29.1.11

Switch it on


Now they are going to tell us what quality time is. This is your chance. Wonderful. To register you have to send a text message. Bucks. You log on to the site. Hits. This is a Hindustan Times venture and there are other sponsors, which means you get their products and services in lieu of television.

While it is true that a lot of people have ceased to go out and prefer to watch TV, many of them also indulge in the activities mentioned. If they can. Marine Drive and Oval Maidan are open spaces; senior citizens do get together; yuppies try and spend time with their kids. Not so sure about “dinner with my masterchef”.

Just in case these concerned organisations care to know, in quite a few cities there are power cuts, so TV watching is not uninterrupted. For people with careers, this is time to clean the house, get provisions and be at home. Commuting isn’t easy in a city like Mumbai.

For all the negative points against TV, I think there can be occasions for family and friends to bond. How many spouses discuss the walk they want for or the food they ate? Now think of the conversation about soaps and news, soaps in their own right. Multiplexes have made a visit to the movies quite expensive, so when films barely a couple of months old are telecast, it is a boon for them. Sports that were inaccessible are now on air. These things do create cult figures and covert advertising does push the viewers towards consumerism. But, you cannot walk down a road today and not meet blinking neon lights or encounter someone hawking something, sometimes even themselves – whether it is a helpless person or one on the make, whether it is poverty or glitz.

I watch TV everyday, but that is not all that I do. And there are many like me.

Just imagine if on this grand occasion of ‘No TV Day’ some channel decides to go to town shooting people at random doing what they always do and flaunting it as a success of this bold initiative. And we get to watch it live! Anything can happen.

Anyway, what’s this token one day going to achieve? People will return to their remotes and start surfing. There just aren’t enough waves in the sea.

28.1.11

Harvard Terrorism


A tony university will naturally have its eyes on the swish. Yet, there is something unnerving about a case study at Harvard Business School on the role of the employees at the five-star Taj Hotel during the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008.

The multimedia case study ‘Terror at Taj Bombay: Customer-Centric Leadership’ by HBS professor Rohit Deshpande documents “the bravery and resourcefulness shown by employees” during the attack.

The study focuses on why Taj employees stayed at their posts, jeopardizing their personal safety, in order to save the hotel guests. It also tries to study how that level of loyalty and dedication can be replicated elsewhere. A dozen Taj employees died trying to save the lives of the hotel guests, during the attacks. “Even senior managers couldn’t explain the behaviour of the employees,” Deshpande said.

He added, “Even though the employees knew all the exits in the hotel and could have easily fled the hotel building, some stayed back to help the guests. These people instinctively did the right thing. In the process, some of them, gave up their lives to save the guests.”
While there is no dispute over the bravery, has any study been done about the saviours at other places where these attacks took place and where several others occur on an almost daily basis? What about flight attendants who help out passengers when there is an air calamity? What about the guards who are routinely killed trying to save people? Would HBS bother about smaller establishments and countries that are quite ‘under the radar’? And what about the several problems of labour: from fighting for wages to safety measures in the work area to being unceremoniously thrown out to having to run about to claim pension?

I do not wish to sound callous, but in this particular case it was difficult to figure out what exactly was happening. It is a huge hotel and all employees do not know about all exits. Besides, given the nature of the attack – guests taken hostage and much exchange of gunfire – was there any guarantee that using any exit would save them?

Why is the management surprised? Don’t they train their employees about service? In the hospitality industry, more than anywhere else, this is an important component. They have, at best, done a job in the most humane manner possible.

The fact that this study explores the need for a replication of such loyalty and dedication begs the question about how indepth the research has been. Are there no other examples? Have you heard of caretakers of places of worship running away when there are bomb blasts? Have you known of junior employees leaving the premises of big enterprises when they are under any sort of attack? Don’t the guards at banks get killed during a heist?

I find it extremely patronising when the HBS team claims under camouflage of romanticisation:

Another key concept of the study is that in India, “there is a paternalistic equation between an employer and employee that creates kinship”.
This is merely pushing the agenda of the ruling class. The equation is feudalistic in all sectors – of benign master and slave. The kinship is one where the employee swears to do anything beyond the call of duty. It is a gentleman’s unspoken word of honour that only those in the lower hierarchy can keep because they have no choice.

The employer may most certainly look after the interests of the employees, and there may be the annual general body meeting where there is a mention of “we are one big family”. Don’t forget, this includes the shareholders who need to be reassured that the company is doing great and it has a loyal staff. Such loyalty is bought with an unwritten agreement that implies there won’t be any special sops or protection. Compensatory packages are part of the contract. The courage displayed by workers helps build the brand of the master. What loyalty are the employers showing towards their workers?

Why does it have to be a one-way street?

WEF (What Economic Forum)

There was to be a discussion on organised crime, 'Criminals without Borders' at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Why a separate discussion? Isn't the WEF already about this? Or does it need some more muscle-flexing self-introspection?

- - -

Heard about the Red Berets. Any symbolic moments? Just wondering...

25.1.11

Bhimsen Joshi: Always Dawn

Many years ago I had interviewed a classical musician, quite well-known. At that time he was disgruntled about several things and I clearly recall one comment he made. He said that great singing does not necessarily mean you have to contort your face so much. This was a swipe against the master of them all - Pandit Bhimsen Joshi.

As I scoured the obituaries today, there has been an outpouring of so much more, but one of them mentioned how he sang with his body - for every sound and rhythm he used gestures.

More than anything, he is thankfully not being lauded for taking our culture outside or for making us 'international'. He hosted a music festival every year in Pune and that remained his base. Yet he was a repository of how Indian classical music evolved in the post-Independence era. I hope his work is archived because this is one instance where the man and his music were equally large.

I have said earlier that I saw him as more of a technician, as opposed to Kumar Gandharva. These are personal connections we feel. Therefore, I was surprised when I first heard his version of Babul Mora Naihar Chhooto Jaaye. This was a Saigal signature for me and it had made its place deep in my heart. But Panditji sang it in such a mellow fashion with different inflections that one felt the heart just well up with emotion. It is in Raag Bhairavi, a morning Raag. The soul is always awake:

24.1.11

Veena, the Mufti and Berlusconi

This is not about Pakistan, yet the Pakistani media is going into overdrive about a starlet and creating a scene far worse than the reality show Bigg Boss. As is the pattern now, Veena Malik was pitted against a cleric on a TV discussion. Aren’t there other kinds of people in that country?

Mufti Abdul Kawi called her immoral. What did anyone expect? Forget the maulvi, most people here in India thought she was going a bit out of line, and we are not talking about just Muslims. She was the only one who engaged in this sort of behaviour. On the show with the Mufti, she cast aspersions on the Indian contestants and how they abused her, and this included the women. “Where was the Pakistani media then?” she asked. Indeed. They were watching from the sidelines, enjoying the show, cackling away, so that when she finally came out and was, as expected, pulled up by the fundamentalists, they could then rush to rescue her for ‘taking on the maulvi’. Wah, wah.

This is the country where even the liberals question the classical dancer, actress and activist Sheema Kermani and think she is a bit of a drama queen when she mentions the law against her performances, but they will lend their support to Veena Malik. Why was she on the show? She says she was asked to contest because of her bravery. What gallantry award has she received? Had she done anything that might be considered courageous?

She says she was representing herself as an entertainer and whatever she did were tasks as per the show’s format. One would like to question the producers of the programme that if these were tasks, then why was there a huge ruckus in India to change the timings and since they wanted it to be on prime time they decided not to carry certain footage?

The maulvi was, of course, a strange creature and was probably selected precisely because of that. He kept addressing her as ‘sister’ and mentioning her ‘husn’ (physical charms). According to her, in Islam a man cannot cast a second glance at a woman and he ought to be punished. Taaliyaan from the gallery of front-bench liberals. Little do they realise that this is buffering the image of a country that would then need to stop all entertainment activity and this might involve keeping the madrassas away from regular education and access to the internet and the outside world. Her constant use of ‘alhamdollilah’ and her fibs just did not work. In fact, the emphasis should have been on her single relevant poser to the cleric that he should first look into how the maulvis behave and the prevalence of rape within the religious bodies. This was the most important point.

It is stupid to tell us that she offered the namaaz and even Ashmit Patel did so. Honestly, it is a fact that such namaaz by a non-Muslim has no currency and when Ashmit spoke he said that it is similar to yoga asanas and he respects all religions and wanted to know what it feels like and that night he slept peacefully. What does all this mean? I am sorry but a lot of other things can have the same effect.

And, please, she should just shut up before telling people that Salman Khan said it was because of her that people in India had started talking in Urdu. Get over it. He might have made a passing comment because she kept using the term ‘meri zaat’ which her co-participants mistook to be ‘religion’ when it meant ‘identity’. What Urdu was she speaking, anyway? She was practising her English.

One of the points that came up was regarding her drinking champagne at a post show party. Without as much as blinking, she said it was sparkling water!

If she could stand up for the ‘tasks’ at Bigg Boss, then why did she not stand up for this? After all, while she was happily giving examples of other Pakistani women who walk the ramp in fashion shows and actresses who kiss – things that she would never do, effectively making them seem less honourable – this too is what many Pakistanis enjoy. And just by the way, since she kept alluding to chauvinism: “Kyon ki main ladki hoon” (because I am a girl), did it not strike her that the others are women too? It isn’t that they have never faced problems. Why, even people in other professions face these questions.

It is time for Pakistan to have its own version of the show because Veena Malik’s ‘taking on the cleric’ has made Pakistan look like a country that badly needs a veil over such asinine antics.

- - -

Silvio Berlusconi may be booted out of power because of the sex scandal regarding his township of women on call, but some of the stuff that is seeping out is pretty much unbelievable.

Nadia Macri, a prostitute who went to a police station in Milan to give a statement, in which she revealed that after sharing a swimming pool with an allegedly nude prime minister and five or six other girls, she watched as he headed for a room used for massages.

“After a bit, he said: ‘Next one. Next one’. And every five minutes we opened the door and had sexual relations. One at a time,” the Guardian quoted her as saying.

I am not sure what she means by ‘sexual relations’ here. Every five minutes? Are the Guinness guys listening? Imagine the pressure on men the world over who roll over and wait for thawing time.

Not to worry. I suspect he’d call the girls in and say, “La Dolce Vita”, pat them on the bottom like good Italians do and send them off to spin a yarn.

22.1.11

The 'Stained' case

I am against capital punishment, so the Supreme Court's verdict of a life sentence to Dara Singh and his accomplice Mahendra Hembram felt right. 12 years ago they had killed the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons, 10-year-old Philip and Timothy, six.

However, I do not like the tone of the judgement:

The bench said the Orissa HC was justified in awarding a life term to Singh and Hembram as the crime was committed in passion, to teach Staines a lesson for his alleged attempts to convert tribals.

“Though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon in Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity,” it said.

“All these aspects have been correctly appreciated by the high court and modified the sentence of death into life imprisonment with which we concur,” the bench said.

It seems like this action-reaction theory has gained ground in almost every sphere. I mean, will we condone anything done as an act of passion?
While condemning killings in the name of religion, the bench also expressed its disapproval of conversion. “It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other,” it said.
Is the highest judiciary in this land talking about brutal killing in terms of teaching a lesson? For religious activities? For conversions?

Has there been any evidence produced about forced conversions? Why are they not tried? Is it prudent for a judge to discuss whether anyone thinks their religion is better than another? Is that why conversions take place anyway? Wasn’t there talk earlier about tribals being bought or given sops?

If the judiciary is concerned about these matters, then nip them in the bud and deal with the issues faced by tribals.

- - -


Updated January 24:

Received a mail from one of our friends here raising a point. Reproducing it and my reply to clarify things:

This is about your blogpost on the Staines judgement. While mostly in agreement with your blogpost this particular last line ("If the judiciary is concerned about these matters, then nip them in the bud and deal with the issues faced by tribals.") in the post left me a bit down.

"Real-Politik" apart, our Constitution guarantees freedom to choose religion. The court's congurent remarks in judgement may actually end up setting a precedent of courts being in judgement about citizen's freedom of choice in religious matters.
Interestingly enough , a section of press has started campaign to get the remarks expunged from Court's judgement. Read through more at : http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/23/stories/2011012357870100.htm


My reply:

I obviously did not mean to convey that the judiciary should intervene in a matter of choice, but I was just pushing the case for the courts to look into the real issues faced by tribals. 'Nip them in the bud' is if there are complaints of force used. It really is challenging the system that assumes such things.

Anyhow, thanks for pointing it out because I can see that it can be misconstrued, and will update it.

21.1.11

Gujarat at the UN, Shiv Sena at Unity

Is it right for an issue that has to do with Indian court cases to be taken to an international organisation? In principle I do not agree. But, the fact is we cannot put strictures on stapled visas to China and who is talking to whom in the North East and Kashmir.

Of course, these are issues of insurgency movements. Gujarat is not. This is the reason why the Supreme Court pulled up activist Teesta Setalvad for reporting to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council about 10 serious Gujarat riot case proceedings monitored by the highest court. I’d like to counter-question some of the posers by Justices D K Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam:

“It shows you (Teesta) do not have confidence in us. We are monitoring the cases and are here to hear your grievances. Yet, you write to the UN body. Can the international body provide protection to witnesses?”

Does this mean that the witnesses need to be protected? Has the court provided for such protection?

“Can they guide us how to proceed with the cases?”

No. But there is a charter of human rights that have to be followed. It is not to guide the courts; it is to take up the issue of victims.

“You are reporting the day-today proceedings in the Supreme Court and trial courts to that organization as also what the joint commissioner of police does. Is the international body a disciplinary authority for the police?”

No. It can only prepare a report based on the police’s acts of omission and commission.

However, Setalvad ought not to report every detail. There is also the issue of an international organisation getting involved for its own agenda. It is also prudent to ask whether the victims gave the go-ahead. Such cases are delicate in nature and they and their families have to live in the state and deal with people and the authorities on a daily basis.

In the interest of transparency she should also make the communication with the international organisaiton public. One assumes she has shared it with the court by now.

As I had said earlier: This is about Gujarat, not Teesta.

- - -

On Sunday, the 23rd, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray will celebrate his 84th birthday. The party has decided to mark this occasion as ‘Hindu Ekata’ (unity) day.

This has nothing to do with Hindus or unity, but wih the BMC elections and, as reports say, to embarrass the Congress for bringing up the issue of Hindu terrorism.

The Shiv Sena has the gall to now claim that the saffron coour of its flag is about a blend of various communities and castes as it was during the Bhakti movement.

Perhaps this doha (couplet) by Kabir, the bhakti poet and sage, might be a good birthday gift for Balasaheb:


Bura Jo Dekhan Main Chala, Bura Na Milya Koye
Jo Mann Khoja Apna, To Mujhse Bura Naa Koye

My rough translation:

I sought the wicked ones, but found none
And when I looked within myself, I found none more evil than me