Musical Snares: Sur-Kshetra

Himesh-Atif: No war this?

May I ask Asha Bhosle ji why are only some Pakistanis allowed to be our guests and others are not? While Raj Thackeray is busy acting out his job profile of politics, I do wonder about the politics of commerce.

The promos of the music reality show Sur-Kshetra have been on air for weeks. Raj chose the press conference to hit out. That too with this statement:

“Would Veer Savarkar have endorsed Bhosale’s decision to collaborate with Pakistani singers?” alluding to the family’s “loyalty to the freedom fighter”.

Veer Savarkar is of little relevance here. It is Ms. Bhosle’s comment that is:

“Maharashtrians believe in the mantra of Atithi Devo Bhava (the guest is god)…Nationality is of no importance, we are here to praise talent. As a human being, I believe in being nice to everyone.”

I have been watching Ashatai judging the just-concluded Indian Idol and loved her beyond her singing. There were contestants from several parts of India. She never felt the need to dispute Raj Thackeray’s barbs about Biharis, UPites and others. And why is she asserting her Maharashtrian identity?

So, when Raj rebuffs her with, “Is this ‘Atithi Devo Bhava’ or ‘Paisa Devo Bhava’?” there is some truth in it.

Let us call this Indo-Pak trade instead of soft-focusing it as music has no boundaries. And, yes, there is hierarchy where even some Pakistanis are allowed. I have mentioned this earlier that while Sheema Kermani, actor-dancer-activist (and she says so without obfuscation) invited an Indian dancer to Pakistan, she was not granted visa. A fairly well-known Pakistani in the entertainment industry surprised me by saying, “Some are favoured.” He gave up on a co-project with some Indians because of the problems. All is not as good as the marketing fellas will have us believe to raise their TRPs.

Abida & Asha; Mota maal/baal. Pic TOI

And Asha Bhosle is now a big part of it:

“I don't like politics...I don't understand it. I love Maharashtra and I am a Maharashtrian. I am a singer....I understand the language of music.”

Music, and sports, have entered the political space. I just saw a promo of the same show where one contestant was praised for her singing and keeping the Indian laaj. Sur-kshetra is promoted as a battle between two clearly demarcated sides – contestants and judges. Why is Asha tai playing naïve not to understand that this is Indo-Pak politics? Has she been invited to perform there? Should it not be mutual for a level-playing field? 

Do we not have singers and actors of the 'calibre' of Veena Malik? Or that expressionless wonder Ali Zafar? Our music directors meet their singers in Dubai. How many of them have reciprocated? For those in denial or with poor memories, read Jagjit Singh and Abhijeet's views on this. 

I love Iranian cinema, Japanese poetry, Spanish dance, and literature, music, art from several places. These are personal choices. So, if I love Pakistani musicians, it is again in my individual capacity. It is intriguing, though, that we want to highlight differences in an area where they ought to be solved – diplomacy – but come together where we do not need to. Pakistani music has not reinvented sur and taal. It follows the Hindustani gharanas, the raagas. Even Sufi music goes back to Amir Khusrau, and was he Pakistani? He wrote in Farsi and Hindvi.

If music is beyond politics, then why do artistes project themselves as ambassadors of their countries and act like activists? Talking of peace on a public platform is also activism.

This televised musical peaceful co-existence is just banking on emotional love-hate that Indo-Pak ties thrive on.

So, it is true. Money has no language, no country. And no culture.


PS: The battle on the show pits Indian Himesh Reshammiya against Pakistan's Atif Aslam. The super jury is Asha Bhosle, Abida Parveen and Runa Laila, the 'illegal immigrant' Bangladeshi or a buffer?

(c) Farzana Versey

Pakistan's Conversion Circus: Missing the woods for the tree

Sunil on his way to Abdullah

Pakistani society has one more reason to get agitated. A Hindu boy has converted to Islam in front of a live television audience. Sunil became Muhammad Abdullah.

I’d like to take up the editorial in Dawn to show just how this limited concern works.

"In yet another example of how the industry's commercial goals trump ethics, open-mindedness and common sense, on Tuesday a television show broadcast an imam leading a Hindu boy through a live conversion to Islam carried out in the studio as part of the show, complete with the audience joining in to suggest Muslim names for the new convert.

"There is no reason to think the boy was not converting of his own free will, but the whole event had the distinct air of being carried out to give viewers something new and different to watch, even if that meant dragging an intensely personal and spiritual experience into public view.”

This is like suggesting that it is quite nice to carve your meat at a fine dining table, but don’t let us see the butcher’s shop. There is as much ethics in what the paper says as the bleeding rites of passage. I have always maintained my anti-conversion stand, and in this case I might be interested to know a couple of things if ethics is an issue:

1. This is reality TV. Participants on such shows are paid. Was the boy paid to appear on the show or to convert?
2. If he was doing it of his own free will, then the question is not about conversion but about the involvement of imams, who object to entertainment programmes. 
3. Is it not the job of the media to investigate about the motives of the boy – where is he from, what are his reasons, instead of replaying clips?

Sitting on a high horse has become part of the media culture. Editorials are passing judgments and trying to ‘convert’ people into thinking in ways they deem fit all the time, taking political sides, writing treacly pieces on leaders.

Maya Khan in an earlier stint

The host of the ARY show is Maya Khan, who is seen as an Islamist. It is interesting that actress Veena Malik was supposed to host a Ramzan programme and it was vetoed by the mullahs in Pakistan. Did anyone among the liberals question the ethics of someone like the controversial lady hosting such a show? Was it not to grab eyeballs? Would it not be as bad as mullahs looking beady-eyed over a conversion? What are the ethics about having such shows at all in a country that is constantly discussing religious resurgence and its ill-effects?

Who is to decide what form of religion should be portrayed? If you want a Veena Malik type show, then someone else might find a Maya Khan entertaining. Did not Ms. Malik become the hero of a section of the nation when she took on some mullahs on a channel a couple of years ago for her right to expose her body and perform live canoodle scenes? She suddenly became the ambassador of the nation, of liberal Islam, of a fight for modernity.

These are all circus acts, and one does not expect better from reality television and that includes news channels. Part of the hot air is possibly because this is a competitive game, where ethics are the flakes of pistachio on the phirni, not an ingredient. This is borne out by the fact that the editorial is worried about how just to spice things up “religion is now fair game too”.

Talat Hussain, who hosts a political show on private television channel Dawn News, said:

“Think about how Muslims would feel if Buddhists in Burma show a Muslim being converted on a live TV show.”

If this is not spicy and sensational, then what is?

Religion always has been fair game. Why get pedantic about it in a country that relays every religious detail, and “spiritualism” is sold at shrines, as CDs? And just for the information of those who do not know, conversion is not a private matter. The decision to convert might be, but the individual has to perform certain rituals to show that s/he belongs. The whole reason behind it is often social acceptability or pressure.

Question that. But it would not get as much attention, does not give those expressing anger a primetime slot.

It is surprising to read this:

"more disturbingly, what the channel obviously didn't stop to consider is the message this broadcast would send to the country's minorities…The joy with which the conversion was greeted, and the congratulations that followed, sent a clear signal that other religions don't enjoy the same status in Pakistan as Islam does. In a country where minorities are already treated as second-class citizens in many ways, this served to marginalise them even further”

Who has made a noise about this? Where are the minority groups? It is not about the message a television show sends out. Pakistanis do not live in and off studios. The country’s laws discriminate against minorities.

Can anyone file a petition against the channel? Will it change anything? How many Pakistanis have the courage to flaunt their agnosticism/atheism, if that is their proclivity?

In a moment of perfect coordination, it would appear – and that showcases the hypocrisy – President Asif Ali Zardari has formally invited PM Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan:

Zardari suggested that if Singh’s visit coincided with Guru Nanak's birth anniversary in November, it would be well received by the Pakistani people and reinforce the desire of both countries to promote inter-religious harmony.

Is this not misuse of religion? Do India and Pakistan need to promote inter-religious harmony? At least, India does not need Pakistan for that. And this is being hailed by the same media that has been frothing at the mouth over a conversion. Weren’t Sikhs beheaded in that country not too long ago?

India has enough of its own problems with different religions and sects and castes. But I dread to think what would happen if we had an Ahmadi Prime Minister. Would President Zardari extend an invitation to celebrate anything and promote inter-religious harmony, when the community is ostracised socially and politically?

Perhaps one of the ‘ethical’ people of Pakistan might like to convert to the Ahmadiya faith on public television and send out a strong message?

If you cannot do that, then a coat of varnish is not going to change the shakiness of the walls.

(c) Farzana Versey

Domestic violence, pesticides, alcoholism: Half Truths-Satyamev Jayate

SMJImpact is a typically superficial and arrogant assumption that a television show has made a huge difference. We titter when any of the private channels, star anchors and even newspapers claim to expose cases. We raise doubts over sting operations. We question cops, soldiers, government officials and ministers even when there is palpable change. In fact, we do not see any impact when cases are cracked, when terrorists are stopped, when bore wells appear in villages or panchayats solve issues or women in rural areas form protection groups or become part of the cooperative movements. We do not care to see anything positive in political initiatives. 

We are right to a large extent. We say these are for votes, these are sops, these are tokenisms, these are drops in the ocean. 

When did Aamir Khan become the ocean? Is Satyamev Jayate really having any impact? Don't we know of how corporate groups ensure that the 'good work' they are involved with gets enough publicity? It would be foolish to imagine that change is taking place. A film star host has become the marketing vehicle for different causes, not unlike Bill Gates. Except that Bill Gates forks out his own money. However, philanthropy is never a free lunch. 

I did not write about the past three episodes. As I said the last time, one is not opposing everything. It is the stance that bothers me, and how a section of society helps in propagating it as the ultimate truth. If you need such a show to even know that domestic violence exists or to buy the one-dimensional view of the use of pesticides, then it is more sad than shocking. 

Let me recap my views on a couple of aspects:

Domestic violence, we all agree, is a serious issue. It is not only about being battered. There are other aspects, and mental cruelty is considered a legitimate ground for divorce. Again, the emphasis was on show and tell, giving it a vicarious tinge. Also, while it is essential that women are self-sufficient, the law has some provisions. A TV show has no business to expect a superwoman to be manufactured in the studio. One of them said that after taking a beating from her husband for years, one fine day she slapped him and that put an end to the torture. The sound byte here was that you have to take that step when it first starts. That's not how it works. The first time a person does not see it as the beginning of something horrible. People are used to being hit by parents, so this is seen as another paternal figure. 

At this point, I must commend activist Kamla Bhasin who explained the patriarchal construct. 

The show now follows a pattern of bringing in one or two well-heeled cases to tell people like us that people like us also suffer. The host dramatises the moment by starting off with, “So, we think this happens among the poor, uneducated? No." And then he shakes his head, sighs, and brings on a lady with blow-dried hair/lipstick/jewellery. There are so many stereotypes here already, and it is rather insulting to both women because they are put in these boxes and the only thing that 'identifies' them are scars of a kind. 



Pesticides are bad. But, Mr Khan should have asked his audience to put up their hands, as he does in school master style, whether they use mosquito repellants, DDT, and other sprays in the house. This was, of course, a show on pesticides in food, but he did begin by discussing how many women cook, go to the market to purchase their veggies. Yes, only women. 

Do you trust the organic lobby? I am as confused about its intent as other packaged foods. In what appeared to be a truly revealing exposé on the use of pesticide, and I must confess  that much as I like the natural I have been disappointed with the 'movement', what we got was just one aspect. The host demonised one manufacturer, and it became a joke. How much did his audience know about organic farming? It is not only about paying a bit more. The organic product lobby caters to the ostensibly aware segment. They are supposed to be either rich or concerned about health, the latter has become a big money-making industry. 

Unless grown in personal terraces or gardens using natural manure, nothing is without chemical traces if produced in bulk for the market. Fungicides are used in organic farming. It is a question of degree of how noticeable traces. 

I am sure there are health benefits, but not unless you wash these as well. Do not assume that what you get in healthy packages is always clean. But people lap this up. A little study will tell you some nasty truths. 

We are just not into that. It was pretty disgusting that the show started with a researcher telling us about how she found pesticide residue in mother's milk, because the woman had consumed non-organic food. I wonder how all those women with silicone implants would react! Honestly, there is too much of a good thing. 

I have not watched the episode on alcohol abuse. Lyricist Javed Akhtar was one of the guests and spoke about his battle with alcoholism. 

However, let me recount a conversation with an expat. She is impressed with the show. I am not surprised. 

"Imagine, Aamir Khan got a respected man like Javed Akhtar to speak about alcoholism," she said. 

"And he must have been feted for being frank, fearless, bringing the curse out in the open, opening the eyes of people..."

"It does. You realise how bad it is."

"You don't read the papers? You don't know of people who are addicted to drink? There were others too."

"But this is someone we identify with."

"What about Mr. Akhtar do you identify with? You are from disparate worlds."

"He is from the glamour industry, so it takes courage to come out and admit it."

"Sau choohe khake billi Haj ko chalee...anyhow, I read an article that quoted him where he said that drinking makes a person three things: 'ghinoney (filthy), gadhey (an ass), or both'."

"See, alcohol makes you like that too," said the lady.

"I don't think you need to be an alcoholic for that."

She is part of the "dream response" that has made Mr. Aamir Khan opt for another season. Obviously, he would not have done so unless he was "convinced", "moved", "sensitised". I should hope a lot of people discover life and different sorts of people, finally. And they can recall real people with similar issues. 

Perhaps, we will get to watch a show with more celebrities in confession mode. How about the philanthropy partner's bossman Mukesh Ambani on his chemical industries polluting the environment? Or, how babus are bought? 

Just a thought, for truth's sake. 

Half Truths: Satyamev Jayate (Doctors in trouble)

Doctors and medical frauds should concern us all. I have had some horrid experiences that made me revaluate the dependency we have on medicines. Capsules, doctors, hospitals have been a prominent part of my life. So, I was truly glad to watch yesterday’s episode of ‘Satyamev Jayate’ because there are many of us who have no option but to blindly trust our bodies with those who are qualified but treat us as organs, rather than people.

This time, the host cut down on the vicariousness and concentrated on more information. However – yes, there is a clause – for much of the show the emphasis was on how people are forced to take medicines when they do not need any. One particular example was of a man who flashed a packet of ORS and said that he could have been cured of his diarrhoea and vomiting with this at Rs. 15 instead of the few thousand he spent at two different hospitals.

There are such cases. But ORS is available over the counter or can be prepared at home. What if people start thinking that since most doctors are going to fleece you/mislead you, it would be better to self-medicate? What if it indeed turns out to be a serious illness?

The solutions were simplistic. Go to a chemist for generic medicine and you save money. This is for drugs that are expensive and for major illnesses. What about those we take for common ailments?

It would have been topical had the show also brought up the recent case of a poor man whose wife was denied admission to a hospital after an accident and his sorry tale of running from one to another to another till she died.

The tale of a village in Andhra Pradesh where all women had their uteruses removed should have been seen from the population control perspective rather than medical malpractice. Someone is responsible at a higher level; this cannot be doctors just wanting to make women sterile to earn money.

It is perturbing to know that India spends only 1.4 % of its budget on healthcare. And it was good to see the efforts made by some to use the pay-in-advance scheme, where the poor and the rest can benefit based on their capacity.

The racket and the treatment are two different aspects. Aamir Khan, it is being said with much appreciation, grilled the Medical Council of India (MCA) chief. All he managed was a schoolmaster version of extracting a promise to behave. Taking away licenses from doctors for malpractice is all very well, but how many doctors do we have with regard to ratio of population? Many people still visit quacks. Then, there is the ancillary industry of homeopaths and ayurveda, and these days they are all meshing.

I only hope that we don’t see a spurt of ‘actions taken’ and then the lull. This is an ongoing problem, a tragedy of our country.

- - -

Let me share something I had written earlier about exposing a doctor:

A few years ago I had followed up a case of neglect that could have led to death. A wrong blood group diagnosis prior to surgery. In a chawl at the far suburb of Ghatkopar in Mumbai resided this lower middle-class family; they put all their papers and trust before me. It was late night when I left them.

Next morning I decided to meet the doctor. I entered the clinic and after a very long wait his wife, also a doctor, told me he was not in town. It was a lie for the fruit vendor outside had in fact given me the exact address and also confirmed his presence.

When I went out, I told him he wasn’t in. “Aisa kaise ho sakta hai? Hum ne khud dehka aatey hue aur unki gaadi bhi yahaan hai.” (How is it possible? I saw him enter and his car is still there.)

It was raining outside. I crossed the street and lay in wait, hoping for something. Nothing. The showers were getting incessant and I was drenched. It must have been the time of a blink of an eye when I saw THE car get out of the gate. I couldn’t move. Where would I? How? It was a helpless situation. I left. An hour later a colleague from a magazine told me that he had got a call from the doctor, he was a nice man, very influential. The message was that I should keep shut.

I did not.

What happened? Did the family get anything out of it? No. Except that they had raised their voice. No action was taken despite their case being put before the medical council.

Slowly, it was almost forgotten…a year or so later I was shocked to read that this doctor had been given some award by his own fraternity.

The media today has a greater reach, more influence. It should use it as a weapon against offenders and act as a shield for those who need protection.

As for me, that scene still haunts me of a car that escaped and the rain that wouldn’t stop. It haunts me that I could do nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Half Truths: Satyamev Jayate (Dowry and Child Abuse)

“At least he is doing something,” they say.

Yes. This charity consciousness may work for those who do not have to go through the problems Aamir Khan’s subjects have gone through. ‘Satyameva Jayate’ cannot expect to be beyond reproach only because of a celebrity host.

Yesterday, it dealt with dowry. Why is it seen as something new and why must it be lauded as one more attempt? There are several. More importantly, why did they interview a man who was kidnapped in a village and made to get married? This is a rare custom of ‘pakadva vivah’. It gives the impression of being the norm and, if the impact of the programme is so great, then would it not justify women being kidnapped and forced into a marriage of convenience? Are women to be shown as only ‘marriage material’?

The other issue I have is with the simple, no frills marriage. Curiously, two Muslim social workers and two veiled women represented this. May I ask why? And what did the gentleman from Burhanpur mean when he said, “In 60 years no woman from our place has been burnt to death”? Is that an achievement? And the host and the audience applauded, instead of saying categorically that this was a crime and they’d have been behind bars had anyone done so. I do not see why women have to be demeaned with such a back-handed patronising attitude.

‘Samuh vivah’, community marriage, is quite common; it saves money spent on the hall and priests, and yet has a festive air to it. People do want nice weddings. Instead of lecturing others, Mr. Khan forgets the expenditure on his own and his nephew’s wedding functions. Of course, there will be some who might say I am getting personal, and I am. You cannot tell people to stinge on bricks when you live in a mansion.

It would have helped to also highlight the price for different categories of men - IAS guys are the most expensive apparently.Why not talk to men, the in-laws? This is effectively putting pressure on the victims to recount their experiences and therefore, in a way, be responsible for holding themselves up to scrutiny.

As for the girl who had done a sting operation on her future in-laws, she got lucky she found someone who she says is understanding. But stings are not the solution. The cases highlighted were of arranged marriages. This happens even when it is a love marriage, and it may not be called dowry. Today, a working woman is prized for her ability to earn and contribute to her husband’s joint family.

If some people do not know about this, then you can see it in one of Ekta Kapoor’s serials. Ah, but you might feel a bit ashamed to admit you watch those. So, it’s ‘Satyameva Jayate’.

- - -

I skipped commenting on last week’s show. It was dreadful. Child abuse is. Talking about it is. Getting exhibitionistic about it is. Before the painful details, the host informed us that we may not want the children to watch, so we should take them to another room (his audience will not live in a one-room house, ok?), but close enough to bring them back to the TV set towards the end. Those participating went into the details. One young woman, when asked why she came out and spoke, said that indeed she was single, but who knows after this show she might meet someone, for she did not want to be with a man who would not accept her past.

I don’t know why we have standard ideas of empathy. I feel for what she has been through, but she has coped well, and it is not imperative that she would reveal her abuse to a suitor.

The male victim also went into details. I would have liked the psychologist to discuss the case studies and help them. This man endured it from the age of six till he was 18; his body and hormonal changes would have transformed in this period; he is now gay, but says it has nothing to do with what he went through. These are questions that need to be examined. I am not being judgmental. But the emphasis on story-telling and cutting short genuine analysis makes it just another show. I have seen a dramatised version of abuse where a 12-year-old even got pregnant on 'Crime Patrol', based on real-life incidents taken from police records.

The man I mentioned said he led two lives, and in the other he escaped into the world of films. He adored Sridevi. Later, the actress made an appearance. If at all, sending a message would have sufficed. This is not ‘make a wish’ show. But then the lady is making a comeback to films, and we may see other such ‘appearances’ in later episodes. Already, Nita Ambani is a participating sponsor through the Reliance Foundation. Every cause needs money. And every business needs tax exemption. It is wonderful that someone is helping out, but we do not need one more lecturer living in a bubble to take us on a discovery of India trip during the breaks.


The worst was yet to come: A workshop where the host told the viewers to bring the children into the room. Hiding them would have already filled their minds with ideas of something secretive happening. Now they were made to watch a group of obviously well-to-do children (child abuse does not seem to afflict the poor) being educated. “What is danger?” they were asked. Then they were shown two figures on the monitor – male and female – and the chest, genital area and buttocks were highlighted. These were ‘danger’ areas and if anyone other than parents were to touch them there they should shout.

This is just horrible. Most children are taken to isolated places, or abused when no one is around. I am perturbed by the identifying of these parts of the body with ‘danger’. Imagine when they grow up and get attracted to someone, will it not impact on physical intimacy?

Can we stop these simplistic solutions? Are parents not the culprits sometimes? The problem is that such shows will skirt many issues that may be difficult to swallow. We had the prominent Mira Road case right here in Mumbai where the mother actively encouraged the father and a tantrik to sexually assault both her daughters. Why did the show shy away from such cases?

Or, of quasi religious ceremonies where young girls are offered and virgin blood is considered a cure for impotency? What about someone from a remand home where some of the worst such crimes are committed? Think of Madhur Bhandarkar’s 'Chandni Bar' and 'Page 3', in which high-flying industrialists entertain their foreign guests with boys procured from such shelters. Why were there no such mentions of these wonderful people?

Is the purpose only to make us cringe? Please understand that you are getting half the story, half the truth. Those reading this and watching the show are perhaps exposed to such cases and are enlightened. Think about the many who are not. They will sit wide-eyed thinking of those images expressed by the participants. They will imagine them.

This is dangerous.

- - -

No one can accuse me of not dealing with such subjects. So, I do plan to write on this show with the same fervour. To small minds, it might appear like I am using it, but it is less vile than using people who are suffering.

Half Truths and Image-building: Satyamev Jayate

It started with the promos. Sunday, day to laze, wake up late, lounge in bed, have a cuppa. Then switch on the TV to watch the reality of India. Satyamev Jayate: Truth shall prevail. Walking near the sea, the host addressed us, telling us how he could not remove himself from this truth, how we cannot. And then we faced an audience. Yes, we faced the audience – they cried, they were moved. This was the idea. We were being judged by the standards of how a studio audience was judging, and the audience mimicked the host.

I will not take a swipe about what a superlative actor Aamir Khan is. But he is missing the reality more than anyone else. This is not Rancho of ‘3 Idiots’, who can do a techie version of Munnabhai, including the jaadoo ki jhappi, the magical embrace.

I did not watch it at 11 am on Sunday. I was not sleeping, therefore I am not his target. Some of us have other things to do. I did not watch the repeat late afternoon. At night, after the music show I catch often on weekends, he appeared again, with the wind in his hair, the sunset framing his silhouette. As you can see, I have not mentioned a word about the content. This is the problem.

The “most talked about show” is like any other reality show, even the much derided ‘Sach Ka Saamna’. The difference is that the host comes with a squeaky clean record of involvement in socially-relevant projects, never mind that all those are timed to promote his films/his ideas.

I do not grudge him the money he gets for every episode – reportedly Rs 3 crore. What I have issues over is that he assumes we are a bunch of ignorant people who do not know the truth. Every ‘discovery’ by him showed members of the audience with a set of expressions: wide-eyed, open mouthed, hands on lips, shaking head. It is clear that Mr. Khan did not know much, until his researchers ran through reams of work on the subject that exists and is read by many people, at least the ones who watched his show.

The subject was female foeticide. Three women were invited to give their personal examples of being forced to go through abortions or discard their female offspring. Two were from small towns and one a doctor from Delhi. This was to tell us that it does not only happen in the villages.

Have you not seen anything like this before? Also, the important saviours were men. He is promoting a patriarchal notion where women have to suffer, and if they brave it to give birth to female children then they have to leave home and manage on their own. There was no mention of male responsibility.

This was so disgusting, because many women do not have the means to earn. A strong message about taking the men to task, to insist on maintenance should have been made. What this programme did was to create a ‘ladies special’. The fact that the first show used a woman’s subject, knowing well that the telly-watching audience comprises largely of women, was marketing strategy.

Worse, via teleconferencing we got to see a bunch of men in their 30s in Haryana who cannot marry because of the skewed gender ratio. Instead of getting them to speak about the problem that has been created by their own, he let them talk about the lack of women and how they should get Salman Khan to be with them. Aamir said that Salman’s problem was different – he was surrounded by women and found it difficult to choose. Clearly, this man is a sexist under the garb of a women’s rights proponent. The message being that if you are a hero of sorts then women will follow you everywhere and such problems like female foeticide don’t mean a thing. As I said, he is scoring brownie points with his little huddle group.

I’d like to see him deal with other real issues that he might be more familiar with: the casting couch, promiscuity, lower pay for women in the glamour industry, extra-marital affairs, nepotism in the niche professions. Deal with your own weeds, too.

Is it fair to judge based on one show? It is. If you are talking about the ‘truth’, then don’t behave as though it is a bolt of lightning. And I dislike the idea of the sainted Aamir Khan writing a letter to stop this practice and asking us to send a SMS saying Yes or No. What the heck does this mean? What if there are a considerable number of ‘No’ responses? Will he wear purple robes and appear on the balcony to give his blessings so that the poor ignorant are washed off their sins? And if there are a majority of ‘Yes’ replies, will he take the credit for bringing about change?

Rather tellingly, he writes out ‘Satyamev Jayate’ on sand. It’s about impermanence, about being washed away by the waves.

This show is about making people cringe for a while as they watch real people reveal the burden of living lesser lives from our forced seemingly vantage unreal positions. This is the only way the host can wave his magic wand.

(c)Farzana Versey

There's a Kambli in you, too

Teary on camera, 2011

You have heard about cricketer Vinod Kambli crying on a television channel. You have heard the experts. The “I was there…” chant has begun. What is the objection to Kambli’s statement that the 1996 World Cup semi-final match against Sri Lanka was possibly fixed and that is the reason we lost?

Teary on the field, 1996

Here are the arguments by those who know:

• Why did he wait for 15 years?

We wait for years to discover our heritage and wreak havoc on people in the name of culture. 15 years is not much.

• Why is he saying that his career was finished when he played 31 one-day matches after that?

Did he reach the form, what was his role in test cricket? Wasn’t he the guy who started with Sachin Tendulkar and showed the same – some even say more – promise?

• Why is he creating a drama and crying before the cameras?

Kapil Dev cried; Hanse Cronje cried; Dhoni cried; Yuvraj cried – that latter two for sheer joy after the last World Cup victory. Kambli had cried on the field at that time as well. Why did no one say anything about it?

• How can he say he was made a scapegoat – by whom?

Precisely. The manner in which all those in the team then are now rallying behind Mohammed Azharuddin, who was banned for life for match-fixing, (the ban was removed in 2006) just shows that they knew whose tail they could twist. He quoted the then team manager Ajit Wadekar, and Wadekar is himself now saying that Kambli’s accusations are not true. (Azhar is now screaming about Kambli. Does he know what they have been saying in the studios about him during this discussion? That his word does not count.)

The dressing room has seen a lot of action in the past, so it is not like this cannot happen. If all those experts are saying, oh, it is possible, but he cannot make these claims without evidence, I’d tell them to go run between the wickets. If they can suspect, and say it on national television, then so can Kambli.

It is pretty disgusting to listen to them declare that had the accusation come from someone like Manjrekar or Tendulkar perhaps one would take note. Really? What happens to those ‘waking up after 15 years’ comments? Manjrekar said it may have been a wrong decision but it was an honest one. Now they are all saying that it was a team decision to field. Is there a vote by the team when the coin is tossed on the field?

And where is Sachin Tendulkar? Watching from the wings? No statement from him. Perhaps he is just waiting for that 100th century.

The problem is that Kambli has been the castaway always, and I believe that where regional biases are so strong can someone stand a chance with a high-caste attitude? In the early days an Eknath Solkar (a gardener’s son) could get away with a little pity; in the days of commercialisation someone like Kambli has the stakes heavily against him.

He came from what is referred to as the backward class, lived in a chawl with his parents and six siblings, studied upto matriculation, and became a prodigy on the field. He scored almost 800 runs in his first seven tests. He was clearly on the make. His double century came much before Sachin Tendulkar’s, but the latter is the respectable face of Indian cricket. Kambli was the eternal rebel, seemingly with no roots and therefore no possibility of flowering into anything of consequence.

A lot has been said about the Sachin-Vinod friendship; many have even attributed Kambli’s inclusion in matches due to this factor. It is commendable that they could share such a relationship at all in a cut-throat world. But while Sachin has always been seen as a magnanimous gentleman and a loyal friend, Kambli had to live under this shadow of generosity, even when it dried up. (He made the mistake of mentioning this too on a reality show – the naïve fool.)

He and Javed Miandad (in his time) were like clowns in the circus. They knew that people were there to watch the acrobats and the animals display their skills, while their job was to be funny and flamboyant. This often made them social and professional outcasts. Taking risks had, therefore, become a ‘nothing to lose’ gamble.

Tendulkar stood for stability; we could rely on him and show him off. Kambli was the boy who needed to be given a chance. And he mucked it up by being the bad boy. We could also feel superior for encouraging a wayward person get back on the right track. He was cricket’s own combination of tragedy king and jerk.

The local imperialists as well as the patriots are aghast. When he said, “Main apne desh ke saath kabhi gaddari nahin kar sakta (I cannot ever betray my country),” I can well imagine the shudders going through so many replays. It does not make him a great patriot or the others less so. But it further exposes how this sport’s major contribution these days is not about the nation but the spoils of such wars – it could be in terms of endorsements or making it to the record books.

Why, Sunil Gavaskar and Ravi Shastri are on the payroll of the governing body of cricket and yet claim to be objective experts during matches. The controversy has been sidelined. After all, they are not drama queens.

Kambli is. It is in his system. That is the way he played his game, the way he talks and the way he makes a scene. Some of it has been no doubt to get attention. But how can anyone ridicule him for appearing on reality TV shows? All these starchy fellows who make up the panels of news studios are also being exhibitionistic. Last night, the anchor of Times Now, Arnab Goswami, got them to stop and watch a portion of the interview with his running commentary: “See, he is crying, he is hurt, emotions are rolling down his cheeks!” Is this not drama when you replay the drama and get your jollies out of it? If this is a non-issue, why is everyone so hot and bothered and grabbing their airtime? And Navjoy Singh Siddhu should keep shut – he has been a judge on a comedy show, and he does not even have to get on one to be a comic.

Yes, Kambli woke up too late. Yes, he wants to be on TV (was he invited or did he solicit it?). So? In 1996, there were not too many avenues for him to open up. If the media is sitting in judgement, or making the most of this situation, then do not blame him. This is what television is about now, and everyone is playing to the gallery.

Vinod Kambli is this Indian psyche, a sort of street urchin playing in the rain and dreaming of making it big, and landing up in the studios even if it means showing the shit.

- - -

Here it is:

Swami and Fiends: Agnivesh's Strategy

What can be worse than Swami Nityanand video clips in uncompromising positions? Swami Agnivesh in Bigg Boss. The whole promos-on-television idea has gone completely haywire – every film is pushed till it kills or dies. The same applies to people. While news channels have fake courts to let the same bunch of people come clean and the others have a more circuitous manner of doing so, entertainment channels are now happily permitting this.

It is completely ridiculous. This season’s Bigg Boss already made Shakti Kapoor look like a saint. Now we have a qualified Swami who will enter the fray. Had he said it was just for another experience or not even tried to explain his stand, it would have been okay. I watch the show between other things and to see him do the dishes, rustle up tea, brush his teeth, walk on the treadmill, relax in a bright pink and yellow room, and wake up in the morning, peeping from under a blanket looking on indulgently as women and men in funny clothes do a jig, might have been as much fun as biting into a too sour slice of fruit. But the honourable Swamiji has got a higher purpose. Of course, everyone told him not to do it, but after watching some episodes he thought he had to create awareness:

“The girls inside the house don’t seem to have any social responsibility. I want to make them realize just how many girl children are killed in the womb and how many women are burnt alive in the name of sati.”

Nobody watches shows such as this to get lectures and the participants probably know about these issues – not one of them looks like she’d fall into her husband’s funeral pyre or kill her female child. And what will he teach the guys? These people are not serving time in jail that they need to be reformed, however shrill and irritating they may be. But, then, it is the ‘spontaneous’ script. The swami is going with his own script, too.

“In the past a lot of people have tried to tarnish my image. I will take this show as a test. I shall maintain my integrity and remain transparent inside the house. I am going to the house with a selfish motive. Like former President of India, APJ Kalam says, I want to ignite the youth through this show. The entire society has to come forward.”

I am afraid, the so-called honesty about selfishness is convenient. Maybe he will tell us he did not fly Business Class? The producers of the show have given him a platform because it will help their TRPs. Just imagine a saint among sinners, that too one who wears a saffron robe but is a secularist. I can already see the ‘aware’ Pooja Bedi welcome him as an activist she has always admired and Lakshmi the eunuch – in her past interviews and public appearances she always maintained a regular profile but on this show keeps clapping like any roadside hijra because that will get more attention – who will want to be his student. I can already see that many of them will not change their mode of dress (low slung jeans and cleavage-revealing blouses) and Agnivesh will not comment on these because he will state he believes the atma (the soul) is what matters.

I wonder why no one looks at A. Raja’s soul.

“I am not doing the show for money. I have never been a greedy guy, I was a professor of law in Kolkata when I left everything and came with one aim-- to change the society. Bringing about a change is my sole purpose and I think this is a strong and powerful medium by which I can spread my message. By doing this show I want to pass on the message to our youth to come forward and bring about a change. I was very happy when I got this offer.”

Is he doing this for free? Greed is not restricted to monetary gains, and just how much does a law professor make? Many of these people who ‘give up everything’ are in fact offered a cushier life trying to change others. It is easier than changing oneself. He just wants to be on TV in another format to show his range. And what is his swamihood all about?

“I will teach them yoga and meditation and will give them love. I have seen 2-3 episodes where they have been fighting but that doesn't bother me as they are better than the members of parliament who throw chairs, break micro phones and abuse each other - that's more embarrassing.”

Give them love? Had any other male said it, there would be a huge noise. This man sounds really too patronising. And why did he not try and do something about what happens in parliament?

The worst possible thing he could say is this:

“If I can stay with the Maoists, I can definitely stay with these people.”

What does he mean by these people? And what is he trying to convey through the comparison with the Maoists – that they are difficult to deal with? That he was in a risky situation? This goes against his own support for the movement.

What a dramebaaz. Anna’s People’s Movement has been one big joy ride for its core group, and each a bigger actor than the other.

If only Bigg Boss had a couple of Kapils on the show, too. Sibal and Maharaj.

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.

Ending on Primetime

He was made into a corpse in a moratorium even before he died. His body went limp and the world saw it. They paid to watch it as the images flickered and the TV dinner or the evening drink in their hands shook a bit.

BBC1’s primetime documentary, 'Inside the Human Body', used Gerald a cancer patient on live television. He died in January, but they showed his last breath moment yesterday. Was it right?

A BBC spokesman defended it:

“Death is an important part of the human experience, and showing Gerald’s death is integral to understanding what happens to the body when it is no longer able to function properly. The BBC does not shy away from difficult subjects like this, but presents them in a sensitive and appropriate manner.”

If that were the motive, then it would have been proper to show his x-rays, the scans, and 3-D images of the affected parts. However sensitively it might have been portrayed, this is not much different from reality television and a bit more devious. In those shows you know someone is putting on an act or exaggerating or whose buttons are being pushed. Here, Gerald’s death was played out for two months. Indeed, the ‘experience’ of death lasted this long as his lung and liver degenerated.

Death is not part of the human experience; it is the end of it for the person concerned.

Gerald was approached last November. he had said then:

“I don't want to die but evidently, unless some miracle happens, I ain't going to be here very long so let's get on with my life as best I can. I'm not frightened. I believe it will not be just like cutting off tape with some scissors. It might be, but either way I just have blind trust I shall not completely disappear.”

Why was he approached? Are news channels in charge of such experiments? How do they choose their guinea pigs? He was probably told that what he was going through would help others. Do the ratings of the programme reveal any education on the part of the viewers? I can imagine sympathy and fear…the stuff you get in soaps and increasingly in news stories. But when there is no cure for last-stage cancer, the emphasis should be on finding out how to improve lives, not to get people to accept the inevitable and do a sightseeing tour of what happens to the body. Especially not the skin and flesh and eyes and smile.

I do not buy into the argument that people are accustomed to seeing gunshots and blown-up brains on TV shows and films. I might add that we see such deaths in real encounters too. The two are examples of fiction and reality. Not the in-between situation of Gerald. I would have understood an interview with him where he spoke about what tormented him, but not this. Certainly not this.

Recently, some guy had put up a line on his Facebook account that he was going to kill his son ‘now’ and he did. He had taken him from his estranged wife for the day. These have become the new YouTube fantasies, where people who would otherwise have lived and died as most do want to become public figures. There is no dearth of takers. In Gerald’s case, we are told that he was 84, as though it lessens the pain in any manner. In the picture as he breathed his last his family is shown weeping.

Many viewers might have done so too. This does not mean it is one big family joined together in sorrow. It means for those who were not close to him an end to a show.

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.

Amitabh Bachchan dargah mein haazir ho...

Bachchan at Tirupati with brothers-in-arms Anil Ambani and Amar Singh

We had no idea that Amitabh Bachchan’s religious routine includes visits to dargahs. This is news. How come we never heard about it before? Aww, of course you will say that Mr B is subtle, he does not show off, he is a private person, he is so dignified. Fine. But if his pictures can be taken at temples, then they can be clicked at dargahs too. It is permissible and every celebrity placing a sheet of flowers over a tomb has been photographed, including Shakti Kapoor.

There could be pictures of Mr. B but obviously he did not want them displayed. Wonder why. Incidentally, the Haji Ali Dargah is still being renovated, so it was really some effort on his part to make it there. I understand the sanctum work has only just begun. Never mind such minor details.

Places of worship enjoy such famous devotees and the PR agents make sure their high-profile employers are given the right media coverage. Pandits and maulvis get into the act and feel good cordoning off the place so that the privileged worshipper can pay his respects in a privileged manner. All good.

Now, Mr Private Amitabh Bachchan has revealed that he has been threatened by an anonymous person via text message for visiting a temple and a dargah because it is “incorrect” to do so.

One assumes the person believes he cannot do both and it is tantamount to demeaning one faith. The report mentions visits to two dargahs and two temples in the course of a day. Interestingly, neither the individual nor the recipient mentions any particular reason or the religious belief of the sender. It sounds a bit strange given that fanatics of any faith would make their intentions very clear.

Obfuscation, of course, has its merits, especially to depict bravado:

“I am going to do it again, and shall continue to do it. And I want to see how you are going to stop me. If you have the courage and guts, come and get me,’’ he wrote (in his blog). The man has also warned the actor that his latest film Aladin, which hit the theatres on Friday, will not be successful because of Bachchan’s act of visiting both the dargah and temple.

“If the film has merit, no force on earth will be able to stop its worth. If the film is weak and does not have merit, no force on earth shall be able to make it a success. At the cost of every film of mine failing, I am not going to change my routine,’’ wrote Bachchan.

Aha, so it is a publicity stunt for the film. I knew it, but I wanted to leave this for the last. As I asked earlier, how many times have we heard about this routine of Mr. B? Aladdin, as we know, is an old Arabian legend; in the movie the actor plays the role of the genie. It is amusing that his routine is perfectly timed with the film’s release and is prominently mentioned in the SMS as well as in his response to it. The dargah angle makes complete sense now. How can you have an Arabic setting with a Muslim name and no little stopover at a place of that faith?

Clubbed together with this gimmick is the patented Bachchan self-effacing diversion: The film will succeed on merit and fail if it has no merit. This is just to make sure that a) the believers should throng the theatres, b) if they don't like the film, remember he went to a Muslim shrine too, so spare the Hindu one…okay, I am kidding!

But, someone is really smart.

This angel/genie persona is evident in Bigg Boss 3.

He tries to repeat the Kaun Banega Crorepati stunts with sanskritised Hindi and you almost feel that he is in inquisition mode. This season's show is boring as hell, but when I do catch some action on the day the contestant is voted out and that final salaam, it becomes obvious that the programme has suffered hugely because of him. The participants are aware of his stature and he is aware of his stature.

When he attempts the psychologist act it just does not ring true. Last night he tried it with Sherlyn Chopra and it was worse than a Nirupa Roy cliched tearjerker where he called up her mother and there was a patch-up with the lady referring to him as an angel.

All so darned staged. Understood? Amitabh Bachchan acts as genie and the poor little girl’s wish is granted.

I wish his Bhootnath had released now. It would have been fun to see him disappear. Yeah, that word: Disappear…uhm, King Lear.
- - -

Top image courtesy: Amitabh at Tirupati

The Muslim Factor in Rakhi ka Swayamvar

...and sophomoric feminism

Mainstream liberal privately-owned Indian television slapped the Muslim community. I was expecting it, but not the way it finally happened.

Rakhi with her gift of love

A short background. The reality show Rakhi ka Swayamvar is currently NDTV Imagine’s best-selling prime-time money maker. Rakhi Sawant has to choose from 16 suitors, mimicking the swayamvar of the old days.

There were two Muslim contestants. The first one was booted out on Day One; someone had to be and he was probably not all that good. Fair enough. The other contestant was a police officer from Kashmir. Athar Pervez did not come across as the smartest bloke but he was quiet and fairly dignified.

Last night, they got the TV host’s wife as the bhabhi, a sort of support system for the bride-to-be. Athar met her and said he wanted to confess something. He was already married and had three kids! What the heck is going on? The channel screened the applicants. Did he lie to them? Why was that question not raised?

Instead, there was an attempt to buffer the stereotype of Islam and four wives. The bhabhi looked shocked when he said that his wife and parents knew that he was participating and his wife only wanted him to be happy. When Rakhi was told about it she sniffled and said he was one person she had begun to respect and was thinking of as a potential partner. In a conversation, he repeated what he had said and Rakhi asked him how it was possible for a man to have more than one wife. He told her his religion permitted it but he would not leave his family. She looked at him angrily and shot back, “How can any religion allow it?”…and then went on to give him a lecture on Islam and what the Quran in fact says. (Her version is not completely right.) Pervez Athar may be married, but this was no way to make a point.

Rakhi welcomes Pervez

The point being made here is that now the protagonist of the show can turn around and say that these contestants may all have skeletons in their cupboards or something to hide so, nope, she won’t marry anyone. This bit will come at the end. In all likelihood it is an eyewash, to begin with.

Why do I watch the programme at all? For several reasons. I do watch TV, including soaps. Long before she was legitimised by the posh set of coffee spelled with a K and togged up in designer wear, I had expressed some admiration for her position; I felt there was a hierarchy followed regarding who could strip more and, because she spoke little English and did not belong to the charmed set, she was doomed to be referred to as an item girl. I thought that after her makeover she would still come across as honest even if melodramatic. She is. Pretty much.

I also liked the idea of a swayamvar. This was a practice prevalent in ancient times and some of our epic characters chose their husbands in this manner – be it Sita in Ramayana or Draupadi in Mahabharata. True, these were from royal families and the suitors were naturally from similar backgrounds. In a contemporary setting, it would be an interesting concept and perhaps convey that women have the right to ask questions and be in command.

The first episode had Rakhi welcoming her suitors; each carried a gift. Then there were episodes where she tested them at various levels, and perhaps that will continue. Unfortunately, even though she is the one in charge, she has talked about wanting to live in a joint family. When a buffoon said if he had to choose between a plasma TV and a washing machine he would opt for the latter because he would not want her to wash clothes, she was impressed. Puhleeze…he could bloody well wash them. She also talks about the importance of dal-chaawal over lipstick – now this woman cannot hold her breasts till they are filled with silicone gel, has had every part either pumped up or tucked in, so what is going on? Why can a woman not want the best if she has earned it? Why is she playing this simple girl? Is simplicity only about superficials?

Some of the contestants were students or barely earned any money; she herself implied that a couple of them were looking for fame. Of course, they are.

When the channel announced the show, they reportedly received 15,000 applications. There is one contestant from Toronto. The channel is attempting pop psychology with little games, but this is not anywhere close to a feminist statement. I mean, she dresses in low-cut gowns to convey that this is what she wears and then simpers and asks whether some guy’s family will accept her. She fed a Brahmin vegetarian some meat and he ate it. I know many pure vegetarians and they would throw up. This guy just made a face and then gobbled it up.

As drama, this works at a sophomore level because most of the boys/men are stupid and only want to show themselves on TV. It is obvious. Or they could be besotted by Rakhi.

Pervez Athar said he was. Besides the Islam factor, she also said that she would not want to break up anyone’s home. The fellow is telling her in front of the world that he loves his wife and will not leave his family. Where is the question, then, of breaking up a home?

Pervez Athar

He lives in Srinagar and if his seniors really gave him permission to participate in this, then one must find out what exactly are the rules. Did he show the channel any such report? Before an audience of millions he has been made out to be a liar and a cheat. If the police force wishes to take action against him, it would only be right that the channel is also made culpable. If all this was only for effect, I should hope no organisation issues a fatwa or something. That is precisely what some of these people want. The fact is that Athar said that he loved Rakhi and not her religion so he would not ask her to convert. Therefore, it isn’t a bearded Muslim issue, okay?

It does not take too much intelligence to realise that many of the contestants will have hidden stories and agendas, too. The channel wants the show to be in the limelight. It was Rakhi’s idea and a husband is the last thing she is looking for. This is her spunky attempt at becoming ‘respectable’ or maybe even a naughty take on the bahus in our serials and, who knows, a big kick to her ex-boyfriend. Interestingly, his friend is a contestant; she knew him from before the show. How did the channel permit it?

Meanwhile, I hope today’s episode that will most definitely touch upon the married guy sent packing scene of last night does not repeat the stupid stereotypes. In fact, there ought to be an attempt to apologise, even if all this was stage-managed, which seems very likely. So is the possibility of a fake marriage taking place to save face of the purported motive.

As for the contemporary woman outside TV channels, I think they are doing fine in their offices and homes without dreaming about washing machines and a guy cleaning his dirty linen in it.

The petty games at Big Boss

“Oh no, we don’t watch Big Bosssss…you must be craazzyyy.”

Nope. I watch it as much as I like watching hypocritical socialites who pretend to watch classics on HBO. It fits into my time schedule and I like people watching.

This season of the reality show has been tepid. The person who was made to stand out was Rahul Mahajan. I say made to because on his own he would have been a dud. He was handed the best roles on a platter. And as Krishna he got a readymade Radha and Meera. Turns out that the three are really good at ras leela.

One of the women, Monica Bedi, was known as gangster Abu Salem’s moll and was in prison after she was extradited from Portugal to India.

Rahul was caught in a drug spree, where his father’s secretary died under mysterious circumstances, soon after the senior’s death, and was arrested. He got away, at least technically, and arranged a quick marriage in a ‘simple’ manner. Soon enough his wife came up with bruises. They are now divorced and good friends. All staged. I don’t care about his iffy sexuality; that these social birds on the make are ready to offer him cover is their and his problem.

What I object to is these people using a show to clear their names. And worst of all, a gullible public will accept their television image. Monica was smart. For the first half she played the nice homely lass; after her eviction and re-entry as a wild card, she had transformed into a glamorous (as glamorous as she could manage) woman. You need to be dumb not to realise which one was real. Neither. She is just a smart cookie who wants to get back into films; now her old lover (he says they had got married) is not there to help her like he did earlier. She gave a sob story – which may be partially true – about people not renting out a place to her. That is what happens to many such young women in the city even if they don’t have a gangster background.

Rahul was quite another smartie. He too wanted to clear his name, but could not get rid of the verbal slurring and manic laughter that is associated with certain habits. He was charming, he was friendly, he did a bit of everything…making sure that at least once every while someone mentioned that he was a youth leader.

On Saturday, there were not adequate provisions in the house for food, so the four men, finalists, decided to climb the wall and to the other side. Everyone else expressed guilt; not Rahul. He said this was not cowardice but rebellion. Heck, one of his chamchas left behind even said he was a Bhagat Singh!

He broke a rule. The channel and the company should have thrown him out. He was given the option to leave voluntarily. Not only that, he was interviewed specially for the show.

He is in today’s papers. And he has the audacity to state: “In any case, what I would have won would have gone to charity. In this case, I consider my eviction a charitable act on my part so that my friends may win the cash they so badly need. Charity should start at home; Bigg Boss’s house is home.” Patronising bully.

He has emphasised that he does not need the money. Yes. He does not. His father, who was killed by his own brother, had made more than enough. The father’s legacy lives on in other ways. We attack only one dynasty. What about the others? Although he does not have a good track record, the BJP immediately took him under its wing; now his sister is contesting the elections from South Mumbai; her claim to fame besides her lineage is that she has made herself visible at all Page 3 covered parties. He says he will be his sister’s mascot.

And you know what? It may work. Their target electorate are the socialites who they hobnob with. I can see them rooting for the “cutie” who talks about karma, so much like they do at their Art of Living sessions.

Yeah, go ahead and hold your nose, baby. Pranayama is so good to avoid your own stink.