslim. What’s wrong with that?

“The facts are the facts. So, it’s not something that I can I think spend all my time worrying about. I don’t think the American people want me to spend all my time worrying about it.”

But you are tetchy about it.

“You know, there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly. We dealt with this when I was first running for the US senate. We dealt with it when we were first running for the Presidency.”

At that time you called yourself Barack Hussein Obama.

“I did?”

Yes. You even swot a fly in a TV studio.

“Yeah, that must have been a conspiracy. Like this survey.”

There will be several factors that surveys may throw up; that you like broccoli, you look good without your shirt on, you need to get out of Afghanistan. These are a part of your identity. So why does that 18 percent make you dodgy?

“If I spend all my time chasing after that then I wouldn’t get much done.”

All those drones to be managed. Swimming along the Gulf Coast. You are indeed a busy man.

“Yeah, it ain’t easy bicycling in Martha’s vineyard, too.”

I can imagine. Not when they think you know Martha.

What's up, dork?

I prefer Woody Allen to George Clooney, but not because he would treat me like a babe in the geek-woods. I like the language – cinematic and verbal – that he employs. Clooney comes across as rather complacently confident.

While I am aware he won’t be devastated by this little snub and Allen is unlikely to be flattered, I am on the case of one more study that decides on the basis of what 3000 women say that women love guys who can fix things rather than those who spend hours at the gym.

Obviously, it is a partisan survey because it was conducted by the 24/7 technology support service Geek Squad. They say:

“These results will be a blow for the millions of men who workout in a bid to appear more attractive to the opposite sex.”

Most men are not working out to be more attractive to women but to compete with their peers. No one notices if James Bond is with dumbbells, but he exudes power and can also fix things. Yet, except for his rather unemotional alliances, he is more a man’s man.

The survey results state that women prefer a man who can help sort out the TV, stereo, and home computer. This makes quite a few of them feel cared for.

I find it rather chauvinistic, this aura of dependency. It ignores the fact that a woman can hire help for such tasks if they cannot fix things themselves. I admit I cannot, but when I give the gadget a nice male punch it often starts crackling back to life. However, there are women who can do such things with finesse and expertise.

It also belittles the male by slotting him as a mechanic. Fixing things might be skilled labour, but it does not denote intelligence as a natural consequence. And can a woman not feel cared for if a man just carries her shopping bags, has a few muscles, and woos her with limericks? Besides, a man who takes care of himself is not always about abs and biceps but just basic hygiene and neatness.

The dork who does not care if his toenails are fungus-ridden and smells of yesterday’s pizza crumbs would hardly convey the impression that he can care for anyone. Except perhaps that computer virus.

My iPhone’s got a headache

It has been almost two years since I bought this sleek thing. I should have been up there, chalking up 12.3 sex partners. Clearly, my iPhone has a problem. It ain’t me, babe.

In what has been described as an unscientific but fun study, it was claimed that iPhone users have more fun than other smart phone users. And it was the women who managed that figure of 12.3. I understand simple figures, preferably full; on a bad day half would do. But what is ‘.3’? Is it one- third of a man? Probably the iPhone manages to attract just this much in the 13th potential target. I am just guessing. Women, unless they are on the phone, usually prefer to put it away in their bags. Depending on the trend and the choice any woman exercises, the level of the bag could be from somewhere near her waist to her hips; if she is using a short-handle one it might skirt her knee, and if it is a clutch then it would brush against her thigh. The third part of the man that gets enamoured would have to be in that range.

Is that a hit? Does not some level of attraction start from the top? Do these phones naturally give out vibes, irrespective of where they are?

Come to think of it, this could be quite serious. When I first went to buy the phone it was raining that September day as I, with much trepidation, entered the service provider’s store. They said it was ‘out of stock’.

“Oh, really? I have already called your head office and they have directed me to this place. Hang on, let me call.” I called someone and told her that I was a loyal client and they had promises to keep.

I think someone liked Robert Frost. They asked me if I could wait, it might take long.

While I waited, not like regular folks on those fake happy-looking red benches, but at the desk of one of the executives, I kept fidgeting with what now seemed like an antique handset. Thoroughly bored, I turned around and found a rather large man watch bemusedly at what must have been my huge handbag.

“You are waiting for an iPhone?” he asked in a heavy American accent from a posh expat mouth.

He told me the story of his iPhone and how the screen had frozen. “You must be a Mac person,” he said.

I had never seen a Mac, let alone used it then. But it seemed that to be an iPhone person you had to be a Mac person; not just a Mac person, but an Apple person, for he went into a detailed discussion about Apple. I kept ‘hmming’ with interest. I can sometimes look quite intelligent, so it helps.

Impatient as I was, I was already being initiated into the sexual rites of possessing an iPhone. He decided to give me a tip. “When you touch the keypad don’t let your thumb hit the key, just touch it above the letter. Gently.”

The guy who brought me the black box did not look like he could be gentle with anything. I asked for the instruction manual. “No, it’s all there.”

“Where?” I asked.

He shook his head. My saviour had gone into some secret dungeon to see if his phone had thawed. I discovered that smart phones don’t need manuals; they need men.

I departed carrying what I thought was just a spiffier version of a cell phone. Little did I know that I had been given one with no sex appeal. All it ever did was dial numbers only because I had touched it at the wrong place; it slipped from my hands, which made it mandatory for me to use a cover. Oh, it’s a dominatrix leather one, make no mistake, with a strap, a button and even a steel ring that could pass off as a handcuff. I guess all this was subliminal.

It was happening without any attempt on my part. A lot more was supposed to happen, and it did not.

So, what is it about the iPhone that the Blackberry and the Android do not have? They are smart; they can connect you to anyone anytime. And I was in fact planning to buy a Blackberry. Did my iPhone realise it was the second choice and therefore decided I did not deserve to be imbued with special magnetism?

If this survey is just a flippant foray into gizmo territory, then think about another one a year ago. It wasn’t even a poll; it was an analysis by Strand Consult who don't think we, the users, are particularly smart:

"When we examine the iPhone users' arguments defending the iPhone, it reminds us of the famous Stockholm Syndrome--a term invented by psychologists after a hostage drama in Stockholm. Here, hostages reacted to the psychological pressure they were experiencing by defending the people that had held them hostage for six days."

I have never defended the iPhone; if anything, it has to make excuses for me. I don’t even use it well enough and I have not upgraded it. So, where is this hostage drama? I like it because it does some things and don’t because it does not. This bunch of consultants has the audacity to declare:

"In reality, the iPhone is surrounded by a multitude of people, media, and companies that are happy to bend the truth to defend the product they have purchased from Apple."

I purchased it from my phone company. It did not matter whether Apple or Pears had produced it. There is no need to bend the truth for no one cares about what I have in my hand as I breathe into the phone while talking to them. I use the camera a lot and it accidentally creates the most amazing pictures. And until I tell anyone, no one will know how just a little shake of its booty can produce art.

If I get something that I like more, I will go for it. I am not into smart phones, really. But I would take one-third of Steve Jobs, if only my iPhone did what it was supposed to do.