Ghalib Guru and the Media Circus

Should the son of a man considered a terrorist be feted for scoring 95 per cent marks and topping the 10th board exams? 

Afzal Guru is now legend. He was hanged to death for his supposed role in the 2001 Parliament attack. He was an educated man. His son Ghalib, named after the poet, seems to be academically inclined too. He is now in the news. Mainstream newspapers are doing profiles on him. Are they, in the process, already profiling him as the heir? 

This is my concern. It is not in the same league as sensationalists glorifying a criminal for copy. In this case, the young man is being pinned against a wall on which they've already stuck his father's posters. It is not Ghalib the media is interested in, but the ghost of Afzal Guru.

Probably the worst line of questioning came from The Times of India. Sagarika Ghose starts with these words:

"The Pathankot attackers said they wanted revenge for the hanging of Afzal Guru; and in the Kashmir valley, Afzal Guru's "martyrdom" has becoming a rallying cry in the valley. But Afzal Guru's 17-year-old son Ghalib Abdul Guru says he has nothing to do with the azaadi (freedom) sentiment and wants to become a doctor and study at AIIMS."

This is such a cheap shot. By including the recent attacks in Pathankot, the interviewer is updating Ghalib's profile. There are many doctors, who have studied at prime institutes, who continue to believe in azaadi. The two are not at odds. 

The interrogation is sneaky with the subject being given key queries from which there is no escape. Since this is not a Q&A format, the inquisitor can get away. 

Ghalib is indirectly quoted as saying he wanted to get an MBBS "just like his dad" (interviewer's words). This is followed with:

"I used to meet dad in prison. The Crime Patrol told me he had done something bad and had hurt some people that's why he was in jail. When I met him he used to tell me to study hard all the time and do well at my studies, to look after my mother and read the Quran."

Isn't it clear what is going on here? The boy is being prodded to talk about his father. This guy is happy with his marks and a journalist goes on hammering him not about aspirations and how the young in Kashmir think, but about Afzal Guru. 

What are his memories of his father? "I don't remember him very well. All I remember is he used to always stay with his books, always reading and studying. He used to tell me to do the same. He used to say everything is in the hands of the Almighty. Whatever is written in your naseeb (fate), that's what will happen."

This gives Ms. Ghose another chance to pounce with, "So is Ghalib also religious?" Not "is Ghalib religious?" but "also religious". Like his father, like the man who he seems to be following, from medical practice to the Quran? This is what the media likes to build up. 

When he says, "I want to work in Kashmir because there is a shortage of doctors here. I wanted to also join the IAS, but my family was against that", the brave questioner has nothing to ask or say. No comment on how the youth of Kashmir wanting to contribute to it is more mainstream than some weird idea of allegiance to the nation. 

It is pertinent to note that he wanted to join the Indian Administrative Services, but his family opposed it. Many young people start out with naïve dreams, but the past returns. It is not what they inherit but that history does repeat itself in circles of deceit.

Towards the end of the interview, we get this:

What does he think about the Pathankot attack where the attackers claimed they wanted to avenge the death of his father? "I don't know much about that. People should not try to harm others. But yes if the Indian government has done something wrong then they will be punished.

And does he agree with the azaadi sentiment? "I don't think about that. I stay with my studies and my work. I work very hard as that's what my mother tells me."

I do not expect a 17-year-old not to be politicised, especially one who is surrounded by politics, and who has to bear the burden of being the son of a shaheed. But why should he be dragged into such indirect battles when the media claims it is celebrating his 94% achievement? To end the interview in this manner seems to be projecting a future martyr. 

A reader left this comment at the end of the piece:

Why are U championing the son of a terrorist as if he is some great Yuga Purusha? There are countless children of soldiers who excel in their studies and career. Why dont U feature them? For all that U know, this son of a 3rd rated terrorist and traitor would still be supporting his father and his philosophy of Jehaad and may be nursing a feeling of revenge towards the nation for the hanging of his father...

This is how deviously some liberals work. They seem to 'champion' a cause, so that it plays right into the hands of patriots frothing at the mouth. The reason they do not feature the children of soldiers or others is because the real aim is to highlight jihad, draw people out so that others perceive it the way this reader has. (Note the last sentence here and of the second last para of Ghalib's interview.)

Such binaries emanate from their own comatose perceptions to benefit only themselves. 

In Conversation: India and Pakistan

Often, the most meaningful things are said in the simplest manner. One must, therefore, appreciate this effort to get Indians and Pakistanis to talk. The premise is basic – we have phones, they have phones, so telephone. I warmed to it immediately.

But, will this bring people on both sides (we are not even speaking about the two nations) closer together? This was a ‘controlled’ atmosphere, and even if comments were not censored it was understood that the conversation was to be light. What we see is one reality – the coffee shop or corner store one. The young even on campuses are politically aware and most certainly come with a bagful of stereotypes about the other. It does not negate the awareness about Bollywood, cricket, or food. Yet, all of these can be politicised on the day there is a clash of films, a match or a culinary competition.

Take that delightful moment when the Indian girl asks her ‘friend’ in Pakistan, “Do you like Salman Khan?” and the latter replies, “No. Why?”, the Indian says, “Then we can talk!” It is humorous, but in the subtlety is embedded conditionality. Or, the fact that the Pakistani is portrayed as thinking he holds on to a deep, dark secret for being a fan of Sharukh Khan.

The makers have also matched the profiles of the people they partnered, dude with dude, accent with accent; in a way it helps to bring out the commonalities but it also conveys that communication is limited to ‘people like us’.

It was cute when the Indian girl speaking to a Pakistani who wants to visit Jaipur tells her, “Main bol deti hoon inse (I’ll tell them to do something)”. Or, when the Pakistani young man asks the Indian when he will visit Pakistan and he says, “Sir, aap mereko visa bhejo tau main nikal jaoon abhi kal ka kal (if you send me a visa I am ready to leave rightaway).”

This is all tongue-in-cheek swagger, which makes it an astonishing little outing. In fact, after having written these couple of paras, I am feeling guilty for nitpicking. This is what charm offensives do!

Love it…just don’t take it as the whole truth:

How He Turned The Tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

If you are looking for a parody or, more appropriately, a lame attempt at humour, then please skip this.

Rahul Gandhi may not be a great subject for a television interview, he may not even turn out to be a good political leader, but on the much-touted first-ever interview in 10 years (he clarified on camera that this was not the first, but the first formal one!) he did exactly what he set out to do. Say his piece. What seemed like repetition, if not ducking, was a strategy he adopted to bludgeon the inquisitor softly, if not tire him out.

Some in the media have dubbed this a Rahul vs. Arnab fight. I am amazed at the ignorance. No one, I repeat no one, in the higher echelons of power will give such a big interview without vetting the queries. Therefore, Rahul Gandhi must certainly have been aware of what Arnab Goswami (AG) would ask. If AG added specific queries later, then isn’t it funny that at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear and RG says “You can draw me back as much as you want” but would he be okay if he took a broader look? Think about it. Besides, it does not take rocket science (ahem, those Bharat Nirman ads) to figure out what the nation as filtered by the media would want to know. As he said:

"I have done a little media interaction, prior to this. I have done press conferences & spoken to the media. But mainly bulk of my focus has been on internal party work and that's where I have been concentrating, that is where most of my energy was going."

In the latter half I will reproduce some salient points, with quick notes.

First, the minutiae: This was not a live interview; it was conducted at Jawahar Bhavan; it lasted for a little under 90 minutes. According to The Telegraph:

But sources said the Congress leadership wanted to ensure that Rahul’s “outing” should be with a journalist who has a reputation for being unsparing. An off-the-record session between Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Goswami, over pakoras and tea, also helped pave the ground for the interview, the sources said.

It just so happens that those who are building up this “unsparing” interviewer have rather short or selective memories. Some of us do recall his almost obsequious questioning of Bal Thackeray; even Raj Thackeray has managed to stand firm. So, let us not create heroes only because we need to look down on certain people.

Let us talk about some problem areas.

Why was RG not being specific?

Why should he? He will do so in his speeches when he addresses the nation, not for revenue-run TRP-driven media. Has Times Now donated to the Congress Party’s election campaign? Is there a quid pro quo? No.

Arnab did his business of mentioning names – as the tagline of his show states – and Rahul spoke about the issue. Yes, the issues are more important. It is the system that deals with individual offenders. If he took the names, or repeated them after AG, he would be a bloody stupid politician and VP of his party.

Why did he not take the Modi bait?

This was by far the best thing Rahul could have done. He treated Narendra Modi as just another guy. The persistent questioning about whether he would agree to a debate with the Gujarat CM elicited what I thought was a perfect clincher: “The debate is already going on.” This effectively took the battle to where it belongs – outside the TV studios.

Why did he not apologise for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984?

What would he achieve by doing so? Get brownie points from the viewers and a pat on the back from the media, with Times going berserk by claiming that it was their channel that brought about this major penance? The PM and Sonia Gandhi have both apologised, and if RG has to do so it needs to be done to the people who are waiting for justice.

Why did he not come clean about his degrees?

Here you have an anchor who has netted a huge catch, and he is quoting a shark lapping in the shallows. Arnab brought in Subramanian Swamy to put RG on the mat regarding his educational qualifications. With all his Ivy League credentials, Swamy comes across as an uncouth man. Besides, how is it important? This Oxford-Cambridge showing off might appeal to the urban upper middle class, not the majority of the population.

Has anybody bothered to check for how long exactly Modi ran a tea stall that he is using as his new USP? Is there any evidence of it?

Why did he not commit on the Aam Aadmi Party?

Simple. The AAP is not one that sticks to its own word, so how can anybody else? Here is one bit from the interview

Arnab: Are you using the AAP to split the Anti Congress vote bank, to keep Mr. Modi out of power
Rahul: You are implying that we have brought the AAP...

This was really giving it to those ones in the politest of tones.

Why did he keep repeating about RTI, empowerment of women, the system?

Because these are crucial subjects, though they don’t sound terribly sexy. Indeed, he used these terms to also answer unrelated queries, but as I said at the beginning, he was here to say his piece.

We have got so accustomed in the past few months to war cry rallies and dharnas that someone who comes across as vulnerable, yet refusing to fall prey, is not easy to accept. Calling Rahul Gandhi a fool might prove to be our biggest fallacy.

Here is how he answered some of the questions, from Modi to being attacked, and why moving off-track sometimes seemed to be just the right move:

Ageism as monstrosity

Why is old age fit enough to be a Halloween costume? Heidi Klum chose to dress up as one for the annual party. As Jezebel reported, "She's honestly unrecognizable — look at the fake veins on her legs and hands. She must be wearing fake skin over her skin, like a festive version of Necromancer pants."

These pants are made of human skin. We won't go there now, but Halloween is supposed to commemorate the dead, martyrs and loved ones who have left. What message does this 'costume' convey? To begin with, it does not look like a costume. It is realistic. It makes it appear that the end is near for old age, and the body must be ravaged and sag and wrinkle.

As an international supermodel who has seen a lot of cosmetic intervention around her, Heidi ought to know that this is not how old age always looks. I am not against the fact that this could be the natural consequence, and there is nothing to be squeamish about it. But for Halloween — when everybody wants to do a make-believe? Had she chosen a gothic version, it would have been more than fine. This, however, is eerily reminiscent of the real, and it does not appear to be granted the respect it deserves.

There seems to be a whole attitude towards ageism that props up not just the Botox industry, but more damagingly the thought process. Youth, irrespective of maturity, is seen as the final authority, the mantle-wearers, the shining knights and primped up goddesses.

Had these fake veins been real they'd hurt like hell. Fantasy reduces them to a caricature.

© Farzana Versey

---

I had written about how Halloween made me Somebody Else

Meat, Drink and Judging Vivekananda

Would the young give up the occasional tipple and their cuisine choices only because of a leader? Does a leader who comes with a moral baggage — and selective at that — truly appeal to the youth? On the other hand, if the leader were given to some of these indulgences would the young be influenced by it, or is it something they are anyway attracted to?

Today, as one 'youth icon' Modi turns 64 (what happens when the youth grow older — do they discard these icons and refer to them as "senile" as some middle-aged folk have been doing about another leader?) — my thoughts turn to how self-righteousness plays itself out for political gain.

Last week, Shashi Tharoor was at the inauguration of a statue of Swami Vivekananda. BJP Kerala state president V Muraleedharan who was present stated:

“The union minister said that Vivekananda’s legacy cannot be appropriated by a particular section or group and went on to add that the monk used to eat meat and drink occasionally.”

Swami Vivekananda is now one of those sages that the rightwing is trying to claim as its own. He did have what may broadly be called a 'Hindu view of life', but it was certainly not a narrow divisive vision.

Tharoor often speaks before thinking, but this time, even if it is political expediency, he was merely trying to throw a spanner in the Hindutva works. In a fashion followed by the saffron parties, he was humanising Vivekananda, and there is much of that in his persona.

It was enough to create a controversy. BJP leader O. Rajagopal made what The Hindu refers to as "a frontal attack on Shashi Tharoor" (what could be the other option?) and demanded an unconditional apology. As the report mentions how this tale was spun:

Being a Bengali belonging to the Kayastha caste, Vivekananda may have had fish and even meat, but there was no reference of him ever having taken liquor.

His remarks hurt national sentiments and showed that Dr. Tharoor was still rooted in American culture and lifestyle. His remark that Vivekananda took to drinks was especially objectionable when campaigns are being launched to wean away the youth from liquor.

I should assume that these keepers of our palate culture will have no problem if Bengalis and other communities continue to eat what they want, and they do not have to follow state diktats on such habits.

Regarding drinks, it is not only the youth that needs to be weaned away. Kerala consumes a whole lot of alcohol; in many places elsewhere too the poor drink cheap country liquor that often results in death. This ought to be of concern and not whether it is a western lifestyle that some youth emulate. These young people are more likely to follow contemporary heroes than Swami Vivekananda, especially in their lifestyle choices. If the legacy of the Swami has any currency it will survive an occasional hic.

But that is not what certain parties want. They have no foot to stand on, so they recall saintly figures from the past and prop them up as engineers of some purification process. This only means that contemporary leaders are devoid of any good qualities that the youth can look up to. Swami Vivekananda is the new flag-bearer of this flushing.

The leader quoted in another report even said that "Tharoor has depicted him as an alcoholic". There is a difference between somebody having a few drinks and being an alcoholic.

It is clear that some of those who are sober can't hold their 'drinks' and in the stupor they find a little bit of trendy morality.

"Above all, beware of compromises. I do not mean that you are to get into antagonism with anybody, but you have to hold on to your own principles in weal or woe and never adjust them to others “fads” thought the greed of getting supporters." - Vivekananda

© Farzana Versey

---

Image: A young Swami Vivekananda

Front page rage

There was a knock on the door. A young man stood there assuring me, “Don’t worry, I am not selling anything”. Great. So, why was he here?

“I am a working professional.” He paused, waiting for the information to sink into what he might have perceived as the pyjama-clad brain. I played along with the “pressure-cooker is about to whistle” harried look, although the whistling part can be deemed misogynistic. He smiled. “Actually, a few of us are trying to do something.” I twiddled my thumb, just to underscore how important he was.

“You know there are so many senior citizens hanging around…”

The shock on my face had no impact on his terminology. The smile was still in place. “We want to do something.”

“Like what?” I finally broke my silence.

“Oh, we will collect funds.”

And he said he was not selling anything? Of course, I was not going to help his part-time activist and fulltime arrogance. Who the hell has given these people the right to land up at our houses, and assume that we are not aware and do not ‘do anything’? Only because he was dressed well, “cool” really, the watchman allowed him in and did not even alert me on the intercom. The youth movement has figured out that you send your smart men and women and they will be acceptable.

This was not the first time. What I was perturbed about is this fellow telling me about what happens in my locality (senior citizens don’t hang around, and they are not looking to be fed) without giving any information about himself and those “few people” who have decided to save others. I had no inclination for a conversation, pissed off as I am with this neo-activism everywhere. But, who are these people? What organisations back them? How do they disburse the funds, and who is accountable for all this? If at all they want to approach people, they ought to first provide this information in writing.

And, no, don’t come anywhere near my door. For, as far as I am concerned, you need to be saved from your delusions.

---

Speaking of which, The Times of India today had a front page story with the headline: “Bikers harass fashion stylist in auto at Malad”. The unnamed stylist did not go to the police to register a complaint against these men who passed lewd comments, but she allowed her friend to post the picture she took of these guys on her cellphone.

It is sad I even have to write a disclaimer to say that obviously I do not condone such acts by these louts. But here, I have said it, so can we move on to some questions?

How does this qualify as a front page story? If it bothered her – and it would – why did she not go to the cops? If they do trace these men after seeing the photograph, on what grounds can they take action based on some newspaper report by an anonymous person? It is also interesting that she noted that one of the guys was wearing a “BMC uniform”. Being a municipal worker as opposed to her stylist profession obviously makes the story more palatable to the urban youth.

The story continued on the inside page with snippets from the social media. One word leaped out: pepper spray. Women need to get out of the house with pepper sprays. Why this sudden interest? A few days ago, DNA carried a report about a social worker-socialite who wanted to donate pepper spray cans. Clearly the target was the slick urban young women who could fit it like a lipstick in their bags. The samaritan had decided to name it after herself, and added that having spoken to some people they were willing to pay for it. So, it could turn out into another business venture?

If women wish, they can just add some water to pepper powder and fill aerosol spray bottles with it. There is no need to market it. Women in Delhi two decades ago used to wear ‘porcupine’ clips in their hair to ward off men in public transport. In other cities too similar methods have been employed by women when they could. While women need legal protection and security, let us see it as a necessity and not buy into this culture of paranoia.

The lewd comment story must have gained enough mileage. The TOI, after giving it front page importance, had another report on Page 6: “Father strips, assaults 15-year-old girl, held”. It had about four short paras. No rage. The man is an alcoholic and unemployed. His wife does odd jobs. They do not figure in the elite concern. Whistling men on bikes get us more agitated.

Curiously, the same paper carried this on Page 12:

Same paper, same day, a senior woman editor wrote an Op-ed titled, “Don’t Make Her Lose Her Face”…the subhead: “Because the raped woman isn’t the one who has to be ashamed”. Oh, get over it already. You say don’t make her lose face, as though she cannot decide on her face and everything else, and then add this “ashamed” bit, like an afterthought. It just sounds horrible, because we are taking over and deciding not to shame her.

---

Shame is having a good time. Asaram Bapu has finally been arrested and here are the two bits that are highlighted:

• He will be in the same cell as Salman Khan was in for hunting black bucks. 

In effect, the media is equating rape with such hunting and also giving this fraud godman celebrity status.

• That he passed the potency test on the first round.

He agreed to it despite initial reservations and then did so because he said that the body is only mortal. There is more than meets the eye. He has a huge number of followers, including women, who took to the streets to support him. A man in his 70s who comes out flying with flying colours in potency gets validation. After all, he is also a healer of sorts, so this is an advertisement for his prowess. His superhuman qualities.

The only thing that is always impotent is rage.

©Farzana Versey

---

Also: Re-examining sexual violation - Asaram Bapu and five men

Tooth vs. Dentures: The Modi Bite

How do you deal with the hype? The answer is simple: You don't. It is already reaching saturation point. Having 7,200 "e-soldiers" is a sign of desperation. The Gujarat chief minister is looking for someone to head the minority cell, "but the BJP is finding it difficult to find a recognizable face to head its minority front in Gujarat". His soldiers who think the 2002 riots are old and it is time to 'move on' will never have the courage to come forth with a plea that Muslims need not vote for the party. If they did, then one might give them some credit for at least lack of hypocrisy regarding their persistent whining against vote bank politics.

I am often surprised at the naïveté of those who believe that the cyber world can win elections. This report in The Times of India gives us a few details about how it works:

"Try criticizing Gujarat CM Narendra Modi on social media and you will be ambushed by a cyber army. Praise him, and there will be hundreds joining the chorus...The sharp quips against Modi-baiters on the net are the coordinated effort of these youth, who use specialized software to add friends and ‘Likes’ to Modi pages on Facebook and Twitter and also send mass messages."

Getting urban youth is not difficult. Modi should give credit for this to Anna Hazare. His crusade brought out the Nike generation to embrace the Gandhi topi in the day and drown their new-found angst later in the usual haunts. Nothing has changed, except a new-found purpose that I have already talked about in the I Mislead India post.

So, he had a ready 'army', and it was not difficult to brainwash them into believing that all would be right and what was wrong was not the fault of Modi, but of those who were out to demonise him. The youth who were shouting for justice against rapists and scamsters have been silenced into believing in legalistic justice where foot soldiers take the blame and you need 'concrete evidence' to pin down leaders The dissent that they proudly claimed has been bought with a fake ideology. The recent history they are asked to forget is dragging them to the ancient past of Mughal conquerors. Irony cringes.

The group is incestuous and sharp, though. They will target novices with no known baggage. Try a red herring (RH) with them. They will not bite. The fear factor they use against others is really their own fear of any strong opinion. Watch them on TV shows and the moment they face an argument, the response is, "Look at you, you are getting nervous", even as they muffle their own nervous laughter. They cannot handle anyone who has a contrary viewpoint.

I have not come across a single person who is a Modi or a BJP person being critical of the way of functioning (no, L.K.Advani does not count!). If they cannot question anything, then how will they critique others? How different is it from the dynasty they abhor? It was this Narendra Modi Army that took out a morcha to Mr. Advani's house after he spoke out. Forget cohesiveness, it reveals bad taste and insecurity.

The electronic media has given way too much attention to these "Internet warriors". The unfortunate negative fallout is a response by the Congress camp of mimicking it. It ought not to be difficult. Prop up one individual, discuss achievements, rubbish the opposition. However, they have not been as successful. If the relatively secular forces (not just the Congress) have any sense they'd see that as a compliment,

They have a wider variety of supporters, not all creditable, but yet. They are not in denial mode about any of the riots during Congress rule. They are not in a desperate hurry to accept the words of disgruntled NDA allies, even if some politicians do. A Digvijaya Singh, a Sanjay Jha, an Abhishek Singhvi are often pulled up by their own even as they remain anti-BJP. One does not ever hear about any Modi bhakt criticising their spokespersons for speaking out of turn and, by Jove, they do.

In the superficial oneupmanship, where it is clear that the Modi army outnumbers, it is the loss of sensible debate.

Contrary to what the social media believes about the social media clout of the man, a war cannot be fought with invisible weapons and hydra- headed monsters with multiple accounts. This is an insult to the vast population of India. And it ought to be a lesson for every political party.

Ruling a country is not a hashtag you can latch on to. You can fool a few lakh followers — many talking to themselves — but not the millions.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also read: Advani and Modi:No Exit

Image source not available

Murdering a suicide: Jiah, Depression and Misogyny

Should a suicide case that has led to an arrest be decided in the media? Are lawyers permitted to discuss the possibility of a police case holding up in court or its outcome?

When actress Jiah Khan committed suicide, I did anticipate the electronic media rushing for sound bites and social networking sites transforming from RIP factories into warring camps. What I did not expect was the judgmental, callous attitude towards abuse and depression. Those who look down upon Bollywood were quick to jump in with their supposedly contrarian views.

I have desisted from commenting, but now I shall because all barriers have been broken. The first shocker came from Jiah's mother Rabiya. Her pain, anger and suspicion about who was responsible are understandable. I only felt that she should not have called a press conference. A police case had been registered. Jiah's boyfriend Suraj Pancholi was arrested.

Immediately, the experts — real and fake — passed their judgment: It was too hasty, they said, anyone can make such accusations. The accusations were in the form of a six-page letter written by Jiah

It really does not matter when she wrote it. Relationships grow over a period of time and spoil just as slowly.

The latest news is here:

Sooraj Pancholi, arrested for abetting actor Jiah Nafisa Khan's suicide, has allegedly confessed that he had beaten her up following a fight in Goa eight months ago, after which she slit her wrist. According to Juhu police, Sooraj has admitted to being in a live-in relationship with her. Police are contemplating adding additional charge under Section 498-A (harassment of a woman by husband or in-laws) of IPC. Police have also received the medical report from a Juhu hospital where Jiah, also known as Nafisa Khan, had undergone abortion.

I will only repeat the reasons these same lawyers gave about it being tough to pin him down — he has admitted to abuse and a live-in relationship. The law can recognise it as domestic violence.

It is time to visit a pathetic little post that was uploaded on Facebook by an intellectual of sorts. Let me add here, that he is not the only one who thinks this way, although his ‘courage' to stand out and be counted has been lauded. Seriously. Mahesh Murthy's note has made way into the Indiatimes website. It starts with a typical masala formula:

"So this note is likely to piss off many of you, but still...So it's the usual story. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, they are happy, then they break up. Then he sees someone else. At which point over-wrought girl decides her life isn't worth living. Seriously - this is a 25-year old who co-starred with Aamir Khan in a hit film and then later thinks her life is value-less without the continuing attention of some unemployed star-kid?! How the heck was she brought up? What kind of foolish adult mind thinks that someone else's attention is so important that her own life pales in comparison? How dare her parents blame her ex for this ridiculous state of mind? Who gave her these values where "death before losing in love" is a virtue?"

By beginning with a 'this contains adult content' type warning, he grabs eyeballs. He bases his thesis on assumptions about his boy-meets-girl thesis. Was Suraj an ex-boyfriend already? And since when has a young woman with one hit begun to be considered a success? She debuted with 'Nishabd', an unusual story about an April-December relationship. Her co-star was Amitabh Bachchan. The film flopped, partly because of its content. Later, she acted in 'Ghajini', where Aamir Khan hogged the show and she was the second lead.

Curiously, and I shall divert from the bilge here, director Mahesh Bhatt compared her situation with Parveen Babi's. Bhatt was in a relationship with the late actress and has been 'inspired' to make more than one film on her life. The first, 'Arth', had agitated her. She was successful, though, and together with Zeenat Aman, became the face of the 'modern' film heroine. She was also the first Indian movie star to appear on the cover of Time magazine. Her depression was severe, seeking solace in the Church, to the extent of complete isolation where her neighbours did not even see her. They had to break open the door to find her dead body.

Clinical depression is different from mood swings. These may have to do with personal loss or a sense of failure, but not always so.

To return to Murthy's questions about her upbringing, it is clear that he, like quite a few men, are filled with dread of dealing with "difficult" women. Has he ever met a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst to understand that people are not brought up to take their lives? When children commit suicide after failure in exams, do we read reams about 'How dare anyone blame the parents'? In fact, parents are never held culpable, although there is tremendous pressure from them on the kids.

At what point in that letter does he get the idea that Jiah thought taking her life was a "virtue" that her supposedly bad upbringing taught her? Would it be fair to ask why he is so concerned about the moral dimension? She lost self-esteem, and although she also lost her baby she was not pining for that loss. Indeed, she was obsessive, and enough to fall for an unemployed guy. (A small omission is that he was to be launched in Salman Khan's production.) But, what about him? There is not a word about his upbringing, and I raise it only because the other side is being rubbished.

Aditya Pancholi, the father, has had several affairs, is known for his public spats, and his wife, the older Zarina Wahab, had accepted his philandering. This is in the public domain. Although it is a choice between two people, if someone decides on pop psychology it might help addressing this as well.

"So she writes a latter (sic) saying she had an abortion when she got pregnant, presumably by him - again, no one told her about contraception? And even if they decided to forswear protection - it's his fault she got pregnant? Wasn't she equally part of it?"

This is such a load of rubbish, besides being libellous. Who is he to cast doubts about the parentage of the aborted child? Perhaps, his own obsession with "virtue" rears its head when he puts the onus of contraception on the woman. Her letter talks about him forcing her to abort, which is different from saying, "I did not want to have sex with you because I was not on the pill". Did he bother to ask why Suraj was not wearing a condom?

"So yes, she had an abortion, she set her mind to have him, but he moved on after they mutually broke up - but she wanted him back, and he said no, so she took her life?"

Oh, Sherlock Holmes decides they mutually decided to part. There is never a definitive moment when both people decide at the same time and with equal determination to go their separate ways. It may happen technically, but in this case they were meeting. And it is for the cops to decide whether they have a case. Why is he jumping the gun?

Part of the reason for this sort of thinking is insecurity, and it becomes evident soon enough:

"So what's a guy to do if he doesn't want to marry a girl? Or vice versa actually. Report to the cops when he's been proposed to? Take anticipatory bail before he says "No, I don't want to marry you"? Call the counselling lines so they make outbound calls to the partner in advance of him saying no?"

I do hope he has seen more of the world and couples who have broken up and moved on. Not everyone commits suicide. At this point I'd like to know what happens in cases of marriage. The law would immediately come into the picture. So, why can it not in an intimate relationship? Is it the good old "virtue" where a legitimate relationship has more value? Would he say the same about dowry deaths, wife battering, suspicious spouses, womanising all when a couple is married? He has said elsewhere he does not think much about the institution, yet he does not realise that intimate relationships mimic marriage more often than not.

His take on marriage sounds just like what he dismisses:

"In India, you don't need to be married to have a child legally. Or even to inherit and pass on property. Marriage is just a social custom where a bunch of old people shower rice on your head and believe they're giving you their permission (or direction, in some cases) to sleep with someone. As you can imagine, it has little or no legal necessity or significance."

The couple being discussed were not married. They did not seek anyone's permission to get intimate. And, again, why does he assume Jiah wanted the baby? Very conveniently, it makes it appear as though it would have been her responsibility. She did not pop the pill, remember?

In what he probably thinks is his philosophical contribution to this debate, he writes:

"No one grows up with a right to be loved. It's a privilege you earn for yourself. It doesn't come naturally. You earn it. And very often, love comes. And love goes. And love comes back. And goes again. And so on."

People are born with the right to life and to dignity. If either or both are abused, it can cause harm, physical and mental. Not everyone breaks down. And you cannot earn love. This is just too calculating a way to look at it. Of course, love does go and there is new love waiting. But there can be extreme situations.

It is stupid to believe that Jiah Khan lived for marriage. In fact, she wanted a career, until she fell in love and was abused, something her boyfriend has admitted to.

Acting as a PR agent for Suraj, he asks people to stop the "witch hunt", while himself hunting for prey.

"And let's stop glorifying suicide in the name of unrequited love."

Just as people have a choice over their bodies, they have a choice over their lives. It may be a wrong choice, just as getting into idiotic relationships is. It is not about glorifying anything. And it was not unrequited love. It could be that idea of love differ.

I would like to address the issue of depression. I've read celebrities and others discuss this case. It is assumed that women are more prone to it. It's time for a reality check. Many men suffer from bouts of depression. They are suicidal. How is jumping from the terrace of IIT more respectful of life? Is this not about rejection and despondency, too?

What has made some men so concerned about this particular suicide? Are they worried that their rejection will result in suicide and they'd be trapped? Unlikely. For there are many more examples of people who don't. The survival instinct of men can whiff out signs of trouble and they scoot. Men resort to emotional blackmail before getting into a relationship. It is to 'capture the booty'. Depending on how well they mesh, there is an attempt by women to aspire for an equitable equation.

And let us not forget that men too want marriage. They want their sperm to spread and 'create' the world. (There are men who are reluctant to use condoms even when they visit sex workers. Why? Because they will not return to haunt them?)

I will flip the coin. What if a desperate young man who is yet to prove himself in his career, woos a woman, loves her enough to live with her, but is tortured by the pressure to perform as well as his peers and in this state abuses the one he shares a close relationship with? She acts as a buffer against the outside world. He cannot flex his muscles outside, so he tries it within the four walls. There are the usual passive-aggressive moments.

So, who is the one who is sick?

Think about it. I really don't have the inclination to be glib and discuss marriage portals and Karan Johar films. Nor will I resort to the one-line tokenism of, oh, it is sad a life is lost or oh, I feel sorry for the poor guy but...

There will be ifs and buts in everything. Life is amorphous. It does not mean that we abuse what it meant to a woman we do not know.

© Farzana Versey

Who is a bad politician, Mr. Salman Khurshid?

When politicians do some introspection, they are planning to quit their party, or have got wind of being thrown out, or they have decided that a little bit of self-whipping adds a tragic edge to their persona, besides being trumpeted as “plain-speak”.

On Sunday, while addressing bureaucrats on Civil Services Day, Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid elaborated on the subject of 'Civil Services: Fit for the Future?' It was a ridiculously-worded subject, to begin with. Does it mean the services are unfit now, or that they will take over the future?

Let us take his words:

"We can make a civil servant fit but the big question is that how do we get fit politicians? It's my opinion that the electoral system we have is actually inclined to find the worst people for politics. Good people stay away from politics.”

The electoral system does not find politicians; it elects what is on offer. It is political parties that recruit members and then, depending on sycophancy, nepotism and, in rare cases, performance, they manage to get a ticket to political heaven.

As usual, the media started discussing the straightforward Mr. Khurshid, who is not quite the perfect politician himself. It turned out to be a smart move, then, for the FM. He was not critiquing political parties that are the root cause of the problem; he used an amorphous idea of politics with the good-bad moral masala to it. If good people are so important, then why are the ones that are proven to be bad allowed to remain in politics and hold important positions? We have criminals who are granted tickets and even contest from behind bars.

Besides, how does one define good people? Are they capable, are they honest, are they team players, are they individualistic? All these questions apply to any profession. Politics is not even seen as profession. You have businessmen, lawyers, doctors, journalists, film stars, armymen being welcomed. One does not appear to need any qualification other than to “serve the people”. Take a look at how portfolios are handed out. Does the industries minister know a thing about industries? Or, the civil aviation, education, environment ministers? These, as the others, would benefit from some knowledge, if not specialisation. Instead, those who are qualified end up in the Planning Commission or such mindless ‘bodies’.

I also have a problem with this ‘good people’ optimism that is floating around. It is clearly an attempt to get hold of the youth/citizens’ groups, assuming that because they are out in the streets fighting for a cause, their heart is in the right place. Goodness, apparently, is about such ‘heartfelt’ expressions.  

Mr. Khurshid chose a non-political platform, and would not dare name the bad politicians. His words were essentially to co-opt the bureaucrats:

"We stopped trusting each other. Both politicians and civil servants can make mistakes but now every mistake is seen as corruption. We need role models in civil servants and politicians for national renaissance.”

There! All those files and scams are now nothing about “good people”, but how every mistake by bureaucrats and politicians gets magnified as corruption. We do not need role models; we need people who can do their job. We do not need a renaissance; we need to clear the garbage.

There was a point when the minister seemed to have become a priest:

He said the idea of 'committed bureaucracy' in some states with civil servants owing allegiance to a particular party was an unwelcome thing and advised bureaucrats to say no to signing files under political pressure. When asked by a secretary-level officer in the audience that he would pay the price since there would be ten other bureaucrats ready to take his place and sign the file, Khurshid said: "Those ten civil servants will not be remembered in history...only that one will be remembered."

For the information on the ‘good’ minister, bureaucrats have a history of being independently corrupt. Mantralaya, and its equivalents in the states and the Centre, is the first stop for businessmen and others who want to get their work done. The “chai-paani” (a little bribe) phrase starts at the peon level and the “kaam ho jaayega” (the work will be done) is the final nod from the boss. This is where files do the good old in-out.

If it is a big ticket passing of orders, it needs government approval.  It does not matter to the bureaucrat who is in power, but who will make him powerful enough or be ignorant enough to ignore what happens. Mr. Khurshid wanted to make the civil servants feel empowered, but putting the onus on a ‘committed bureaucracy’ is like asking a guy to carry a condom in a whorehouse. It is only about saving one’s skin.

As regards history remembering a bureaucrat, the minister might like to take the names of a few. He will find that their achievements are about what they did for which leader. Perhaps, this whole exercise was to prop up one bureaucrat who became a politician and history will certainly remember – our dear Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

PS: It is worth noting that there is no Politicians Day.

© Farzana Versey

Diary from Raisina Hill: The voice of a 17-year-old

(This is a fictitious account that I would have written if I were young and at Delhi on this day) 

 

I live in Delhi and have already been to President’s house and Mughal Gardens. But yesterday, I heard my friends from college were going to protest. I know that girl got raped badly and is fighting for her life. How is the paper calling her ‘Nirbhaya’, fearless one? Don’t they understand she must have been so frightened at the time? It frightened me. I travel by bus. Papa wants me to become independent and not use the family car. My brother and sister are five and seven years older. I know the criminals should get punished forever. Why are police never around? And why are they calling it ‘Shame’. One lady even wrote that raping with penis is different from raping with iron rod. I find this shameless. Why are they calculating? I get angry with this.

Last night I sat to watch news on TV and chatted with Bhaiyya and Didi. I saw big crowds, people saying this is Tahrir Square and Tiananmen Square. Earlier they used to say we were like Singapore and Shanghai. I am getting confused. Then those cops brought out water cannons, put big yellow fences and even ran with lathis. The TV people said the students also threw stones and damaged property.

How do we know whether they were students? And from Delhi? I began to feel stupid that I was not there. They were saying this is voice of India. My voice was not there. Didi, Bhaiyya, Mummy, Papa, even our driver Sohanlal and maid Sumitra were not there. They are also India. How all these big actors become voices of India? Anchors were shouting that no one cares, that the President didn’t come out to meet these people. But who are these people? Why did Swami Ramdev want to come here? If he is concerned about rape, why does he not speak out against all those dirty acts in ashrams and madrassas and churches? Why does everybody want to take to the streets? Annaji, Arvindji, all fighting for the common man, but surrounded by famous people.

I read somewhere that those who don’t support the protest live in ivory towers. We live in Kalkaji. Both of my parents work. We went to good schools and colleges, but are taught the value of work. Didi did part-time voluntary work in an orphanage; she is now an intern at a government hospital. Bhaiyya is studying to be a lawyer, but he helps out at a friend’s CA firm. I wanted to be a journalist. Now I am not sure. The papers are full of stories I already saw on TV or read on social sites. If I join a TV channel, what will I do? Run from one place to another and get people to scream and shout and I will also scream and shout and feel important? Didi was giggling when she was looking at something on the computer. It was about Kanchan uncle and Barkha aunty, and who was on whose side at Raisina Hill. Everyone liked to say Raisina Hill. There is no hill there. Anyway, why should TV and media people be on anyone’s side and why should we, the people, have to be fed this ‘news’? If this is India’s voice then why are different news waalas talking different things about what should be one voice?

They are saying this is reporting from the ground, this is reality, we must get real. We who are not doing anything are elite types. How do they know the youngsters protesting are not from elite families? I know some who went there. They are very rich and many don’t even read papers. I saw their Facebook walls with photos from the site. I don’t want to lose their friendship and I wanted to click ‘like’, but what is there to like about someone running, some climbing electric poles? One dude even removed his shirt. He looked kewl and I like him. Am sure many girls will. He will become popular. Will that girl in the hospital bed know all this tamasha is for her? How will she feel? 

Our parents taught us to be careful. Now some aunty on YouTube was shouting (why are they always shouting? Is this what they mean by being voice of India?) that women can go out anytime, anywhere, wear what they want, it is their right. I want to ask mummy why I can’t wear short skirts and have a curfew time. But then Bhaiyya has to also follow some rules. If he took out his shirt, he has had it. Once he kept a few buttons open and was going out. Mummy gave him such a firing. He will get angry if I say this, but he wanted to look sexy. Papa told him nicely later that it looks vulgar and no girl gets attracted to this. So, we have restrictions.

Now they say it means we don’t have independence. As far as I know, all of us made decisions about what subjects to choose, what professions we want. We wear clothes of our choice – skirts (but not so short that we have to think twice before bending), jeans, salwaars. We have friends and our parents never stopped us from going to their houses or inviting them. Didi has a boyfriend and he is from another caste, another city. So, now someone will again say we are elite. Raveena Tandon is not? Farhan Akhtar is not?

It is true men behave badly in public places. They have no right to. Some girls carry sharp clips in their hair from Mummy’s young days. So in 20-30 years it has been like this, not only in Delhi. I read this article where the words “rape culture” was used. What is culture about it? I asked Didi. She said it is not proper use of word. What is culture, I asked. I know, but I wanted her opinion. She said culture is art and also how each society is different and unique in dress, food, behaviour. So, how can anyone talk about rape culture as though it is part of life?

Why are they protesting when they say people want rights? They are asking for strict laws. Why don’t they file cases? I see so many times youngsters don’t even help out elderly people to cross the road. If they have so much time and energy to protest, they should form groups and do police work. The government has now apologised. But can politicians be on buses to see who is a criminal? The law has to be strict. For everyone. In Mumbai’s Marine Drive some years ago a cop raped a girl inside the chowkie and the residents were more worried about their reputation.

People are saying how dare peaceful protestors are called mobs. All mobs become unruly. They are called ‘lumpen elements’. Go to Kashmir. Go to the North East. Go to small towns.

Who is the leader of these protestors? In a year’s time I will be able to vote. I will be able to choose a candidate, a political party. I cannot do that with these protestors. They want justice. I also want justice, not for one case, but for all cases. Even today, I am seeing protestors versus police. Then, how can we ask same police to change? People are saying it was spontaneous. How can you have posters and flags and all that just like that?

One uncle was proudly saying he has not missed any protest and is sorry he cannot be in Delhi. Just imagine, he thinks he is a proud Indian because of this and all who don’t agree are not Indian. Then people at Azad Maidan, at Ramleela Grounds are most Indian. Why are the other politicians not at the protest, the big people like Shri Adbaniji or Shri Modiji or Mayawatiji or Mulayam Singhji or Mamata Bannerjeeji? Political parties are talking against each other. So, who is the real voice of India?

Please don’t judge those who don’t come out in the streets. Don’t ask ladies to take cabs with woman drivers only because of rape cases. One day you say women should choose what they want. So, let them decide what driver they want. Don’t create fear.

I am very sad I could not be with some of my friends, but I am also happy that I will one day really fight for justice. My Bhaiyya will. My sister will. My maid Sumitra fights everyday to make her children grow up and not be poor. Her daughter goes to school. No one from her basti went to the protest rally. They did not even know about it. They don’t have smartphones and Facebook accounts. One day they will. And they will ask to be treated equally in offices, not only men and women but irrespective of gender. They will put photos of achievements, not screaming and shouting. And I will ‘like’ that.

Sohanlal and Sumitra are also voices of India. Can you hear them?

(c) Farzana Versey 

---

All images: MSN

Kerfuffle over reshuffle

The big bang reshuffle that took place on Sunday is only a whimper. 

 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announcing the new Cabinet members said:

“I would have been happy to include Rahul in the Cabinet, but he has other preoccupations in the party.”

Nobody quite knows what his other preoccupations are, but there is no doubt that he does not wish to be ‘gainfully’ employed.

This reshuffle is less about the ‘youth’ being readied and more about giving a new spin to the status quo. Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Ajay Maken, Veerappa Moily, Kamal Nath are pretty much to continue with the tried-and-tested method of Congress working style, which they have inherited or been close enough to learn.

The fact that three men who were or should have been out of favour are to play important roles is revealing: this is politics of cock a snook. 

Salman Khurshid gets the important external affairs portfolio just days after the controversy over his Trust being involved in illegal funds. (Made famous by another minister saying that a 71 lakh fraud was too little.) He made it worse by threatening Arvind Kejriwal. One thought Khurshid was at least suave enough not to stoop to this level. Perhaps, in the MEA he might learn diplomacy. 

Song for him: 

Andar se koi baahar na aa sakey, baahar se koi andar na jaa sakey
Socho kabhi aisa ho tau kya ho
Hum tum eik ghapley se tung ho aur mauka mil jaaye

Shashi Tharoor was ousted because of his IPL franchise deal a few years ago. This is another suave guy who also happens to generally convey a clean impression; he uses social networking rather well for this just as he did to make those frank comments which conveyed a westernised attitude that of course we Indians could not apparently palate. Anyhow, he kept himself busy and managed to be the good Kerala boy who will perform in HRD. 

Song for him:

Baar-baar haan, chup ho jaao wahaan
Apni tweet ho, media dosti yahaan
 

Manish Tewary is one more of those supposedly posh types who takes on the opposition on television debates. He is aggressive, assertive and manages to say a lot without conveying much. He will be busier than he usually is doing the usual things with Information & Broadcasting and trying to add varnish to a few flaws.  

Song for him:

Hum bolega tau bologe ke bolta hai
Eik memshaab hai, shaab bhi hai
Memshaab shab chalaati hai, shaab chal jaate hai
Duniya chaahe kuchch bhi boley
Hum kuchch nahin bolega

There are discussions about whether this was part of the Rahul Gandhi agenda or not. It does not matter. You can bring in anyone at this stage. It is a stopgap arrangement for the elections in 2014. The important thing is that the new faces will not have enough time to prove themselves – the standard power without responsibility.

There is no guarantee that after making changes in their ministries they will be rewarded later. They are essentially expected to give the impression that they are Rahul’s men. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

Who Owns Kashmir?

Rahul Gandhi, like the rest of the Nehru-Gandhi clan before him, will never contest an election from Kashmir. When he says, “I myself am from Kashmiri family and want to have lifelong relations with the people of Jammu and Kashmir”, it is a declaration of the divine right of the potentate in a jigsaw puzzle of a state.

A delegation of panchayat leaders from the state visits him in Delhi; he lands up in Sonmarg and tells the people he wants to “understand your pain deeply”. This makes former chief minister Farooq Abdullah so emotional he blurts out, “We are Indians and we will die as Indians. No power can separate us from India. A day will come when children of Rahul and Omar will see fruits of steps taken by us.” In July, Hurriyat leaders met Pakistan’s foreign minister on her official trip to India.

So, who is ruling the state?

Rahul Gandhi organises a corporate picnic with big industrialists. Many promises will be made. Perhaps for more formula racing, tulip gardens, skiing facilities, to ensure tourist traffic. These are mirages used to market the state to others. He wants to “connect Kashmiri youth with the development process”. There is no introspection as to why that has not happened yet.

>>Read the rest in Express Tribune

Let's dance

People were dancing, some close, some in a frenzy. The cops landed up and arrested them. This was private space in Mumbai, the great metro. Goes against our culture, say the moral police. Encourages unhealthy activities, they continue.

I can understand if they were in the streets or in places that families with young kids frequent.

Anyhow, another case came up for hearing to let the place remain open until late and permit people to dance. The comment by the judges is curious:

“One may think 3 am is too late; others may not. Customers want to dance. Somebody putting their hands up and dancing cannot be objected to. Innocuous dancing can be permitted. As long as nothing obscene or objectionable is happening… If police comes like this, then customers will be afraid.”

This is in a five-star hotel and people are not forced into it. What does putting hands up mean? What if the hands are not up? Is this a call for surrender? Some dances do not need the hands to be up.

Have the cops and those who are concerned about our culture ever objected to drunken street dancing during festivals? What about the ‘eve-teasing’? What about marriage functions? The young do dress provocatively at many of these. Only because it is ethnic clothes, it does not make them less titillating. And the hip swaying even in our kiddie talent contests on TV should tell us that we aren’t really a whitewashed culture.

Dance is an important manisfestation of our culture, anyway. Shiva’s nataraj dance, Krishna’s ras leela, and Menaka’s seduction of sage Vishvamitra are well-known. What about the mad-as-hell dervish moves at Sufi shrines?

I am a bit surprised that while passing the judgement, the bench mentioned that not allowing dancing would be a dampener for tourism. I do not think people from outside come here to dance. This is about us and how the urbanites socialise. The cops, the same cops who have often been caught molesting young girls, need not look beyond their own little dirty minds before they arrest people who are doing so of their own free will. Certain big industrialists have private parties that openly serve drugs. Has anyone heard about arrests there?

I don’t understand why every report mentions ‘dirty dancing’. And, yes, some years ago a television channel had taken shots of a discotheque to serve some voyeuristic purpose.

Dance can be a release or an elevating experience. The gliding on the floor, the meeting of eyes, the touch around the waist, the bend and the curve. It is a beautiful sight. People may lose control, but that happens even when you are not on the dance floor.

Booze and dare? Imran, take a chill PIL..

Here, genie in the bottle?

Imran Khan, the young actor, has decided to “take on” the Maharashtra government. Why? Because he does not agree with the state raising the drinking age to 25:

“I am really disturbed by the state’s perception that the youth of today are a bunch of idiots. I am working with my legal team and plan to draft a petition. When one gets the right to vote at 18 and elect a government and even marry and have children at the age 21, to ban drinking for people below the age of 25 is ridiculous.”

It is and I don’t have a moral issue with people drinking but once again the elite are taking over. It reveals just the sort of people who lead closed lives and romanticise alcohol. As for idiocy, what has that got to do with whether you can swig a cocktail or not?

His knowledge is limited to a certain category of people:

“The issue is a raging debate on all social networking sites and most of the youth feel that it is unfair. It’s completely unfair to expect that one has to wait till one is 25 to exercise the freedom of choice regarding one’s lifestyle.”

I should assume he knows that ‘lifestyle’ is not restricted to what you imbibe. People are not born with visions of booze and they do not wait to grow up for that. If we take the argument even further then there are child labour laws that affect youngsters and they do not even elect the government, so should they talk about freedom of choice?

This is not on Imran’s radar. In fact, the quiet guy has come out with what will be perceived as a strong statement that may well catapult him to youth icon status because he has one of those ‘bold’ films coming up. I can see maamu jaan Aamir Khan’s strategy here. This is classic marketing AK style. So, why has the senior not raised a voice? Simple. He is now the face of many public service government campaigns so he cannot spoil his image.

Besides, this is about youth, the film is about youth. I wonder why Imran has not sneaked in the bit about how the youth can go down during sex, for that is one of the USPs of the film, or at least what the fed ‘scoops’ tell you . If he is so concerned about “right to choose” and how such laws should not be “imposed upon the youth”, will he also raise his voice about crimes committed against the youth? Paedophilia? Incest? Drug couriers? Imprisoned suspects?

There is no plausible reason for the Maharashtra government’s move, but this statement by Imran is shocking:

“This kind of regulation is bound to turn the youth into outlaws.”

What the hell does he mean? Are young people who drink law-abiding citizens with no criminal record? Has he not read about cases of drunken driving and people getting killed in the streets? If people do not get their favourite tipple, they will turn into outlaws? If the pub refuses to serve them, will they start smashing the bar?

Many do – when they are drunk. In the debate, no one seems to take into account the poor who become victims of spurious liquor even when it is freely available simply because they do not have a choice.

Has the government given this a thought? It would seem that this youth business that has gained momentum is essentially about a creamy layer. The charmed circle of Mumbai. Even the authorities will not enter many of these lounge bars to check on age, least of all the pub owners.

If you want to take on the government, then first go to some small town and find out about the ‘choices’ the youth there have in any matter.

Fighting Corruption: The Pitfalls of Populism

The Indian youth are out in the streets, in car and bike rallies, to support an aging activist’s fight against corruption. Anna Hazare and Anil Ambani may be on two sides of the spectrum, but even as the inquisition is going on into the 2G scam, we are witnessing a populist version of people’s activism.

Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death started on April 5 to push for the anti-graft Lok Pal Bill. He has called it the second Satyagraha, which is an erroneous usage. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha was battling against British might, not against corruption that involves people right down to the lowest level, including some who may participate in the ‘movement’. I understand that one would like to see it as a practical solution to an idealistic idea, but whose idealism is it?


Hazare’s work through the years has been commendable, but the moment he needs a banner – in this case ‘India Against Corruption’ – the idea becomes a brand. Within three days there are already fissures among certain organisations. Besides, it is not as simple as it appears.

He says:

"We want representation from civil society in drafting the Lok Pal Bill, 50 percent from civil society and 50 percent from the government.”

This is to check on corruption in public life, so it obviously refers to those holding office. The alternative Jan Lok Pal Bill drafted by leading legal experts and personalities, including Arvind Kejriwal, former Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan calls for setting up of ombudsmen independent of government control. Those found guilty would be awarded a jail term of minimum five years and maximum of life imprisonment; the investigation would have to completed within one year.

The government has its own version of a prison term of minimum six months and maximum seven years as punishment for corruption.

Who will foot the bill for the 50 per cent lok ayuktas that come from civil society? Are not politicians also from civil society? We would need a system to proceed against those being tried.

* * *

Corruption is more often a silent crime. There are enough scapegoats who will be made to shoulder the blame in another concept of people’s responsibility, where lok shakti means taking on the master’s problems. It is an ingrained aspect of Indian culture.

We are witnessing this farce as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while not yet giving a clean chit to Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani, has been talking about their honesty and how candid they have been. Niira Radia has been called “evasive”.

Ratan Tata, when asked about his letter to the Tamil Nadu chief minister praising Raja’s work in the telecom ministry, with some gumption said, “We had a chemistry problem with (his predecessor Dayanidhi) Maran.” Yet, he claimed, “I didn’t manipulate the system for 2G licence allocation.” Did not Mr Tata file a petition regarding breach of privacy about the leaked tapes? The political machinery does not wish to completely alienate the corporate lobby, so it accused Radia of being anti-national and an agent of foreign intelligence agencies.

Both sides are getting trapped in quick sand and they need to prop each other up without being seen to ostensibly do so. Why did they not produce records of the Rs. 300 crore that Radia had accumulated? Of course, there is every possibility of impropriety, but for whom and for what?

If foreign agencies were involved, how did they pay her so that the authorities would know the amount? Have the finance and other departments tapped those calls from foreign agencies? What foreign agencies have interests in seeing to it that the Ambanis and Tatas get the prime deals? Which foreign agency would be interested in what portfolio Raja got? It might be important to examine how these players then can be indicted for such foreign connections as well as anti-national activities, including the governments, past and present, for accommodating them.

* * *


How would the Lok Pal bill work in such a situation? There is a trickle-down effect where the tricking is actually going up. Many of those enthusiastic about Hazare’s rally would not have the courage to convict the beneficiaries of those in public office, which defeats the whole purpose. A politician getting kickbacks is one part of the deal – the other is the sneaking in of major players who through corruption will find space to promote their elitist products and ideas.

Hazare is for now being anointed with a Gandhian aura, but most of the Facebook fans of the movement won’t push the envelope. The fact that the mainstream media is giving it importance is precisely because it has the youth quotient. This translates into a larger audience.


Some sample quotes are rather revealing:

“I joined the cause as I feel that corruption can't be stopped till the youth takes part in such a movement. Anna Hazare has been fighting this evil for a long time, but he should be supported by people like us.”

“I realised that it is about time people like me come out and stand up to eradicate corruption. I am going to fast like Anna Hazare and I am even prepared to go to jail for the cause.”

“It is not only for activists and media to keep exposing scams.”

People like us, jail yatra, scams are the buzzwords, not to speak of our own Tahrir Square.

One also wonders what happens if the celebrity activists move out. There will be the chosen ones who will be nominated for the posts to look into corruption. It would work not too differently from an established system.


People have gathered in 400 cities to fight a demon. This is modern-day mythology. Hazare states

“I am not waiting for government, the government will have to bow to the wish of the people.”

The government bows every five years and politicians are known to ‘serve’ the junta. The fact that the Lok Pal will be like the Election Commission is no guarantee that it will be “completely immune to government’s influences”. Prosecuting ministers will not require the permission of the governor or the president. Will it ensure transparency? There won’t be “yes men” of the government, but what of other organisations? Or politicians from non-ruling parties?


Uma Bharti and Om Prakash Chautala may be booted out, but Sharad Yadav, Janata Dal (United) chief, has already offered support. He said:

“Just as Election Commission and Supreme Court are effective bodies, similarly an institution which is to fight corruption has to be equally powerful. I approve of the draft prepared by Hazareji and others. I am willing to back it in Parliament.”

That among the civil society members there could be those with personal interests who would be pushed in as concerned citizens is not an improbability. Or the lure of known names. During the appointment of the person to head the Right to Information Act panel, there was just such a scramble by celebrities to promote their concept of the appropriate person.

Despite his intentions, even Mr. Hazare mentioned the names of Justice (Retd) Santosh Hegde, lawyer Prashant Bhushan and Agnivesh who he felt “were not considered important by the government”.

It is possible that the government might intervene to make him give up his fast, but let us not begin to believe that the fight against corruption is a people’s movement yet. It had already started before the rally and there have been several exposes, public interest litigations filed. It would be prudent to ask whether the youth would boycott the goods and services of those the government has propped up. Or will this be just another ‘Rang De Basanti’ moment where power props up those with testosterone and the impetus is all about hitting the bull’s eye?

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Updated on new post