The discovery of Nehru

On Nehru's birth anniversary, the idea is not to take away from the majesty of the individual, but to bring into focus the dilemmas that human beings who are forced to be what they are not face.

As he could not give them the loin cloth ethnicity that would give them something to talk about, I suspect Nehru used the buzzword 'industrialisation' to make the British feel that they had done a good job of tutoring the natives. He had no agenda for industrialisation (except socialism!) and he was mighty afraid of the spectre he had created and also envious of those who could do so. Therefore, while Gandhi, who had no interest in the subject, happily partook of the hospitality of the Birlas, Nehru the angel of industrialisation stayed away.

It couldn't have been probity. It was contempt for the Marwari community that had the money and the business acumen to take India towards the unholy grail.

It may be difficult to digest the image of Nehru as a communalist, but in a larger sense he was. In that he was aware of where he came from and from where others did. The doyen of the Parsi community, J R D Tata, had an uneasy relationship with him. If Nehru knew his Mozart, had been to Cambridge and used his silverware with a flourish, so did most Parsis. They built an empire, believed in philanthropy and did not think it necessary to hide their westernised thinking. Nehru did not like that.

The final blow came when Firoze Gandhi, no mean parliamentarian himself, swept his daughter off her feet. The father never forgave that. Had he not strictly forbidden Indira during her childhood from reading fairytales?

With Muslims, there was talk of his 'Islamic flavour' and political amity, but when it came to brasstacks, things were different. In 1937, he rejected Jinnah's proposal for a Congress-Muslim League coalition saying that there were only two parties in India - the Congress and the
British. Many believe this was when Pakistan was born.

Another example of his parochialism is evident in his sending his widowed sister Vijayalakshmi's suitor, Syed Hussein, off on an ambassadorial assignment, thus putting an end to the romance. But on the poor man's death Nehru, the public romantic, did not forget to build a mausoleum in his memory. To be fair, he did look after Sheikh Abdullah's family when the latter was in prison, which made the Sheikh weep uncontrollably on the platform where the dead Nehru lay.

Millions may have followed his funeral procession and his popularity in life may been unprecedented, but it is also true that security guards hid behind the bushes of his house and the kitchens of his prospective hosts were examined before he could taste a morsel. His populism put him at risk.

Later in life, he was besotted with "the old Hindu idea that there is a divine essence in the world". His Will stated that his ashes be strewn over the Ganges. It may not have been a religious gesture, but two days before his death he had written about the "concept of dharma".

History judges people in many ways. One is to judge them by their last words. In which case Nehru saw to it that if the divine essence went out of the grasp of his family, divine wrath would turn upon the country. The architect laid the foundation in the form of a magic carpet. He could pull the rug from under our feet anytime he wished.

Did Nehru, then, also believe in voodoo tricks?

---

[This was published in Mid-day, November 13, 1996]

---

Also: Nehru, Ambedkar and a cartoon

Mandela...

Everybody wants to claim Nelson Mandela. India has appropriated that right with its most bankable crutch: Mahatma Gandhi. Mandela, who fought against apartheid, was imprisoned for 27 years, is seen in India as the man inspired by Gandhi.

Of course, he expressed admiration. Yes, Gandhi was thrown out of a train in South Africa. But their lives and politics were vastly different.

That ought to not even be a point right now. Just as quoting Barack Obama on Mandela, except as an obituary, makes no sense. Mandela was the product of a violent struggle in his lifetime and was called a terrorist. He did not initiate a war on terror, he did not live to send drones to other countries.

In his own words: "Armed struggle must be a movement intended to hit at the symbols of oppression and not to slaughter human beings."

He was not a traditional pacifist when it mattered. As he said, "During the times of tensions, it is not the talented people who excel, who come to the top, it is the extremists who shout slogans."

In the rush to pay tributes, people don't seem to realise that they are conveying something entirely different from what they intend to say, simply because they are saying it badly.

Take this ad for a dairy product company.

It has sensibly not put in a reference to its butter. But, how exactly did Nelson Mandela rise each time we fell? Who are the 'we' represented here?

This does not even sound complimentary; rather, it is an insult. Did Mandela rise when others faltered? Does it mean that his whole struggle was about such flawed behavior on the part of the rest instead of a fight for what he believed in?

There is a quote by Confucius, which seems to have inspired the ad:

"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."

Mandela did not give up despite the incarceration. It was his glory, his achievement. He did not wait and watch for others to fall so that he could rise.

In fact, prior to the 1994 elections, he said: "If there is anything I am conscious about, it is not to frighten the minorities, especially the white minority. We are not going to live as fat cats."

End note:

"Nelson Mandela Becomes First Politician To Be Missed" — Headline in The Onion

© Farzana Versey

Have stings replaced news?

The anchor held up a piece of paper and shouted down a politician with the precious words: "I have this secret information." A rival channel did its own bit of smirking: "Our sting operation will give you the whole story."

It will not. This too is fed information. The reason there is a surfeit of 'stings' — how can a formal letter by a cop to his bosses be called a sting operation when he has written it and sent it? — is because newspapers and TV channels have saturated the regular routes and want to entertain. Many of the readers and viewers too wish to be entertained, and news stories, however controversial, become more interesting when they stink.

Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.

A few noises are being made now about some of these exposés. I wish it had been done earlier, too. Then we would have been spared this rush and rash of scoops where dirt covers only more dirt.

I've said it in earlier pieces, and instead of repeating myself I shall reproduce two extracts, one from 2010, the other from 2007. [Unfortunately, opinions do not qualify as scoops and exposés!]:

Stings that stink, 2007, Asian Age Op-Ed:

Have sting operations changed anything? Have people stopped having their palms greased? Is there more awareness about wrongdoing? Are the culprits shunned by society?

You know the answers. They have, on the contrary, become even more important.

A reporter of a Delhi television channel tried to expose a teacher for forcing her students into prostitution. It turned out to be fake. It was done on the prodding of a businessman as a planned strategy to hit out at the teacher for owing him Rs 100,000. He called up a reporter who we are told harangued her to make a few quick bucks by getting into the flesh trade and supply women. It is said she fell for this bait. A colleague of the reporter was sent as a potential girl ready for the job.

The whole story sounds bizarre. Would a woman in a respectable profession be so gullible as to get into criminal activity? If there is any truth, then why has it been labelled fake? This is not a big channel. Had it been one of those fancy ones, do you imagine anyone would have made such a noise about its lack of authenticity? The reporter has been arrested. I would like to know what is being done to the channel owners. This isn’t just a sensational story. It is about an issue that concerns women and any sensible person. Sting operators cannot get away with it.

Is this about vigilantism at all? (In 2005), there was an exposé where 11 Members of Parliament were bribed to pose questions in the House. The website carried tape recorders and cameras to catch them red-handed and a TV channel aired what they thought was a complete travesty. These clippings were later shown in Parliament. Newspaper reports were dramatic: "Parliament was stunned into shamed silence."

Does Parliament feel no shame when elected members throw slippers and chairs at each other? Has no ministry ever been shamed for taking kickbacks by giving a contract to an undeserving company?

And who were the MPs who were paid Rs 15,000 to just over a lakh for asking questions? Were they important enough names? These nobodies suddenly got notorious fame as "the dirty eleven." I can lay a bet that even if they were not bribed and were told they would be given some media coverage, they would still have done what they did. The sting operation only helped make scapegoats of a few unknowns to let the real sharks march around like saints. A whitewash job has never been simpler.

The real scoop was this, and it had been reported in this newspaper: The television channel gave the sting operators about Rs 58 lakhs. Less than Rs 10 lakhs was spent on the entire operation. The bribe amount was less than Rs 3 lakhs. Other expenses were about Rs 5 lakhs. The equipment was available on loan. Was the balance money returned to the TV channel? Does anyone know?

There should be transparency regarding sting operations too. Jaya Jaitly, who ought to know, had made an interesting comment, that it would be honest if a person went to these sting operators and told them that someone was taking money for asking questions or getting things done; the snoops could then accompany the person and catch the culprit in the act.

---

Would they do a sting operation on cultural organisations or famous "respectable" artistes who get special privileges? What about nominated MPs from the "world of arts" who use their position to further their personal causes? What about NGOs that misuse foreign funds? What about media houses that take money from socialites to promote them?

The media as middleman, 2010, CounterPunch

Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?

To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between?

---

Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.

The (Radia tapes) revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.

"False history gets made all day, any day, the truth of the new is never on the news." (Adrienne Rich)

© Farzana Versey

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

Advani, a Weak PM, and Incontinence

I think our Prime Minister is not weak; he knows his so-called weakness works in his favour. Therefore, L.K.Advani may be sighing with Hissar relief after the Yeddy-made problem, but it is a bit too pat and he ends up boosting the real weaklings/seeklings:

“We have had Prime Ministers like Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda and IK Gujral who may not have even ten-fifteen MPs but who never appeared weak as there is a lot of strength in the position of Prime Minister.”

Exactly. There is strength in the position, not necessarily the person. What did these three really contribute?

"The condition of the government is very bad. Sometimes I take pity at Manmohan Singh though I had respect for him at one time. When I criticised him by calling him 'weak' before the 2009 elections people asked me why I said that because he was a good and honest man. Calling him weak is not an abuse. But if the Prime Minister thinks that he cannot do anything till 10 Janpath does not give me clearance, it does not behove him.”

A few points:

1. Does he mean to say that since “weak” is not an abuse, he is by default an honest man? 
2. If he does need “clearance” from 10 Janpath, then why target him at all and not the person at 10 Janpath? He has been going on tours, attending summits and signing documents. Why not make him responsible for all of this?
3. Finally, since when has the BJP encouraged independent leaders? Does it not tomtom itself as the great Indian family? Aren't the rebels thrown out? Did not Vajpayee have to follow the Advaniji’s diktats, not to speak of the RSS?

- - -

And on a note that might bring a smile to pitashri Advani’s face, a small little news item:

A Maharashtra MLA has registered a complaint against the use of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pratibha Patil’s pictures to indicate men and women’s washrooms near the VIP lounge of Nagpur’s Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport.

“Both portraits are displayed near the washrooms, which is against discipline and protocol. Symbolically, it shows that Patil’s portrait gives direction towards the women’s washroom while Manmohan Singh’s directs one to the gents’ loo.”

Just shows how our cult of worship can get terribly leaky. I fail to understand, though, how people – that too in the VIP lounge – would 'follow' the leader unless they are bladderful. It is good that we do not have Dr. Ambedkar’s statue in the famous pose, finger pointing out, anywhere in the vicinity. That would be quite a discretionary take on the constitution.

Oprah's Divine Comedy: Winfrey the Pooh

Winfrey the Pooh 
Oprah’s Divine Comedy
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, May 27-29 


They were discussing thighs. The woman was wearing a blue garish printed veil, the uncovered face revealed a touch of kohl in her dark eyes. She was telling her host that what Moroccan men are most attracted to in women are thighs – they like them thick. The Oprah Winfrey show was now not a secret watch in parts of the Arab world; she was hosting it there. As the young woman held forth, Oprah went on a relentless examination of a part of the female anatomy. It was obvious she thought she was breaking some barrier when thighs, men, women and ideas about pulchritude have existed since the existence of civilisation.

Oprah is about breaking imagined barriers.

She has bid farewell to the show after 25 years. What sustained it for this long? Much of what was revealed is what we hear in everyday life, what we experience and what we don’t. Yet, using these same ideas she created an alterative universe. However real the reality in her shows was it was reality amplified by auto-suggestion.

A more comprehensive reading would suggest that the show could be divided into three main ideas.


Cornucopia:

Excessiveness was an important part of the exercise. Laughter and tears were loud and flowing. There would be distended stomachs, bruises more purple than prose. As in Roman feasts, where people went on an eating binge and then vomited to start feasting again, true stories were retched out. Humorist Josh Billings’ take is apt here: “As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.”

Without the abundance, there would have been a need for the core. Oprah was about the circuitous route; the essence lay in the maze.

Her personality lent itself rather well to such profligacy, from her girth to the big hair, the big heart, the large camaraderie. But, her projection of little people in fact showed up their littleness. Their foibles and warts were huge as compared to their personalities. They were here in the Confession Box. The studio had an almost-church like atmosphere where the host played priest and choir girl by turns, until the Moses-like denouement.

She did pretty outlandish things, was outspoken, and dressed the part. It camouflaged the traditionalist inside her. It made her craving for infallibility as self-conscious as her vulnerability: “Though I am grateful for the blessings of wealth, it hasn’t changed who I am. My feet are still on the ground. I’m just wearing better shoes.”

And those better shoes came from many a soiled feet that entered the hallowed show. She appeared to tell them that they could do it, but would they have that opportunity?


Dystopia:

Misery was flaunted on the red carpet and posed for the cameras – its couture more discussed than its merits. People on the Oprah show seemed to regurgitate the deviant without owning them. There was a disconnect between the teller and the telling. Even if none of it was stage-managed, one could decipher an element of training, of being ushered into a hall of shame in hushed whispers. It is not difficult for people to sense what is expected. While for the ordinary person this seemed like a purging of evil, an exorcism, celebrities were given to believe that this would humanise them.

There was no mirror more qualified than Oprah. At the grand finale she said: “But I’m truly amazed that I, who started out in rural Mississippi in 1954, when the vision for a black girl was limited to being either a maid or a teacher in a segregated school, could end up here. It is no coincidence that a lonely little girl who felt not a lot of love, even though my parents and grandparents did the best they could – it is no coincidence that I grew up to feel genuine kindness, affection, validation and trust from millions of you all over the world. From you whose names I will never know, I learned what love is. You and this show have been the great love of my life.”

This is true, but most of the recognition talks about her blackness: the first black billionaire, the greatest black philanthropist, the richest African-American of the 20th century. Has black society altered and has the perception about blacks changed? The ‘teacher-segregated school’ is also what the Oprah Winfrey show is about. There was this bubble of sorrow and with every pinprick of a query it would burst. The sorrow would not disappear because it wasn’t there in the first place. The internalisation was left untouched. The balm and the gauze were for this bubble that settled like dew. The show worked as well as faith-healing, people limping back to normal and basking in the warmth of the arc lights and then out in the cold holding on to their crutches. Art had imitated life, but not limited it.

The simulation analogy can be best explained in the totalitarian philosophy as expounded by George Orwell: “It not only forbids you to express – even to think – certain thoughts, but it dictates what you shall think, it creates an ideology for you, it tries to govern your emotional life as well as setting up a code of conduct. And as far as possible it isolates you from the outside world, it shuts you up in an artificial universe in which you have not standards of comparison.”

Oprah had set herself up as a role model, when the millions who were with her were like the Beatles acolytes were for John Lennon. He was one of them but he remained Lennon. She employed the classic Lennon anthem as her modus operandi: Imagine.


Utopia:

Is imagining about hope or about despair? Had there been happy stories, then the Oprah show would have wound up long ago. It is important to ask here whether the hates/loves/desires that dare not take their name have brought about any change. Iconoclasm is a much-abused term. The populist need not be iconoclastic. A show may be a hit, but what kind of impact does it have, has it altered the way people think, feel?

One cannot state that, “Oh, this was just a TV show.” It was not. It became a cult, and cults have some responsibility. Oprah did what she could, but it was the Big O, a few seconds of happy numbness. She treated her staff well, she took her audience on holidays. These are freebies. The stereotype of the Mamma. The world is full of varied ideas and varied behaviour, so it is disconcerting that she did not push the envelope, except when stuffing it with a few dollar bills to assuage guilt and express gratitude.

In fact, archetypes were trussed up and embarrassingly displayed. The brazen wore little and the demure played their part. The obsession with the body only consolidated set views even if they were to debunk them. Alternative sexuality was given the worst possible treatment when she invited an ‘Indian prince’ who is out of the closet. He came in regal finery that he has no right to as a representative of India, which has done away with royalty. The gall of having someone in a position of power, however titular, to convey the views of the gay community was such an Oprah thing to do. You cannot just be a misery maven, you’ve got to lay it thick and be king.

She had a banquet but offered fast food. This was part of the show’s attraction. The host knew what she was doing, even if some of it was subliminal. A broken soul, broken self-worth, fighting for convictions – these brought fear, a persecution complex and arrogance. The arrogance of humility: “What we’re all striving for is authenticity, a spirit-to-spirit connection.”

A spiritual connection does not look for authenticity, which is tied to the strings of dynamic facts and changing alliances within the mainstream. You cannot talk about the facetiousness of fame when you are a product of such evanescent celebrity. It is not the legitimisation that makes for icons but the potential of returning to their ruthless roots. Winfrey did attempt that, but by default, by just blowing up the cocoon a bit more. She reached the world and out at the world, yet her confinement was narrower than it appears. “There is one expanding horror in American life,” believed Norman Mailer, that cogent chronicler of the American’s internal dilemma. “It is that our long odyssey toward liberty, democracy and freedom-for-all may be achieved in such a way that utopia remains forever closed, and we live in freedom and hell, debased of style, not individual from one another, void of courage, our fear rationalized away.”

Such fears on the show were stamped and sealed like factory-produced wares. The potency was in the reaction to the pinch and the pitch. She took the ready-made material and gave it a new language and identity. Pop analysis tends to label such people revolutionaries when all they do is to recreate. To continue with it for a quarter of a century is commendable, but not impossible. That is why Oprah Winfrey will be remembered as a fine juggler, not a magician.

Team India vs. Other Indias

I want to applaud Narendra Modi. Inadvertently, he has shown up the fake liberals for what they are. The Gujarat government decided to give Yousuf Pathan and Munaf Patel one lakh rupees each. Javed Akhtar has been quoted in the newspapers as saying onine (I assume a tweet), “All State are rewarding their World Cup winners by at least 1 crore but the rich Gujarat is giving 1 lakh each to Pathan and Patel. Great!”

Great, indeed, that it is now about the states and “their” winners. It reveals that it is not about India, but about Mumbai (which is a state within a state, of course), Kerala, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Jharkhand, Gujarat. Isn't it like the IPL?

If these liberals are alluding to the communal aspect, then there are many reasons to take up the cause; this is hardly it. The team has members from different communities and faiths and we rarely notice who is from where. This and the manner in which the post-match circus has unfolded only revels in regionalism. There was a time when selectors were quite partial to people from certain states, but that was more about patronising their own and often not without merit. Jagmohan Dalmiya and Saurav Ganguly come to mind.

It is a different game now. Everyday we are witnessing crores coming out of government coffers for our World Cup winning players. I can understand the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) doing so, but why the government? These guys played for India - that is their job. It is not some favour they have granted us. And it is rather shameful that many cricketers openly said they played for Sachin Tendulkar.

His greatness as a sportsman apart, this sounds quite like the “Indira is India’ obsequious slogan. It is okay, though, that they carried him on their shoulders. It is about camaraderie and that he may not be available for the next World Cup. But why is captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni pleading for a Bharat Ratna for Sachin? Think of the names in public life who have contributed so much and are honoured in their dotage or not at all. Of course, Tendulkar remains 'modest'. His dream of some academy or the other will come true. These are people who make loads of money in endorsements; they should be putting in their own earnings to start the business of ‘teaching’ since they won’t be training anyone for free.

The deification can reach weird heights. On Gudi Padwa one pandal had his image as Lord Vishnu. Why has no one objected in a country where there is always a noise about hurting religious sentiments? I understand that a polytheistic faith may not have problems with such portrayal but we really need to leave the gods alone.

It is impossible, though. Dhoni shaves off his hair as an offering; others go to temples, dargahs, gurdwaras. These are places where the poor sit and wait for someone to drop some coins or a roti, but our heroes visit with full security despite being pumped with ginseng in some product they advertise.

The public has reason to be happy, but those in responsible positions will not dole out money in crores as readily for welfare schemes for the other Indias.

The Media as Middle Man

India's "Paid News" Scandal

The Media as Middle Man 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24

The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.

There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.

The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.

There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.

No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.

Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?

To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.

Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.

Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.

The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”

Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.

Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times

Mukhtaran and Meena

How did a rape victim become an icon and why? Is Jamshed Dasti a stand-alone, callous bloke trying to use pressure and clout to stifle justice or is he representative of the pugnacious social structure? Mukhtaran Mai’s bravery is a personal one, I am afraid. There has not been a spurt of such court cases; it has not sensitised people at the ground level; it has not resulted in understanding of what rape, especially gang rape, conveys.

Meet Meena. She heard the screams. Her husband lay in a pool of blood. Before she could do anything, the men had pounced on her. After some time she managed to drag herself and get help. She then went to file a complaint. The cops tittered, looked at her breasts above her pregnant belly and said: “Doodh pila de”. She yelled out helplessly. Months later, life was still miserable, now with an incapacitated husband and fear. “They barricaded most of the area. If I left the hut for long they’d break it again. It was so bad that we had to defecate inside on sheets of paper and I’d carry the excreta and throw it on the other side, which was a swamp,” she said.

I was sitting with her far from the cold floor, but her story was chilling. She was indirectly caught in a fight between two builders. Her husband worked for one. The rival hired a goonda gang. This was cosmopolitan Mumbai and they were only earning a living. Until that day, a day that she had to leave behind even as she went looking for work and visiting the police station. Justice was being scraped out painfully; it could not be brandished in bold letters.

Does it all end after the devastation of riots, militant attacks, wars? No. Brutalisation is only the outer manifestation. Women become double victims — first of the actual battle and then of the ideology. In the days when sati was a sanctified institution, the motive was to save women from marauding enemy armies. But, what was being protected —their lives or their sexuality? We have heard about victims marrying their rapists. These are literal demonstrations of masculinisation of power.

Jamshed Dasti’s ‘compromise’ formula is based as much on the tribal laws that forced Mukhtaran’s rape. She was the price they had to extract for another’s ‘sin’. The urban politician is using a similar yardstick and, much as his views are reprehensible, there are often coteries that take over a symbol to showcase their concern for the co-existence of feminism and tradition. Mukhtaran has been hawked like fusion cuisine.

She has become a cliché for injustice and, ironically, even more exploited. The value system and marketing machinery are patriarchal. The victim woman who fights, becomes a canonised caricature, so beloved of the Wsest and the westernised, leaving little room for the voiceless. It is appalling that we cheer when a case gets international exposure. Our media gives them the exotic version when in those countries date rapes, incest and teen pregnancies are a common occurrence. How many of their victims are seen as icons?

Had Jamshed Dasti been worried about the international repercussions he would have shut-up. He is concerned about the local constituency. For all those disparaging him, yes, he is for real. If we look deeper, then he is what many surrounding us are about, including women who accept the status of trophy wives and state, “It’s okay if my husband goes here and there as long as he comes home to me at the end.”

If we have said or heard this and not given it a second thought, then Dasti’s crime is not very different from ours.

- - -

Published in The Express Tribune, July 6th, 2010.

A Kashmiri Victory?

Had Dr. Shah Faisal's father not been killed by “unidentified militants”, he would have been just another exam topper. It is a tragedy that such a Kashmiri is being showcased as the ‘other’ face of the region. This is pigeonholing and Shah Faesal is consolidating the viewpoint. He says he wants to show the world that Kashmir does not have a monopoly over the enterprise of terrorism. Even if we ignore the curious choice of words, there is still the issue of his being hailed as a hero for the wrong reasons.

Dr. Faisal is the first from the province to top the Union Public Service Commission 2009 examinations. This ought to be cause for concern and not celebration. And how has he transformed “a hurdle into a moment of opportunity”? Like him, several people survive with the scent of death after losing members of their families. This ongoing devastation has been prevalent since the past two decades. While he was giving interviews, there was a gunfire battle and two civilians and two security personnel were killed in Kupwara, where his father was murdered in 2002. There are many little kids who have seen their parents being shot dead. Some are poor and get sold for a pittance in the jihad market; some have the blood congeal in their memories.

When Faisal says, “I had only two choices — to be bogged down or to stand up and face the challenge”, he forgets that living behind closed doors in curfew streets that prevent essential supplies from reaching does not pose a challenge. When a boy is caught in a skirmish over flag-hoisting, he does not get bogged down. He just does not understand what is going on. These are wounded people living with shrapnel and solitude.

It is sad that instead of pursuing medicine, he opted for the Indian Administrative Service. “I felt that I could not have made a change by being at a hospital and wanted to work with the government.” Doctors are needed, not bureaucrats. What can a young person who has just cleared his exams hope to achieve in the government? Party equations change every few years, files pile up. One might deem his stance to be idealistic, but it is the opposite. He could have gone with his medical kit and expertise to the rural regions or to inaccessible places.

In the past so many decades no one has managed to bring about any change. If he is sending out a message, then that message will only reach the bosses in government. He will be made their slave and their symbol: the good guy whose father got killed by the bad guys. Faesal’s father was a teacher and there is no information about his ideological stand. This is the position that suits the powers and makes it convenient for them to assume that the victim was pro-establishment.

They like to give pacifiers, so Faesal has a good chance of getting a prime posting. Late last year a woman shot down a Lashkar-e-Taiba militant, who wanted to marry her, by grabbing his rifle after a four-hour hide-and-seek challenge. Rukhsana Kausar told the media, “I thought I should try the bold act of encountering militants before dying.”

She was made a special officer with the Jammu and Kashmir Police Force. She had never used any arms before and said she just mimicked what she saw on television. Without any training, she got a sop. No one seems bothered that such rewards can demoralise those who are deservedly awaiting a promotion.

The zeal to consecrate anyone who can be remotely seen as an enemy of militancy legitimises the false belief that terrorism is the norm and these chosen ones are the exceptions. Shah Faisal’s misfortune, as well as his achievement, is personal and not political. However, by being co-opted as the ‘other’ face, heroes like him end up unwittingly offering the other cheek.

- - -

Published in Express Tribune

It's just not cricket

So M.S.Dhoni blames the T 20 fiasco on exhaustion and partying and everyone starts talking about how cricket is supreme and these excuses won’t do.

I don’t care whether Dhoni is making excuses or not. It has once again brought to the forefront the nature of the sport. Dhoni is right when he says:

“The IPL is not just about cricket. There are lots of things going around it. The players must be smart about it. They have to respect the body, give it some time to recover because it’s not just about playing. There have been day-night matches, then parties, and then early morning flights too. All this, including the travel, takes a toll. But if you are smart, I don’t think 45 days of cricket will drain you.”

The last sentence does not seem to have registered. He is trying to say something. There has always been infighting and one-upmanship. Now with IPL there are external factors too. Dhoni is as much a part of the satellite stunts. How well you are dressed, what haircut you get, the company you keep all have become more important than the scores. After all, they are now auctioned items.



The organisations capitalise on this aspect and make the players play other games after they have done their stint on the field. And why would any hot-blooded young player give up the opportunity to be seen at the right places when that is what helps in the selection process? Come on, you have to know the right head honchos.

And those who are getting all righteous about it are not players. What games has Rajiv Shukla played besides politics? Suresh Kalmadi? M.S. Gill? They have stuck to their positions as chiefs of various bodies without ever representing the country or even their mohalla. Jagmohan Dalmiya was a Kolkata businessman and he managed to virtually rule the roost.

Forget treating contemporary cricket as some holy cow. It is just another poodle with fancy trappings added to it.

The high point in recent days was that Sachin Tendulkar had finally signed into Twitter and within hours managed to get a whole bunch of followers. It was crazy how starlets went on about how he should exceed the following of Ashton Kutcher, who I believe has the largest following thanks I guess to the updates he provides on his wife Demi Moore. We even had an old friend telling the media about how he convinced Sachin to sign up. Now there will be newspaper columns about his tweets and when he slept and what he thinks, which is a nice human touch, but it is not national news.

Therefore, Dhoni’s comments are far more relevant. Sachin would not have said it. The good guys do finish first in some areas. And, hello, why is Mohammed Azharuddin railing about Dhoni’s excuse and saying that players can refuse to party? Right.

I’d like to pull up all our tainted players and ask them why they did not refuse those underhand betting deals.

In our country we are bad losers, but this time that is not the concern. It has stopped being a concern for a while now. People are sharp and they know that this is like a dumb film they can watch in an auditorium to get some cool air-conditioning. It does not even qualify as a peanut gallery anymore.

The Real Face?

Be prepared! Sounds like a dire warning, especially if what is to be unveiled is a 3-D image of Jesus Christ according to digital technology.

Computer artists – and I shall let that term go – have used information available from the 14-foot long Shroud of Turin, the only available evidence that had blood. dirt and stains. History Channel is to air ‘The Real Face of Jesus’ that used the impression they got from the linen on the body of Christ.

"The shroud wasn't hanging on the wall - it was wrapping a corpse. The face is hidden in there. By imitating those distortions we could take the image and put it back into shape and figure out what the face looked like. It gave us a blueprint," said Ray Downing from the computer imaging company.

Is it important to know what the man looked like? Christianity, like most faith systems, crosses cultures and borders. People like to imbue their god-figures, as they do their legends, with a dose of the local culture. It is true that thus far Christ has been portrayed in the Caucasian mould despite not being from the region. This is part of the way religions grow and are taken over by the superior races.

However, we cannot discount that paintings and sculptures by artists too took liberty when portraying such images. Was it artistic license or a personal fervor? Unless it was within the confines of the church, would such images be dictated to by those in charge of a version of the faith?

Christ has most often been shown on the Cross in popular culture because that is what he symbolised. It then begs the question whether his potency remained as symbol or does humanising him have greater value?

Would this digital face really be seen as the true face? It is scientifically fascinating and therefore ironical that when there are doubts about the Shroud itself, we have a community of rationalists trying to recreate a face based on it.
As a non-religious person who understands the idea of belief, I think that faith in anything depends not on a figure but on one’s own sense of connecting. If you believe in the power of the ocean, then you will not alter your opinion based on changing tides. Images are like tides.

And portraits do convey more about what the artist thinks than what the subject was.

- - -

The Real Face of Christ

The Great Indian Rope Trick

Arrogance and Austerity
The Great Indian Rope Trick
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, September 18-20, 2009

The soles of his feet were cracked like the soil in barren fields. He sat idly and drank khus sherbet. There weren’t any files spread before him. He was doing no work, only shaking his legs in that nervous frenzied manner of people in power who have to sit with others.

This was in the executive class on a private airline. It was before the Congress party told its ministers that they had to go on an austerity drive and travel economy. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar reacted by saying there would be no space to do any work.

Why has there been such a black and white reaction to this move? Was it because two ministers started staying at luxury hotels while their government bungalows were being ‘done up’? S.M.Krishna and former UN man Shashi Tharoor claim they did not use the tax-payer’s money; the latter in his now patented fashion is throwing the “I am paying the bills from my own savings after a lifetime of international work” line.

His little tweets have made him into a five-star martyr to become a part of knee-jerk legend. In one he said he would definitely travel in ‘cattle class out of solidarity with all our holy cows’. Naturally, those who think life revolves around conveying their daily stories in small doses find it, and him, cute. The arrogance of this kind of Indian politician mirrors the same feudal mentality that upstart urbanites accuse the country bumpkins of.

The primary reason is that our society follows the “Dilli Chalo” (onward to Delhi) credo to sanctify the power of central leadership and fake cohesiveness. Our slogans have moved from “Jai Jawaan, Jai Kisaan” (Hail the solider and the farmer) to “Garibi hatao” (Banish poverty) to “India Shining”. While India was shining, farmers were committing suicide as they are now. Getting ministers to give 20 percent of their wages for drought-affected regions is simplistic. The salaries of ministers are not known to be high. They earn more through perks – for fuel, phones, travel. There is also the larger issue of corruption. Granting licences for large projects to certain firms is part of the money-making deal that keeps the political machinery lubricated.

The current move is not about hypocrisy but hyperbole. And who better fits the slot of abstinence than the father of the nation? Lalu Prasad Yadav said, “Mahatma Gandhi always preferred to travel in third class compartments... and remained frugal throughout his life.”

If there is anyone who made poverty look like a million bucks, then it was Gandhi. The land of nabobs became the land of the half-naked fakir. The Birlas played host to him not because he drank goat’s milk but because he said, “India must protect her primary industries even as a mother protects her children against the whole world without being hostile to it.”

This is the brand of selective socialism that is being replayed today, not the fashionable Nehruvian model which was about how to do a Lenin by wearing mink. It is corporatisation of spiritualism. Anyone with a begging bowl of empty dreams can head a start-up venture of couture abstemiousness.

The idea of droughts and famines do not merely fan such high thinking among politicians but intellectuals, too. Remember Amartya Sen’s facile belief that, “… famines have never afflicted any country that is independent, that goes to elections, that has opposition parties to voice criticisms, that permits newspapers to report freely and to question government policies without extensive censorship”?

Simply speaking, we would be talking about socially and economically wealthy societies. Forget famines. What about other problems that beset a country like India? We have democracy, why then does Prof. Sen subscribe to state intervention? He had concurred that the role of the state even in matters of nutrition, health, education, social insurance was connected with the outcome of economic processes, which must empower people to become economic agents in their own right.

Here was a clear case of making both sides happy without giving a thought to the fact that state intervention can never empower people; it only results in dependency if not degradation. Perhaps, that suits the purpose. As he once stated, “Buddha was asking himself what kind of life is that (of illness, old age, mortality)? These are problems we all face. For many of us it is also the impetus for our work.”

The concern about rural India’s suffering arises only when it affects the middle class and the rich. Food, a basic need, is in short supply. An India that is now being sold Quaker Oats by an organisation of heart cure is willing to exaggerate its misery. Where are our irrigation plants? What happens to the families of farmers? How many people are moving to other towns and cities? Have these aspects been considered? Sonia Gandhi takes a flight with the plebs. As a symbol it might work, but only for a limited audience.

Once the flight touches ground, there will be a fleet of security vehicles. The person in the street does not care. It will, however, result in more corruption. The corporate sector that has thrived due to political munificence will be happy to help. They will not go quietly and do something in the villages where they have set up factories; they already think they have done the country a huge favour by providing employment opportunities. Labour is cheap. Instead, they will provide facilities to ministers, and since many of their kind have got into the fray it will be easy. They talk the same language and suffer from the same gilt-edged greed.

Does anyone talk about austerity for them when they are in fact sponging on the shareholder’s money? Was there any talk about austerity when villagers were driven out of the leftist state to facilitate factories to produce a low-cost car for the city dweller – a car that would clearly point out the difference between the rich and the ones who would never get there?

We condescendingly let Lalu, our rustic politician, join the cavalcade of management geeks to give lectures at Harvard and Wharton. The gallery applauds as they would when they watch a comic act or an acrobat. He senses that. Years of having been marginalised have taught him lessons in hypocrisy, stereotypes, and expectations. He plays their game. He too starts quoting Gandhi even as he made money from kickbacks from cow food. How much more hick town can anyone get?

Sleepy Communism has joined ranks, clinking glasses of Old Monk and belting out the angst of foreign rebellion in the voices of Ginsberg and Che, driving kitsch up the Warhol wall. Poor India has today become a parody of its own poverty.

- - -
(An abridged version appears in The News International, September 19)

Does Rahul Gandhi even know what a Young Turk means?

Just when I thought we were done with the tacky ‘Singh is King’ headline in national newspapers, we now have ‘Rahul’s Young Turks’.

Never mind that they did not find a place in the government. As I mentioned in a comment earlier, Rahul Gandhi should have put himself to test with a cabinet berth.

The media ought to at least up their knowledge a bit before they shoot their mouths off.

What is a Young Turk? Simple dictionary meanings are here:

1. A member of a Turkish reformist and nationalist political party active in the early 20th century.
2. A young progressive or insurgent member of an institution, movement, or political party.
3. A young person who rebels against authority or societal expectations.

Do these men fit into any category? Don’t hang on to the word 'progressive' because these people need to be tested on that count. How can they rebel against authority when they are the authority?

I was shocked to read this:

Under Rahul Gandhi’s guidance, the Youth Congress is turning target-oriented and adhocism-free by suggesting that those who enrol between 5,000 and 10,000 members stand a good chance to be nominated for an assembly election.

This is like encounter killings – your promotion depends on your hit rate. Or like insurance agents.

The report also states:

Rahul Gandhi has asked his team of Young Turks not to dream of being in the government at least for six months and to devote their energies to the recruitment of fresh blood across the country.

Do you realise what this means? That after six months of meeting their targets, they can start hustling? It also means they could prove to be worse than the opposition parties and demand their pound of flesh.

What happened to the committed youth who were ready to ‘Jaago re’?

- - -

I have covered the stupidity of this before, but last night on TV they had these people talking about how we should not rubbish the dynasty…after all, we have instances of musicians’ children becoming musicians…

Haan, but a tabalchi’s son will bang on the tablas; a sitarist’s daughter will pull other strings.

An actor’s son will capitalise on papa/mama’s skills before the camera.

A businessman’s beta or beti will inherit wealth and change the décor in the office to make it look more hip.

That’s it. They won’t really mess around with the country. Though, bad musicians and actors can be a huge pain. But you just don’t pay to watch them.

Do you have a choice with these Young Tharkis?

Rahul Gandhi said he wants to change the way politics is conducted in our country. Not a chance. Sorry. You started on the wrong foot.

Go send this young blood to first donate blood. Get doctors in the remote villages. Electricity. Water. Literacy. These young people must be brought together to do these things rather than bribing people to join the party so that they can get more power and sit like satraps and continue with the same things. Prune the lawns, but there will still be weeds. By changing the curtains you do not alter the window or the way you look through it.

Just as wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt does not make anyone a revolutionary. Nice try, though.