Snapchat or Drought? India's Elite Makes a Case for Tanmay Bhat versus Lata and Sachin

“Snapchat or drought?” demanded Arnab Goswami on Newshour. That one cryptic query bears witness to how reductive debates are and what freedom of expression has come down to.

A standup comic Tanmay Bhat put up a short video where he impersonated Lata Mangeshkar and Sachin Tendulkar in a mock battle. Impersonation and mimicry are a staple of comedians and if done well can caricature the subjects and throw in more than just laughs.

Tanmay Bhat does nothing of the sort. It’s the kind of thing your friends might slap their thighs over as you crack off-colour jokes at the pub, and that too only if you are paying for the drinks.

However, everyone has their rights. He to do what he did, and I to find it objectionable. But, there are people who will fight for his right to be stupid but not yours to be offended by such stupidity. And how do they justify it?

It so happens that the MNS party and the like issued threats calling for the removal of the video, and of beating up Tanmay. The police too got into the act.

All of this happened after the controversy broke out. It is ridiculous to assume that those who object to the video want it censored or the comedian arrested or harmed in any way. (I am putting it up, too.) If they want a bloody disclaimer with that line, “I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend your right to say it”, then I’ll just ask them to shut up since they think there will be fewer clicks on their liberalism were they to defend another’s right to have a differing opinion.

I have one major objection to that video, and it is Tanmay as Sachin poking fun at Lata’s age – her face looks like it has been in water for eight days apparently – and urging her to die. To anybody who has elderly parents, this should hurt deeply. It isn’t about the pop taunt of “hurt sentiments” – it is closer to the bone. You are a hypocrite if you go online to outrage over an old person being ill-treated by her family or post pained captions on seeing pictures of old age homes but think that Mr. Tanmay Bhat’s act is just fine.

The funny thing is that the Tanmay camp finds it offensive when there are girth jokes about him. Fat-shaming, they say. It is and it is offensive. Wonder why they do not find age-shaming offensive too. Clearly, a level-playing field satisfies nobody.

They say people are just obsessed with this icons business and both are Bharat Ratnas. The irony is that even suppose they are ‘protected species’, just what are these urban legends like Tanmay Bhat? One does not see social media denizens support the right of a Johny Lever or a Kamaal R. Khan for similar ‘humour’; they are, in fact, dismissed as crass. This proves that it is not about freedom of speech but about elitist cliques.

For those who think Tanmay Bhat as well his AIB group are independent-minded rebels, do not forget that they had sent their queries in advance to be vetted for their roast on Bollywood celebrities and apologised to the Church. [I had written about AIB Knockout's fake fight for FoE]

Somebody even posted that those “hounding Tanmay” would return after a couple of days to their old task of “harassing Muslims”. This is just so pathetic to even put them on par. The hounding is done by some political parties/idiots; minority harassment is social behavior in its varied forms.

Also, all manner of caste and regionalism has come into play, and while these aspects of the ‘hounders’ (including weirdly enough the people spoofed) are highlighted, the comedian’s caste etc. are not dragged in. One says it is because Lata and Sachin are Brahmins people are protecting them, another says Marathi pride should be hurt by drought in Maharashtra and not a Snapchat video.

Nobody can deny that casteism is prevalent in India, but in this case is it being milked dry to support bad humour, reducing the genuine debate over it. Ask these same people to do a Snapchat funny video of our other Brahmins – TV anchors and newspaper editors (who should naturally stand for their FoE) and they have no answer.

I suspect some even think that the comedian was making an anti-casteist statement...except that the Brahmin Lata trills to Sachin, "Vinod (Kambli) is better than you". Kambli is from a backward class community. And if we really want to get into this, then it is again the Bhat way to get a high-caste to legitimise him. 

The worst is dragging in the drought. Media people who were pained about the time wasted on such stupid debates as against the drought went on to host shows discussing Tanmay Bhat. Do they even have a spine, forget a conscience?

The drought vs. Snaphat idea is opportunistic and insensitive. Nobody is censoring the drought, so give it attention, and not only when it is ‘happening’ to do so.

Then there were those saints who said if you don’t like it don’t watch it. They seem to have reached a Zen state where they know without watching whether something is likeable or not. And if switching off is the answer to deal with what we find offensive, then I guess we can apply if to hate speech and government policies too. In fact, these zombies probably do, except for they Twitter/Facebook forays where they lend their shoulders to the martyrs they create.

Director Mahesh Bhatt posted this quote by George Carlin:

“I think it's the duty of a comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.”

Yeah sure. Our PM has been doing this for a while now. And the joke is on us.

Hollow Freedom in the time of scrapping of 66A

As news spread about the Supreme Court scrapping Section 66A of the IT Act, the media started propping up the heroes responsible for it. Nothing reveals the limited nature of such freedom of expression than the act of coddling a few. 

I am all for such freedom, having used it myself and been sometimes warned against it and, in the past, threatened for it too. Despite this, I do not wish to take the popular (more likely populist) stand about what FoE in this context entails. If you want freedom without resposibility, then will you take what you wish out to others? 

The celebration of such freedom for online activity comes at a time when the cyber cells are approached with complaints against trolls, stalkers and slanderers. The latter two are cause for serious concern. If everyone is so thrilled about being free, will they stop using the 'Report Abuse' button at social networking sites? 

Those against 66A happily ignore the bully culture of the rightwing with their self-righteous fence-sitting by differentiating between hateful abuse and other free speech. We know the difference. But those at the receiving end of the latter might deem it as abuse. This could be about 'blasphemy', or 'hurt sentiments', or a personal assault in these naming-shaming times. Will these internet warriors fight for the right to privacy of victims of social/sexual violence? 

Let me reproduce a few salient points from what I had written earlier:

What issues?

Forums such as these act as extra-constitutional authorities where elected representatives can clarify their position, blame others, wreak vengeance, and campaign for themselves or against others. How is one to accept their version? Why are the usual official channels not used? Why must government policy be announced and discussed on walls and in tweets where there is more likely to be a back and forth of sound bytes rather than a sensible discussion?

Take any issue in recent times and it has become more exaggerated due to this word-of-mouth publicity. YouTube videos and CDs go viral and, much like terrorists claiming their hand in bomb blasts, these denizens claim to play a role in every major happening – whether it is the Arab Spring, exposing leaders, bringing scams to light, pushing the anti-corruption agenda, or showing a politician dropping his pants.

Is there no room?

We have laws for a reason. Do they work well always? No. Does it mean that forming groups and fighting them online will change the reality? This is the frightening aspect. How many of those commenting in morsel sizes are truly attuned to such reality? True, famous people are on networking sites, reasonable people are there, people who matter are there. My question is: Are they also not in places where it counts and are they not capable of pushing for change from where they operate? They can and some do.

For those who think that news is forced down us, how are they so certain that what passes for exchange of ideas on such websites does not do the same? There is bound to be an element of incestuousness, and it is a community too. 

Therefore, it is a bit amusing that when there is a mention of incendiary talk that hurts religious and communal sentiments, there are sniggers. Yet, when this community of networkers thinks it is in danger of being muzzled, there is a hue and cry. What are they displeased about? That their space is being occupied, right? Their freedom shackled. It just so happens that there are different kinds of freedom, and much as we dislike what we deem to be non-liberal thought, also has a right to exercise its freedom.

How free?

Those who are talking about how those who hate them must also be allowed to have their say are largely popular because of just such infamy. This ‘freedom’ affords them statues even if it is to facilitate pigeon droppings. It is the cult of the dishonourable, and some will fall for it. 

There are positive aspects to such sites, but the opposition to a proposed code leaves one with a slightly distorted picture of the whole anti-system. It really is not a contrarian viewpoint but a ghetto that wants its own protection. Not everyone is capable of self-censorship. There are loose cannons. There is anonymity. The idea that it is the only truly democratic medium free of vested interests is a fallacy. Are there no agendas being propagated on the internet, no vested interests?

Who would 66A have helped?

It could be an anti-government crusader who is abused and can seek recourse to action. It could be an individual whose identity is being tarnished.

It is facile to assume that discourse against the establishment will stop. Before social networking, we threw out the British, we threw out a government that imposed the Emergency, scandals were exposed. That will continue not because of, but despite, revolutionaries with hash tags who ensure a trend for a day or so. 15 minutes of fame has just become a lengthened shadow.

It is anyway mostly the elite that not only get to use FOE but also define it, and hail it.The rest are seen as mere default beneficiaries owing their freedom to these benefactors. 

Another August 15

"To all Indians celebrating our Independence Day, greetings from the Pradhan Sewak. I stand before you not as Pradhan Mantri (Prime Minister) but Pradhan Sevak (prime servant)."

— Narendra Modi

Today's Independence Day speech by the Prime Minister was all about playing to the gallery. It was like an election rally. From the word go he was marketing himself — whether it was to talk about how a poor man had made it to the Red Fort (quite fittingly a Mughal monument that makes his supporters froth at the mouth at other times), or how an outsider made it to Delhi, in a way negating the idea of a cohesive India especially when there is increasing resentment against immigrants from other villages, towns and cities.

Even the quote above is wrong on so many counts. The whole concept of a sevak is feudalistic, and to be a prime servant does not upset the status quo but works as a taunt to its own to suggest he is not one among them too.

"We have seen instances of communal violence for too long. Till when will this go on? Be it caste or communal violence, they stall the growth of the nation."

He went to the extent of calling for a ten-year moratorium on violence. And what exactly does he mean by "we have seen"? Is everything to be brushed under the carpet? The growth of the nation also means inclusiveness of all communities and castes, and ensuring that political lightweights do not incite them or, worse, ignite the situation by lighting the matchstick. The state and the police have a huge role.

It is convenient when you are the 'supreme leader' to want peace, but do little to check those who whip up such frenzy, including right inside Parliament.

"We have to stress on cleanliness, sanitation. By 2019 we must ensure a Swacch Bharat...Dignity of women is our responsibility. We have to ensure that we provide toilets for all."

He recalled Mahatma Gandhi for this. At that time, toilets also had to do with caste, as they continue to do now. Why did he not talk about how that should stop? What we are likely to have is the urban elite 'doing' cleanliness with much fanfare. Interestingly, there were pictures of ragpickers cleaning up after the speech. This is the real issue, of the poor will have to continue to clean up the mess the not-poor make.

Tying up the "dignity of women" with lack of toilets (after the case of the rape and public hanging of the teenage girls in Kanpur) is a sop. We need toilets, but rape happens even where there a toilets. It happens inside toilets. This will only make society complacent.

Besides, by saying that people might wonder how a PM is discussing such things on an occasion like this he conveyed that he was doing a favour.

I'll leave it at that and quote his own words after last year's August 15 speech by Dr. Manmohan Singh:

"Media channels said this is PM Manmohan Singh's last speech from Red Fort but he said he has miles to go, which rocket will he take?"

Somehow, I am thinking..."mujhe khauf aatish-e-gul se hai ke kaheen chaman ko jalaa na de..."

For now, some pictures:

Painting on the Freedom Struggle by V.N.O"key

The first August 15

Precarious windows

Despite it all

--

This I wrote last year

The hate that prompts a Nikhil to turn into a Nihal - Beyond The Pune Murder

A young man is killed by a group of people. They ought to be arrested and questioned for the motive of the crime by the police. The courts would then pronounce a sentence, one hopes keeping justice in mind for there are signs that the man was brutally attacked.

This short paragraph will not make the cut, not as a news story, not for readers, not for TV viewers. So, let us fill in the details.

The man was a 28-year-old IT professional from Solapur, working in Pune. He had gone for his evening prayers and was returning home on Monday night. A group of men armed with hockey sticks started beating him up and continued to do so till he bled and the wounds were visible, and until he died.

Is this para enough? What is the motive?

The man's name is Mohsin Shaikh. The cops have arrested members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena. A senior police official said:

“On Monday evening, there were rumours circulated through the social media that stones were pelted at a Shivaji statue. This led a group of youths from the Hindu Rashtra Sena to take to the streets. They targeted Muslim settlements. Motorcycles that were found at the place where Mohsin was beaten up led to the suspects."

Prior to that, somebody had posted morphed photographs of Shivaji and Bal Thackeray on Facebook. That had led the HRS to vandalise 200 vehicles and create mayhem in Osmanabad District, where it was believed the post originated from.

Why was Mohsin Shaikh, who was in Pune, targeted? Reports say that a 'Nihal Khan' posted those pictures. It turns out that it was a Nikhil Tikone who did so. This is not new. Recall how the Sri Ram Sene members had hoisted a Pakistani flag on the secretariat building in Bangalore to create tension between the two communities.

In such a situation, one group sees the other as an opponent and it does not matter who actually is behind the mischief. Tikone chose to post as Nihal Khan, but why did he do so? Was he alone or was it a group backing him?

And what happens to the man who lost his life for nothing? His friend Riyaz who was with him at the time of the attack said:

"I was saved because I don't have a beard, and wasn't wearing a skullcap. Mohsin was targetted because he looked like a Muslim.”

This will be explained away as a hate crime. The problem is the other layers get ignored. He was educated, had a job and a decent salary. He was also taking up social space with confidence, and not afraid to show an identity he was comfortable with. The hate here is for all of these factors, besides his religion. The resentment is against a person from a minority community who is not browbeaten by people who are seemingly uneducated, unemployed, and easily brainwashed.

[Those who talk about madrassa brainwashing need to look into their own backyard sometimes, if for nothing else then to at least save themselves from being destructive.]

The Nikhils have a vague idea about another faith, but they feel threatened by the fictitious Nihals who manage to lead a life of dignity without compromising on their choice of food, clothes, and faith.

There is a reason, idealistic as it may seem, that I started out by not mentioning any details, especially about religion. Will such hate crime reduce when people realise they are not getting any mileage for puffing their chests to prove they are in a majority or a position of power?

These are fringe outfits, yet they get mainstream space. Ironically, they object to posts but use the social media to promote a rift. That is their target audience, and it is no more about affording a computer, a smartphone and a wireless connection. These are cheap and accessible today. Anonymity can also make people whoever they want to be.

Mohsin lost his life because hate has takers. Already, the fence-sitters are specifying that it is a Congress-ruled state. Does it matter? Uttar Pradesh is a Samajwadi Party-ruled state, Kolkata a Trinamool Congress state.

The point is that the culprits have been burning public property for a few days and are not afraid to flash their motive. It is such pugnacity that not only kills innocents, but might also get away with it. One, two, twelve culprits may get sentenced for a murder that is real. Hate is an abstraction that uses other means, other reasons to hit back. Who will try it?

© Farzana Versey

When the Press shackles...

Turn the pages of a newspaper, surf television channels, visit news websites. What you get to see is plenty of freedom. Everybody is free to say what they wish, in a language they choose to, for a motivation only they might know about.

Together with freedom comes responsibility is not just a cliché. When you celebrate World Press Freedom Day at least understand what is expected of you:

Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

2014 Theme is: Media Freedom for a Better Future: Shaping the post-2015 Development Agenda.

How many are bothered about this? Editors who censor pieces and kowtow to masters of varied stripes are talking about press freedom? Even reports are cut to make space for ads, or if they go contrary to what the sponsors might like. Opinion pieces are censored because, again, they will cause problems.

But, whose freedom is this?

The regional press that has a much wider reach and better understanding of people in the villages and small towns, and certainly has an urban audience as well, is largely ignored.

A few months ago, two well-known TV anchors were said to be planning to quit their jobs. The immediate reaction was that they were under pressure. Op-eds in the international press too gave their example even though both had clarified that no such thing had happened.

More recently, a young lawyer collated some Modi myths to be busted; it was published in DNA. A few hours later it was not there. The immediate reaction was that the fascists had started working.

Let us get this clear: the fascists will. There are several examples. Yet, had anybody bothered to call out the newspaper, ask for an explanation? Had anybody bothered to raise questions other than the one that suited the current anti-wave? This is surprising, for nothing in that piece was new or more damning than some that have preceded it. There was no sharp opinion.

Would it not be more proactive to get the newspaper to respond instead of just riding a, well, wave?

We are already on to other stories, other minor ripples.

Is this about censorship?

The media that seeks the right to write has crossed the line several times. Have you noticed that while film stars and politicians are soft targets, industrialists are treated with deference? And what about the media houses themselves? It is rare that a Tarun Tejpal case comes to light, but even here it became a matter of professional rivalry.

I will only be repeating myself when I say that the deals the media strikes with politicians, with corporate houses (if they are not owned by them), with the underworld too will not be outed. Even in the Tejpal case, two factors were important.

1) After the media had given the Delhi gangrape primetime, sexual abuse has become an issue that cannot be ignored. I won't go into the dynamics of how it twists the victim's situation to suit TRPs and advertising.

2) Without in any way taking away from the crime, there was the political-corporate aspect that oversaw how justice was to be delivered.

In the FoE overdrive, there is rarely any discussion about the reporters on the field, especially in sensitive areas.

It is disgusting to read about how some in the press cling onto their peers who might be unfortunate victims of violence. It is time to wake up. Such incidents take place not because the media houses are outspoken and free, but because the perpetrators of violence won't have it any other way. They have targeted even those who are silent and have no media access. If the press wants to act as though it is upholding democracy, then it better learn to practice the freedom across the board within the organisation, and not be selective.

Or they should make their position/agenda clear. To the readers, their sponsors, and their staff and contributors.

Do they have the courage? No. They keep their options open because they want to curry favours. They do not know who will come to power, which industry will have its projects passed, which celebrity will be feted. So, we have a mélange of people of dubious worth featured consistently until such time that they become redundant for the 'free' media.