Commonwealth Games will Not be a Dud - a Prediction

Please do not think the above title is written sarcastically, or that what follows is some kind of satire. No, rather quite to the contrary, I write the following in earnest.

I have for quite some time been skeptical of motives and methods of those who work for the Indian media, especially the national media, which includes English dailies, magazines and English and Hindi news channels, and the web sites managed by them (to whose works I get exposed; my exposure of the regional media is very little). I have highlighted the reason for this utter lack of trust in many posts of mine (click on the individual links to view them; they will open in a new window/tab):

1. Why the Indian National Media appears Anti-Hindu

2. Fine balance between lack of creativity and its excess.

3. So many inconsistencies in news reporting of "two lady doctors killing a rape victim's baby in Raigad"!

4. These are not Diwali Firecrackers, please!

5. S.I.T. Back and Enjoy Pop-Corny NewsXXX

6. Spinning Yarns to Make Undies on TV

In last 3 to 4 months, the national media has come down heavily in its criticism of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 (click) to be held in Delhi. The media has been able to convince vast majority of people that the games are going to be a dud, that many things are going to fall at the games venue, people will get injured and that large-scale mismanagement would become manifest. In fact, many have enthusiastically declared the event as "national shame" quite in advance. I have gathered that the impression among most Indians I get to interact with is that after the games get over, India would become a laughing stock in the world owing to its inability to organize events at such large scale. Of course, all that is apart from the many allegations and a some circumstantial evidence of corruption. But I am contending that except for the allegations of corruption, rest all will be proved untrue, meaning, in all likelihood, after the games are over, lot of Indians would be left with a feeling of wonder as they would be awe-struck by the grandeur and meticulousness of planning.

So, this begs the question, why the media had chosen to pursue the Games the way they did? Allegations had been flowing thick and fast, especially that of corruption with random figures thrown around as the "estimate" of the scale of corruption - from Rs. 20,000 crore to Rs. 70,000 crore. Of course, just like all other figures that media throws up, these must be attributed to some "sources", who would be well, "noted" or "eminent" or "well-placed" or "inside", etc.

Now, assuming my contention that games would not be a grand failure as anticipated by, and projected by the media, then what was the motive behind media's projecting things thus? What all purposes did it serve?

Of course, one might contend that the media acting in good faith, was only bringing to light all the corruption involved ("waterproof" umbrella, exotic tissue, etc). But good faith would have involved merely highlighting the issues related to corruption, not the other things which would convince people that the games' execution is going to be pathetic. Moreover, good faith would have also entailed providing some reasonable support for their estimate of the scale of corruption involved.

My following analysis largely draws from a comment I had posted on Atanu Dey's blog post - The Games Built on a Cesspool (click). My premise (outlined in the blog post - 'Why the Indian National Media appears Anti-Hindu' liked above) is that the national media works in a fashion that largely benefits the Nehru-Gandhi family (and not necessarily the Congress Party as some might believe; the difference is subtle, but not something very difficult to appreciate). Though we all are reacting violently in public fora at this sort of alleged corruption, Indians are actually subconsciously quite alright with corruption. We have come to terms with corruption in every walk of our life, and we also know that the larger the scale of an event, greater would be the corruption. What hardly matters to common people is the scale of corruption as very few can actually appreciate the impact a certain amount of money siphoned off could have on the nation's economy or infrastructure. To give an example very few people actually work out in their minds, that with certain amount of money alleged to be involved in corruption, how many hospitals, schools, bridges, etc. could have been built. But what matters more is the area in which corruption is alleged – so corruption in ‘games’ is quite alright, but not in defense deals [Bangaru Laxman and Jaya Jaitley had received much flak, despite virtually zero-evidence and for a much paltry sum, perhaps because it was associated with 'defense' - on which lives of so many people depend], education schemes, medical care, religious organizations, etc. But what amuses me is that figures of corruption in organization of CWG of various kinds are being floated around, with almost no evidence, and that nobody is asking for any evidence! It has become a fair game to make a guess of scale of corruption and throw around numbers, just like the number of dead Muslims in Gujarat riots of 2002. Any random figure supported with right kind of rhetoric to support it would be bought as 'true'!

a. So how does this help the Nehru-Gandhi family?

1. It appears that Kalmadi might have not been the first choice of the family for CWG organization but they could not prevent his heading the body, or perhaps he must have not been paying his haftaa – protection money, on which I had done a song parody (click). The mounting media pressure is a way to make him pay up. They (Nehru-Gandhi family) are using similar tactic against A. Raja [someone had pointed out that despite some of the most important ministries that Congress has, the most profiting ones like the Railways and Telecommunications are not with them, so they desperately want them, and this media pressure is again an attempt towards that].

2. The apparently incidental, but perhaps, the true target of this attack is Sheila Dikshit (click). I had the opportunity to live in Delhi for around 10 months, and I thought her governance is good [in that how much Delhi had improved over last decade - both in terms of infrastructure and one vital area, viz., crime control]. Of course I am not taking into consideration the amount of inflow of funds. But whatever be the case, she is one of the very few leaders in the Congress stable who does not live in the shadows of the family. Meaning, whether it be her criticism or praise, she has been seen as independent by many. I had heard of some instance of ‘rebellion’ by few Congress politicians against her a few years back, and someone had pointed out that it was engineered by the Gandhi family to weaken her position within the party. Of course that was also a conjecture, but I could see that pattern in many of the family’s and media’s actions [I am also aware of the flaw of this manner of thinking - I can go on citing incidents that seem to support my speculation, with disregard for other incidents that contradict it, but let me proceed with that technique]. And of course, the Gandhi family’s larger challenge, if one sees carefully, is not so much to keep the BJP and other parties out of power, but to keep others in the Congress itself from usurping their position! It would be naive to believe that all other Congress politicians are taken in by the fair skin of the Gandhis, and that they are bereft of any political ambition. But the fact that the supremacy of the family in the party is still unchallenged to this unimaginable degree only points to the possibility that something in working of the Congress party must make it excessively unyielding to show any ambition, or perhaps in some way, even perilous [three young and (electorally) 'promising' Congress leaders had died in the last decade in freak accidents]. Sheila Dikshit’s son is also a member of Parliament – another reason to be sure to keep her position weak.

b. Apart from the above factors, the ways in which this coverage is helping the media and the family is:

1. Distracting people from other events of greater gravity – hoisting of Pakistani flag in Kashmir, riots in Deganga in West Bengal (in which the ‘Pioneer’ reports that one or more persons had died), an unconfirmed burning of Shiva Temple in Kashmir (and the usual – rising food prices, farmer suicides, etc.). The treachery of Man Mohan Singh in the Nuclear Liability Bill is again something the CWG coverage had helped push largely under the carpet. Has anyone wondered, what degree of cheapness it was to have inserted “and” and “intent” as caveats in the bill? I am not going into the practical aspects of the deal (e.g., if having stringent criteria would make the deal so scary for the suppliers that they will decline to do business). Here was an incident, where despite the high amount of scrutiny, and possibly very grave eventual consequences, the Congress Party tried to hoodwink the entire nation! And what is interesting is that in response to the accusation of our prime minister being a puppet of the family, one of the shining examples of his independence that is advanced is his personal involvement in the Indian nuclear deal program!!! Compared to him, Shashi Tharoor surely got a very raw deal, whereas Dr. Singh escaped unscathed as a ‘clean’ politician despite much larger stakes. Neat, no? Why? Simply because, all along the prime example of corruption and deception that people will think of for quite some time to come will be Kalmaidi of the CWG infamy!

2. Using this as an instance, the media can always claim – “See, we critique the Congress also”! But what works here is the apparent lack of proximity of Kalmadi with the Gandhis, and also the fact that majority are going to think in terms of “games toh aakhir games hi hote hain” [Games are after all just that - games!]. So despite its extremely vicious coverage, the impression formed about the CWG does not make the family at all look bad as compared to say Babri demolition and the death of Muslims in Gujarat riots [Look carefully, on TV news, besides every allegation of corruption or broken tile or fallen bridge, the portrait would be of Kalmadi, and not someone from the family].

c. But, what will the media say after the games are over and (if) they are proved wrong with regard to grand failure of the games that they had been predicting for quite some time?

Nothing much! They will still continue to point out minor flaws of the games for a few days to come, or even start praising the game as if nothing had happened! Moreover, very few people will wonder why the CWG’s success would have proved them and the media wrong! Of course, few people might go into denial as to how come their confidence that the CWG would fail miserably could have been misplaced. But in the entire occurrence, almost no one would pause to wonder as to how come they were misled so convincingly by the media about the CWG's imminent failure, simply because, “games toh aakhir games hi hote hain” and the media would anyway start distracting their patrons with other such trivialities!

Of course, my entire analysis depends on CWG’s moderate to spectacular success, so unlike, Mani Shankar Ayyer, I am praying desperately for their success! ;) To hell with nation’s welfare and atheism! :P

The reason I decided to put up a prediction instead of doing a post-games analysis is to serve my narcissism. If my prediction proves correct, I could gloat - "see, I understand the media so well, all my conspiracy theories with regard to how media works are correct, etc, etc", but of course my theories also stand a chance of being proved wrong, in which I would have to eat a humble pie and throw a shoe at...

Why the Indian National Media appears Anti-Hindu

I had conceived the following post in response to a question posed by Bhagwad Jal Park in the comments section of his post - Quran Burning – A book is not a person (click).

I reproduce the pertinent portion of his question here:

"As far as the media goes, I'd like to dig a little deeper. If you say that they're biased (and I'm not sure one way or the other about this), why are they biased? Is it because (as a lot of right winger claim) there is a conspiracy between the government, media etc to put Hindus down, or is it because of sheer incompetence, or because people don't want to hear anything else, or some other reason?"

It has been my policy to carry forward these kind of discussions in my other blog - 'Freewheeling Discussions (Personal)', but as this was something I was anyway planning to blog on and also because understanding what follows would not require knowing a background context, I decide to post this here as an independent blog post.

-----

Despite being an atheist, being not at all a fan of the fuzzy concept of 'Hindutva', not finding anything wrong with Sonia Gandhi's being born in Italy, and nor being the one who would want India to 'rule the world' as a superpower, I have always felt that the national media appears to be partial towards what it terms the 'minorities' (which largely includes the Muslims, the Christians and the 'lower' castes) and has an anti-BJP bent. The latter, some people perceive as their being anti-Hindu. This partiality towards Muslims comes in form of making them look victimized more than they would otherwise be, and also trying to cover up, in the process, their harms done to the Hindus. But I have realized that this perception of media bias is seen as "right wing paranoia" by those who seem to share other beliefs (or non-beliefs) with me - atheism, finding Hindutva silly, etc. A fine specimen of use of this nomenclature could be found here - The Spectacular Achievements of Right Wing Propaganda......... (click).

Though since long I have found a palpable bias in the national media (in favor of minorities, which might make it look like anti-Hindu, but need not really be that way), I have not been able to conclude a firm driving force behind such bias.

I will lay down mere speculations for what could be the reasons (and I am sure that they would sound as silly to many as what "lot of other right-wingers say", but then anyway let me put across my points) [whatever points I make here are applicable largely to the national media, and not necessarily the local media, which have their own individual biases depending what incentives they have and their political affiliations; it should not come as a surprise that media has so much power to influence that many south Indian news channels are 'openly' owned by politicians]:

1. The essential struggle for control over media is not so much between the Hindus and other communities, but is between the Nehru-Gandhi family v/s politicians from the Congress and other parties. So, you will see that even minor good things that the two prominent members of this family do, would be highlighted, whereas any of their failures would be attributed to the respective ministries. Hence, primarily the prominent media houses work against the rivals of the Nehru Gandhi family, be it from the Congress party or some other.

Examples:

a. Sonia Gandhi has never been interviewed on occasion of any Maoist attack or other collective failures of the government (e.g., rising food prices), but her interview had been broadcast with Barkha Dutt even when the Women's reservation bill was just passed in the Rajya Sabha [it is yet to be passed as a law, so what was the celebration about?].

b. The media house that has done the greatest damage to the repute of rivals of the NG-family has as editor, Tarun Tejpal, who had this - Mrs Gandhi And Her Extra God (click) - to say. Apart from an element of fawning, there is clear indication of desire to bring in religion in matters of administration, when one would assume that politics and winning election are not about such silly things as what the attributes of certain deities are.

c. The manner in which Rahul Gandhi's trip to Mumbai in wake of Shiv Sena threat to Shahrukh Khan was covered by national news channels. One of the motives could be cheap sensationalism, but I have not noticed any other politician getting that kind of coverage when the fact is many prominent politicians keep on moving in and out of Mumbai. Even his symbolism/gimmickry (you choose) of withdrawing money from an ATM was covered with much enthusiasm. Contrast that with Narendra Modi, who, in Pune (a city in Maharashtra, largely filled with Maharashtrians) had asked as to why despite having a Maharashtrian president would the people of Maharashtra want a Maharashtrian prime minister. That was a more daring and sensible thing to say than what Rahul Gandhi had done, but hardly any TV network had covered the latter. The news had perhaps appeared in the Indian Express, but I am unable to find the link. Will update when I am able to find it.

d. The manner in which all the major news channels had floated around the news that the SIT had 'summoned' Narendra Modi in context of March 21. And then when he did not turn up at the SIT office on that day (as it was a Sunday and as basically no such summon had been issued) he was trounced by the news channels accusing him of being arrogant enough to not respect the 'summons' of a body instituted by the SC. Later it was revealed that the SIT, being a non-judicial body, did not even have the authority to issue 'summons' (which would have to be issued under some Criminal Procedures Code - CrPC, I don't remember the exact section, perhaps, 62). My understanding is that firstly no such date was determined, yet the TV crew outside the Gandhinagar SIT office had shouted into their mics that Modi had defied the SC and some had gone on to say that he was afraid, as he was guilty. And secondly it appears that, later he had been interrogated as (an expert) witness as he was the CM at the time of riots, and not as an accused - an impression which the media had given. I have two options to choose from to explain this kind of lapse by all major news channels - either it was sheer carelessness or that it was a concerted attempt to malign Modi. Considering the fact that major news channels (NDTV 24x7, TimesNOW, News X, CNN-IBN) had done the same, it is difficult that all of them would have been careless at the same time over exactly the same issue. So, to me the second option seems lot more plausible.

2. Funding from several sources. This might sound the most laughable, but again it is a mere speculation and much weaker than the above explanation. The reason I think so, is because there are innumerable news channels in India, and unlike entertainment channels which can cater to widely disparate kinds of tastes by having completely different programming, news channels show essentially the same news. So, my belief is the 'number of eye balls' must be getting significantly divided among all the news channels. In light of this fact, how attractive do the advertisers find news channels? I again assume, not much. In face of which what sustains the news channels? I am not a finances person, but I had learned that NDTV had posted losses in more than one financial quarters. Yet, the cosmetic quality of their presentation has not significantly deteriorated. I posit that keeping employed cameramen, reporters, drivers, news anchors, paying guests for appearances, and all of this in multiple cities and towns must be too expensive an affair. Other than advertising, what incentive do the owners have to keep the channels running? How do they get monetarily compensated? So, perhaps they get foreign funding to insert PoV and to distort news. Of course, this funding could be, but need not be foreign, it could come from several sources within India too. Some could be political parties, movie celebrities, industrialists, etc.

Example: Mass media: masses of money? (click)

3. Creating sensationalism. One thing the media does is to present story in a very partisan manner. It need not be because of some kind of institutional bias, but simply to make the stories sensationalist. Owing to competition, it becomes imperative that the patrons are hooked to the news. This requires that in any story, an easy-to-recognize 'good' and 'evil' are presented so that people are not bogged down by dry facts. Moreover, the advantage of this approach is that most people would like to identify with the 'good' in the story, demonizing the 'bad' in the process. It has to be remembered that news media, apart from competing with each other are also competing with entertainment channels, FM radio, networking sites, etc. If the patrons do not feel an emotional connect with the story, they would stop following news, which would further harm them financially. So by meddling with facts, the media manage to create a pure evil v/s good aspects in their story.

Examples:

a. So many inconsistencies in news reporting of "two lady doctors killing a rape victim's baby in Raigad"! (click) - a post from my blog dissecting how it is possible to dish out news shoddily and yet make majority of people fall for it (you would be amazed on counting the number of comments and reading their content on the ToI article).

b. These are not Diwali Firecrackers, please! (click) - another post from my blog, where I point out that important issues like success of Pokhran tests were discussed like gossip magazines would, without providing a shred of evidence. My suspicion is, again only to create sensationalism. To gain further clarity on the issue, please do read my responses to Stupidosaur.

c. The Nirupama Pathak case. Even before the autopsy results were announced, her mother had been implicated and made a villain in the entire saga by the media. One of the police officers of Koderma district was shown giving impressive interviews. Along with all this, her boyfriend, who had got her pregnant (of course, guessing that it was not a case of rape but consensual sex) was being shown as some kind of hero. Then, suddenly it was revealed next day that her boyfriend had also been questioned as a suspect. A few days later the news came that the pillow cover (on which saliva stains would remain as it was a suspected case of smothering) and bedsheets had not been inspected. Later it was revealed that the AIIMS, Delhi faculty had felt that the autopsy had been conducted in a very shoddy fashion. Contrast this with the fact that immediately in the aftermath of Nirupama's death, her friends and teacher had been interviewed, who had made stupid statements to the tune of "she was a strong girl, she could not have committed suicide (so must have been killed by the parents - a very grave insinuation)". I don't remember the exact details, but is seems the media had bungled up big-time. So, now there are no follow up news to the best of my knowledge on this. But the reputation of an entire family was tarnished. It was definitely unprofessional and shoddy. There might have not been a larger ulterior motive, but the attempt to spice up the story ("how could parents kill the daughter"-kind) was definitely there despite the lack of evidence to conclude the same.

4. A reason speculated (click) by Atanu Dey:

"If a journalist writing in English wants to be quoted by foreign publications, then he or she has to appeal to the biases of the foreigners and reinforce their prejudices. Otherwise, the foreign press would not touch it. The more shrill a journalist is in denouncing anything that remotely hints at Indian ethos, culture, or pride, the more likely he or she is to get invited to give talks at US universities and other goodies. The term for this phenomenon is "being a house nigger.""

Of course, I might be questioned as to "how I would be sure that the foreign media would want to hear bad things about India?", but remember, this is just one of the speculated reasons for the manner in which some of the journalists behave.

But till now I have, at best, only demonstrated that there the media resorts to sensationalism, unethical behavior and perhaps institutional bias. But I have yet not addressed why it might seem anti-Hindu.

As I pointed out in point 1 above, it caters to the Nehru-Gandhi family, for the simple reason that it has the deepest pockets of all the political entities with pan-India presence. Meaning, even some of the other South Indian politicians might also have as much or deeper pockets, but at least as of now they do not have any need to have opinion modified at a national level.

So, why would the Congress want to make seem Hindus bad?

I think the Congress does not have any incentive for making Hindus look bad. This looking bad of Hindus is merely incidental. For this the demographics and the resulting constituencies of India are to be considered. Muslims, it is said, tend to vote en bloc. To ensure this they have to be constantly fed with the idea that they are being persecuted and discriminated against (this is partly true also that certain fraction of Hindus discriminate against them, and so do people from other religions, but this discrimination is not Muslim-specific, but an outcome of bigotry that birth-related affiliations result in). But to ensure that they vote en bloc for the Congress and not some other party, the only viable option to vote for has to be demonized. That viable option happens to be the BJP. But how can a BJP government directly go and harm the Muslims? So, it has to be shown as shielding those wanting to hurt Muslims. Of course, in terms of endearing itself to the Muslim constituency, the BJP had hurt its prospects by associating with or perhaps even bringing up the Ram Temple-issue. So, in the process it also needs to be shown there exist sizable number of Hindus who are "out there to get the Muslims". This is what incidentally (and not as a matter of primary intention) makes the Hindus look 'bad'. It should not be surprising then that all the major communalist riots seem to be happening only in the BJP-ruled states (Gujarat & Kandhamal), but none seem to be happening in non-BJP ruled states (Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh, Miraj in Maharashtra). But obviously, one has to also create an impression that the BJP & some affiliated bodies, like the RSS and the VHP actively support this violence. How can this impression be created? By projecting riots between Hindus and some other community to be selective persecution of the 'minority'. This impression can again be only created by largely omitting the violence committed against the Hindus. This, I believe, is the reason that the deaths of around 200 Hindus that had occurred in post-Godhra riots in Gujarat are hardly given any coverage. Because, if once that part is also given the prominence it deserves, then people will start questioning the theory that "the BJP and Narendra Modi had organized a pogrom against Muslims", for surely, 200 Hindus would not be killed by the people who also killed Muslims.

Now, apply the same approach with regard to perceived persecution of other minorities, and the impression we are bound to get is one of BJP and associated organizations being anti-Muslim and anti-'lower caste'.

But why does the Congress instead not try to appeal to all the Hindus, instead of trying to appeal to the minorities? After all the Hindus are the 80% of the population!

Traditionally, the Congress has been perceived to be secular/pro-Muslim, and they cannot change that image overnight. Because it would be risky to lose 20% of 'sure-shot' voter share [because Muslims tend to vote en bloc]. But on the other hand, Hindus are fragmented. To make them rally around one party as one constituency is very difficult. The rivalries between various castes and sub-castes of the Hindu community are so deep that they are almost as strong as the Hindu-Muslim rivalry. The BJP had, perhaps, with some success been able to unite the Hindu constituency and that is why it came to power earlier (or perhaps, Indians could also have been frustrated with the Congress rule). Simply because Congress' formula is tried and tested, they are reluctant to try new tactics. But in the 1990's the BJP were the underdogs, they had nothing to lose by trying to unite the Hindus into one single constituency, and somehow they partly succeeded (and could form the government). Because had they tried the same Congress formula of cozying up to the 'minorities', then why would the voter instead not vote for the 'original' (Congress), instead!

Of course, my entire analysis above is like the 'Strings theory' - it might make intuitive sense, but I have no way to prove it empirically/statistically. But I continue to go by it simply, because no other single hypotheses in isolation can explain the aberrant behavior of the media in the instances I cited above.

-----

To summarize: I hope I have been able to accomplish/show the following (not necessarily to everyone's conviction):

1. Cite instances of unprofessional/biased conduct by the media.

2. Enumerate and somewhat explain the motives and incentives behind the same.

3. That the Congress benefits from current anti-BJP bent of the media (and hence, perhaps provides the much needed incentive for the media to remain thus).

4. In the process of being anti-BJP, the media ends up demonizing Hindus in the eyes of the minorities and also many Hindus themselves.

Difference?

"Burning a Book will invite terrorist attacks on Americans" | "Dressing provocatively encourages rape"

Song Parody: 1 - Duniya mein logon ko

This is after real long that I am parodizing an entire Hindi song. Hope, you enjoy!

-----

To be sung to the tune of 'Duniya mein logon ko'. Original lyrics are in green, and parodied ones are in orange. Also, lyrics have been phonetically rendered in Roman script for those browsers that might not render the Devanagari script.

Watch on YouTube (click)

RD: | K'Ma D:

बीरा... | छीना...
टरा टरा टरा, परा परा परा | बड़ा बड़ा बड़ा, मारा मारा मारा
टराटराटराटरा तरारू | देश का pocket मारामारामारा मारुरुरु


दुनिया में, logon को | Commonwealth में, ऐसे तो
धोखा कभी हो जाता है | एक-आध खोखा^* यूँही खो जाता है

आँखों ही, आँखों में | लाखों ही, लाखों में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | प्यारों का bill pay हो जाता है


Asha: | Money-aa:

दुनिया में... | Commonwealth में...


RD: | K'Ma D:

दुनिया में... | Commonwealth में...


Asha: | Money-aa:

(नागिन सी मेरी चाल, रखना दिल का ख़याल | (Maoमाता का अड्डा बंगाल, रखती Maoists का ख़याल
मेरे दीवानों का, हो जाता है यह हाल) -2 | Media से कह के मैंने, उठवा दिया games का सवाल) -2

बीड़ा, बीड़ा, बड़ा बड़ा | चीरा, चीरा, फाड़ा, फाड़ा
टरा टरा टरा, तुरु तुरु तुरु, तुरु, तुरु तुरु तुरु तुरु रु | मारा मारा मारा, देश का pocket मारा मारा मारा, मारा मारा मारुरुरु


जागी मैं, सारी रैन | Games में, मैं हैरान
सारा जहां सो जाता है | पैसा कहाँ खो जाता है
आँखों ही, आँखों में | लाखों ही, लाखों में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | मेरा कुछ नहीं हो पाता है


R D: | K'Ma D:

(कहती है यह नज़र, कब क्या हो क्या खबर | (Official तो है figure, पर अन्दर की उन्हें क्या खबर
दुनिया में चंद लोग, होते हैं जादूगर) -2 | Money-aa ma'am को ठगकर, हूँ तो मैं बेफिक़र) -2

बीड़ा, बीड़ा, बड़ा बड़ा | चीरा, चीरा, फाड़ा, फाड़ा
टरा टरा टरा, तुरु तुरु तुरु, तुरु, तुरु तुरु तुरु तुरु रु | मारा मारा मारा, देश का pocket मारा मारा मारा, मारा मारा मारुरुरु


Asha: | Money-aa:

सुनिए जी, उन पे भी | भ्रष्ट-एष जी, मुझ को तो
जादू कभी हो जाता है | आप पे भी शक हो जाता है
आँखों ही, आँखों में | लाखों ही, लाखों में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | मेरा कुछ नहीं हो पाता है


R D: | K'Ma D:

(पिंजरे में चलके आप, आ जाता है शिकार | (ऐसा न कहिये आप, करूंगा आप को भी मालामाल

Asha: | Money-aa:

कातिल पे भी कभी, आ जाता है प्यार) -2 | चमचे भी करते कभी, हैं चालाकी की मजाल) -2

बीड़ा, बीड़ा, बड़ा बड़ा | चीरा, चीरा, फाड़ा, फाड़ा
टरा टरा टरा, तुरु तुरु तुरु, तुरु, तुरु तुरु तुरु तुरु रु | मारा मारा मारा, देश का pocket मारा मारा मारा, मारा मारा मारुरुरु

बातों ही, बातों में | अकेले में, खाने से
होना है जो हो हाता है | चमचा Tharoored हो जाता है
आँखों ही, आँखों में | देखते ही, देखते में
यारों का दिल खो जाता है | CBI पीछे पड जाता है *wink* *wink*


Asha: | Money-aa:

दुनिया में... | Commonwealth में...

---

RD: | K'Ma D:


beeraa... | Chheena...
tara tara taraa, para para para | badaa badaa badaa, maara maara maara
taraataraataraatara taraaru | desh ka pocket maaramaaramaara maarururu


duniya mein, logon ko | Commonwealth mein, aise toh
dhokha kabhi ho jaata hai | Ek-aadh khokha yunhi kho jaata hai

aankhon hi, aankhon mein | laakhon hi, laakhon mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai | Pyaaron ka bill pay ho jaata hai


Ashaa: | Money-aa:

duniya mein ... | Commonwealth mein...


RD: | K'Ma D:

duniya mein ... | Commonwealth mein...


Asha: | Money-aa:

(naagin si meri chaal, rakhana dil ka khayaal | (MaoMaata ka adda Bangal, rakhati Maoists ka khayaal
mere deevaanon kaa, ho jaata hai ye haal) -2 | Media se kah ke maine, uthawa diya games ka sawaal) -2

beedaa, beedaa, baayaraa, baayara | cheera, cheera, phaada, phaada
taraatara taraa, turu turu turu, turu turu turu turu turu ru | maara maara maara, desh ka pocket maara maara maara, maara maara maarururu


jaagi main, saari rain | Games mein, main hairaan
saara jahaan so jata hai | paisa kahaan kho jaata hai
aankhon hee, aankhon mein | laakhon hi, laakhon mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai | mera kucch nahin ho paata hai


R D: | K'Ma D:

(kahati hai ye nazar, kab kya ho kya khabar] | (Official toh hai figure, par andar ki unhein kya khabar

duniya mein chand log, hote hain jaadugar) -2 | Money-aa ma'am ko thugkar, hoon toh main befiqar) -2
beedaa, beedaa, baayaraa, baayara | cheera, cheera, phaada, phaada
taraatara taraa, turu turu turu, turu turu turu turu turu ru | maara maara maara, desh ka pocket maara maara maara, maara maara maarururu


Asha: | Money-aa:

suniye jee, un pe bhi | Bhrasthesh ji, mujh ko toh
jaadu kabhi ho jaata hai | aap pe bhi shaq ho jaata hai
aankhon hee, aankhon mein | laakhon hi, laakhon mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai | mera kuchh nahin ho paat hai


R D: | K'Ma D:

(pinjare mein chalake aap, a jaata hai shikaar] | (aisa na kahiye aap, karoonga aap ko bhi maalamaal

Asha: | Money-aa:

qaatil pe bhi kabhee, a jaata hai yoon pyaar) -2 | chamche bhi karate kabhi, hain chaalaki ki majaal) -2

beedaa, beedaa, baayaraa, baayara] | cheera, cheera, phaada, phaada
taraatara taraa, turu turu turu, turu turu turu turu turu ru | maara maara maara, desh ka pocket maara maara maara, maara maara maarururu

baaton hi, baaton mein] | akele mein, khaane se
hona hai jo ho jaata hai] | chamchaa Tharoored ho jaata hai
aankhon hee, aankhon mein] | Dekhte hi, dekhte mein
yaaron ka dil kho jaata hai] | CBI peeche pad jaata hai *wink* *wink*


Asha: | Money-aa:

duniya mein ... | Commonwealth mein...

^*खोखा = Rs. 1 crore in colloquial Hindi.

-----

Lyrics courtesy: Bollywood hungama (click)

Freedom of Expression and a Few Hypothetical Situations

In recent times intense debates have raged over the extents to which two almost antagonistic rights should be allowed - freedom of expression against avoiding emotional hurt. Law, as many say, is an ass. Some call justice blind. It would be very tempting to then consider the Judiciary a blind ass, and I used to share this view, too. But, since last few years I realized, the offhand judgments we pass to consider something as ethical/unethical, or allowed/disallowed are too instinctive and visceral. To pass such offhand judgments is easy, but to justify them under an accepted framework of principles and rules is extremely difficult.

I will present a few situations. Person 'A' is the victim and claiming to be hurt because of freedom of expression exercised by person 'B'. For convenience A is a woman, and B is a man. I have enlisted the reasoning that could be given by A to complain and by B to defend his freedom of expression. I would like the readers to state if they feel B should be punished, with reasons if possible, and notwithstanding what the law in India says. One thing I would like to urge the reader is that irrespective of which of the two antagonistic rights (of freedom of expression and right to avoid emotional hurt) gets precedence in your judgment, it should be consistent across all the situations to the extent possible. If the reader makes an appeal akin to "it is widely accepted to be offending", then it must be applied to all situations. Basically, whatever grounds used to hold B guilty or not guilty must be employed in every case to maintain consistency. For, what is justice if not consistent.

I must also add that some of the situations are similar to recent events, but to point out the different standards to judge them that few people had employed is not my intention. And please disregard a few zoological details! ;) Even if some of the situation might sound funny, I am enlisting them here in earnest.

-----

Situation 1

B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.

A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.

B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting.

A: But I had no idea that the painting could hurt my sentiments!

B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 2

B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. The painting becomes controversial. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.

A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.

B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting and moreover, she knew that those worshiping the depicted goddess had felt hurt on seeing the painting. So why did she go and watch the painting?

A: But how could I be sure that your painting could have indeed hurt me!

B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 3

B tells A, "The goddess you worship copulates with frogs".

A: What B said about the goddess I worship hurt me. So B must be punished for saying that.

B: I felt like saying it, so I said it. It's my freedom of expression.

A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!

B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 4

B tells A, "Your religion has many dangerous superstitions. It is very cruel to sacrifice cats on every November 31. What kind of goddess could be so cruel. Also, you people amputate the left little finger of your girl child. How disgusting is it! Why do you people forcibly kill husbands upon the death of their wives? You don't find all this barbaric and primitive to follow?"

A: What B said about my religion hurt me. So he must be punished for saying those things.

B: It was my compassion for cats, the girl child and widowers that made me point out those things to A. My only consideration was the welfare of those wronged through religion! And moreover, it is my freedom of expression. I felt like saying it and hence I said it.

A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!

B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 5

A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B, he whistles in her direction.

A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.

B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to pass by.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!

B: If anyone wants to walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.

---

Situation 6

A wears a revealing nightie and enters her bedroom. B, who is her husband whistles at her.

A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.

B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to enter the bedroom.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!

B: If A wants to walk into my bedroom, listening to my whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided entering the bedroom.

---

Situation 7

A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B's house on the first floor of a building, his pressure cooker on stove develops sufficient pressure and as the valve releases that pressure, A hears a whistle.

A: The pressure cooker that B was using whistled at me. I felt offended and he must be punished for it.

B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like cooking food and the pressure cooker whistled. Moreover, it is my fundamental right to cook food, the way I want in my house.

A: B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his pressure cooker's whistle.

B: If anyone wants on walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.

---

Situation 8

B, who is A's coworker says, "Hi, how are you?".

A: B said "Hi" and asked me how I was. That hurt me. B must be punished.

B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like greeting her. That is how I greet everyone. Moreover it is my freedom of expression to have greeted her the way I wanted.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his words!

B: If anyone wants to go to workplace, being greeted has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided coming in front of me knowing that is how I greet everyone.

---

Situation 9

Colleague B circulates an email among office workers, wherein he writes in great details the past sexual encounters of A (whether the details are true or not is irrelevant). He does not send that email to A. However, a female colleague 'C', out of concern tells A about the doing of B.

A: B and C hurt my feelings. So they must be punished.

B: I never sent the email to A; I only sent it to other people. Moreover, to write and send whatever I want is a part of my freedom of expression. So nothing of what I did was directly responsible for A's hurt.

C: I told A about B's deeds out of concern. It was not my intention to hurt. Moreover, to tell her of the happening was my exercising freedom of expression.

A: But C never allowed me the opportunity to not hear the offending news!

C: If anyone enters a conversation being hurt by the information has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 10

A is a twelve year-old class topper who had fallen sick just before exams. She could not prepare well and does poorly in exams. Her teacher, 'B', writes her an email with subject: "You should be ashamed of yourself!". The body of the email also contains equally harsh words, and conveys to A that she would be scolded in the class also before all the class mates. A becomes reticent and aloof in the class. Upon being scolded a few more times in the class she becomes tearful. The matter goes to the school principal who warns B against treating A insensitively citing the fact that she is just twelve year old. Yet, B continues his behavior. A commits suicide.

A's parents: B's insensitive behavior led to our daughter's death. He must be punished.

B: I felt like scolding her because of her poor performance and I did just that. To do that followed from my freedom of expression.

A's parents: But B never allowed our daughter an opportunity to not hear his scoldings!

B: Wrong! My email had contained clearly stated that I was to scold her in the class. She could have avoided being scolded by me by not coming to my class. If one wants to attend school, being scolded and feeling hurt have to be acceptable risks.

-----

With this, the ten hypothetical situations end. I want to point out that we all enjoy freedom of expression, but what curtails it many times is not being physically stopped from expressing ourselves, but the fear of consequences including litigation and ensuing punishment. So by extension, any liability attached with freedom of expression hardly amounts to freedom.

I have deliberately made the situations very extreme and ludicrous. One of the aims was to point out how neither of the two above mentioned freedoms could be allowed to fullest degrees without legal liabilities to maintain a functional society. But another much more important one was to try to determine what all are the possible factors that have made the law enforcers take a view that they take of freedom of expression (especially so in India).

Personally, I do not consider the laws in India perfect. But I also acknowledge the fact that India does allow much greater freedom of expression than many other countries both through legal and social acceptability, apathy or inaction.

But neither do I agree with sanctuary that religion is provided as a ground to feel hurt. I quote here one of the statements by a Karnataka High Court judge (click) from an order he had passed, which summarizes the view taken by the Indian Judiciary of religious sensibilities. It must be remembered that this line of reasoning might be used as precedent to be followed by all the lower courts throughout the country, and may not be challenged unless and until someone from a higher court goes out of his/her way to substitute it with another reasoning. The portion that I find most frightening is in bold-face (especially, if juxtaposed with situation 4 above):

While considering the case, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Section 295 stating that, Section 295 has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court has held that, to find out whether an offense is made out under Section 295-A or not, the susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds is relevant and the Court has to give due regard to such feelings in consideration of the case.

Above rationale is codified in the section 295-A of the Indian penal code (click):

Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Lastly, this post was written with a lot of ideas I arrived at after having exhaustive discussion/debate with The Quirky Indian - Of Freedom of Expression and the Right Not to be Offended (click).

S.I.T. Back and Enjoy Pop-Corny NewsXXX

Indian English media gives new expansion to the acronym - S.I.T.:

Sunday Inquisition and Torture

Click, S.I.T. back and enjoy the Indian Mass Media in its naked glory - where fact and fiction blend seamlessly, as if made for each other, for the benefit of the voyeuristic viewer.

"The purveyors of untruth failed even to think that March 21, 2010 happens to be a Sunday and a public holiday.

These purveyors of lies even did not once bother to check whether the key SIT officers, who are appointed by the Supreme Court, were present in Gujarat on March 21, 2010."

- Narendra Modi in his open letter.

For those click-unhappy (on lines of "trigger-happy"), pleasure yourself with the finest act of self-despicatory stand up comedy (click):

The Hindu broke the (false) story (that Modi was summoned by the SIT on March 21) on its web site, beta.thehindu.com, at 4:45 p.m. on Thursday. The exclusive was immediately picked up by television channels, news agencies, and other websites without crediting the original source.

Cute clowns, I say. Coochi coochi coo :)

Elsewhere, NudeX(XX) asked their viewers "if questioning of Narendra Modi is a democratic process". A vast majority of democracy-bots - 75 %, felt "yes". I was heartened that at least rest of 25 % were still humans, and had retained their natural sanity not supplanted by "artificial intelligence" borne out of meticulous news programming. Which means justice has become democratic. Who should be questioned, who should be punished would depend not on evidence available, but whims of button pushing bots wielding the power of TV remote and cell phone. And this is the highest form of democracy and justice Indian media has envisaged for its citizens! Reinforcing this vigilantism and lyrical lynching, little enthusiasm was shown in reporting that SPS Rathore had offered to undergo narcoanalysis, a fact that would disturb the systematically constructed tyrannical, cabalist image of the retired police officer.

Known to few, Bareilly has attained sovereignty independent of India, a fact, respecting which major news channels determined that 13 day-curfew in face of communal violence there was not news-worthy, but garlands and honey bees were.

Spinning Yarns to Make Undies on TV

-----
1.

The author asserts that all the incidents described in what follows are completely true. There is no question of any incidental resemblance with any person alive, moribund or dead as the author himself had witnessed the events described this Sunday (February 28, 2010) on the eve of Holi (click) after consuming bhang (click), which he could not dilute sufficiently with thandai (click).

Reader discretion is strictly optional, and when exercised, in fact would be deemed by the author as an affront to his truthfulness and ability to maintain lucidity in face of information overload.

8:00 PM, 28 February, 2010
nOObs' Channel: Undie TV XXX 24x7
Program: Weed People
Debate: Which political party is best for We, the People?

Hello and welcome, friends, to yet another episode of your favorite propagandram - Weed^* People! It is Holi tonight, and I, Charkha Thug, take yet another opportunity to remind you, the people, of Undie TV's undying endeavor to provide the best opinions in the news-market to choose from.

India is the largest democracy in the World, and staying true to our democratic spirit, we keep on voting. There are all kinds of opportunities to vote - Lok Sabha elections, assembly elections, municipality elections, best TV vamp elections. No wonder, it is imperative that we all stay informed as to who to vote for.

We have noticed that despite our best efforts, the citizenry of India has not been proactive enough to assimilate the message Undie TV wants them to. Our research analysts have concluded that this sloth is an outcome of Indians' inability to follow hints. And it is even understandable - when all other channels bombard the viewers with in-your-face news, our subtle messages are lost upon the viewers' numbed sensibilities.

So today we have decided to set the record straight once and for all. We're here to tell you discuss which political party is the best to vote for. And to aid your decision making we have some eminent spitters speakers with us.

Let's kick off this debate with the eloquent spokesperson of the Con's Dress Party - Manhus Bimari.

Charkha: Mr. Manhus, could you please tell We, the People, why we must vote for you, and not for the SafeRun alliance, who is your chief political opponent?

Manhus: Charkha, I must begin with saying that our party traces its origin in wannOOby bureaucrats, who were desirous of greater role in governance. So as you could see, to govern people is the unshakable wish all our party members have always shared. Now you must juxtapose this wish with the fact that where there is a will, there is a way! We have willed that we rule, and we have had our way, more often than not. But of course, sometimes merely willing is not sufficient, and hence we are exploring new ways (click). The strongest reason I could offer to dear citizens to vote for the Con's Dress is the sense of accomplishment they will experience in voting for the party that is to win. I know, despite or alternatively, because of - both of which are debatable but acceptable views, our ruling the nation for around 50 years now, people have to struggle day in and day out. Whatever they wish for never happens. Like, people had wished that food prices come down, but they have maintained their upward trend! People had wished that there be no surprises thrown by terrorists (click), but that did not happen! People had foolishly wished that Rahul and Rakhi marry each other and STFU, but see, that too did not happen! These disappointments leave in wake a defeatist attitude. We totally understand the situation. We have over these five decades, developed an unparalleled expertise at understanding the common man's problems. And this should not come as a surprise, after all, antivirus companies know how the end user feels when his PC gets infected by the viruses they create.

The problem, as you can clearly see, is in people's wishing for things that are extremely unlikely to happen. So what we suggest to people is that they align their wishes with events keeping in view their probability of happening! There is nothing that comes closer to playing God as voting for the Con's Dress and wishing for its victory!

Charkha: Thank you Mr. Bimari. I'm sure all our viewers who are sensible must have understood by now that they must vote for you. But being the responsible mouthorganpiece of media, I must give fair chance to our guest from the SafeRun alliance. So I would like to ask Mr. SingeJoy Rout of the Shy Sena to tell us why we must vote for them. I must remind our viewers that the Shy Sena is the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con. Let's see if Mr. SingeJoy is able to tell us why we must vote for the TeleBunny party that he represents and not for their rival, the Con's Dress Party, which clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular...

SingeJoy: I object. How do you call us TeleBunny and call the Con's Dress secular? Don't you remember what these people had done in 1984...

Charkha: I'm afraid Mr. SingeJoy, you're raking up a very sensitive issue for which our viewers are not fully prepared. So we take a very short break at this point. See you back after some time. mouth fart[smile] :).

Charkha: Welcome back! So we were discussing how the Shy Sena is the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con.

SingeJoy: This is ridiculous! How many times will you repeat the same rubbish? Anyway, I was telling that the Con's Dress Party is not as secular as you are making them out to be. In 1984...

Charkha: Mr. SingeJoy, I'm afraid your time is up! We have to let all our participants speak. I'll return to you later. So well, people as you could see the Shy Sena has no defense for its abominable actions. Because, they are the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con. Whereas, Con's Dress is the party, which clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular. Well, no debate on any subject under the Sun, and especially beyond it, can remain complete without the involvement of the Left Out. Let's take some views of the very illuminating Prakash Current as to whether we must vote for the SafeRun alliance or the Con's Dress.

Prakash: Charkha, being media's responsible mouth organ, you must not sing paeans to the Con's Dress. You should give us a chance, too. We have been pro-poor since our inception. Saffron is just a form of adulterate red, but we are the pure red!

Charkha: Mr. Prakash, I thought being the Third-Front, you can only go back and FourthForth between the treasury and the opposition benches. Anyway, We, the People, will try to take you people more seriously. But what seems to concern the whole nation is the impression that you are tacit supporters of the Meowists. Would you like to clarify anything on this issue?

Prakash: There is nothing to clarify on this. Our stance is very clear. We support the Meowists because they are the Jungle cats! What is difficult to understand in this? What is wrong? Aren't the jungle-dwellers the poorest and closest to the mother nature. Aren't jungle cats indigenous animals? Don't you know our love for everything indigenous, especially, that originating and thriving in jungles? We are pro-poor. And we are pro-Meowists. We will never let any of the two get extinct.

Charkha: Viewers, this is unbelievable! I just can't believe I'm so awesome! I made Mr. Prakash confess that the Left Out sides with the Meowists - something that TheRuin TechPal of Tadka.com had been attempting to do since their alliance with the Con's Dress. What hidden camera could not achieve, I achieved with my pure awesomeness. Here to celebrate, let me take another break. [Giggle].

Charkha: So we are back. I must remind the viewers the subject of our discussion is which party to vote for. Of course, very early in today's show, we had reached this unanimous conclusion that it has to be The Con's Dress. Because Shy Sena is the prototypical alliance partner of the SafeRun. Their history includes breaking glasses of cinema halls, showing their concern for the depopulation afflicting Pakistan owing to Talibani activity thereby requesting select Indians to emigrate, and not to forget [sniff, sniff] not letting people watch My Name is Con. Whereas, it's Con's Dress Party, which clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular. And also because I don't like Mr. Prakash's deo.

Now we will take the opinions of our studio audience. Umm... yes, that sweet lady in the third row. The one in the saffron burqa! I must tell you in my 35 years of journalistic career, I have never seen such a spectacle! Yippeeee!

SingeJoy: Charkha, you are misguiding the citizens of our country. How come 35 years? You mean...

Charkha: Yes of course, I've been making up stories since I was three! Winners begin early, don't you agree? Anyway, Mr. SingeJoy, your time is up. I was telling the viewers how I have never seen such a spectacle! This, the saffron burqa is the epitome of Hindu-Muslim sister*hood* and customizable feminism and love for one's religion. What is your name sweet lady?

Lady: Ahem, ahem! [Squeaky manly voice] Well, you see, I am not exactly a lady. You see, my name is Bubbly Duhling.

Charkha: Oh, then I must add, apart from espousing the causes of Hindu-Muslim sisterhood, customizable feminism, religionophilia, you are also the champion of transgender rights! You're one hell of an activist. By the way, did you do your bit for Save the tiger? There are only 1411 left! And are you running for Grin-at-thorn? But I must repeat, you're one hell of an activist. If I deserve the Padmachhee, you definitely deserve Bharat Rant. Could you tell our viewers who you will vote for, and why?

Bubbly: Of course, I will vote for the Con's Dress Party! That's what I had rehearsed before the sho...

Charkha (stomping her feet and snatching away the mic): Shh... Due to some technical difficulties, we'll have to take a not-so-short break. We'll return next Sunday. Till then, goodbye and wish you a happy Holi! :)

8:00 PM, 7 March, 2010
nOObs' Channel: Undie TV XXX 24x7
Program: Weed People
Debate: Which political party is best for We, the People?

Charkha: Welcome friends. As you must remember last week we had to cut short our propagandram because of technical difficulties. We have replaced the defective equipment, so tonight we have with us Bubbly Duhling's, umm... how to explain... we have with us Bubbly's brister - Babely Duhling! You were telling us last week why would you like to vote for the Con's Dress.

Babely: Of course, I will vote for the Con's Dress Party! That's what I had rehea...

Charkha: Take this mouth gag! Huh! Okay, now take a deeeeep breath. Now are you feeling alright? Don't you remember, Con's Dress Party is the one which had clinched us freedom from the Britishers, is pro-poor, pro-development, pro-friendship, pro-stitu... I mean, secular?

Babely: Of course, of course! I will vote for the Con's Dress Party because I just looooooove Rahowl! He's cho chweet, he's cho cuuutee! He's the man, you see. I juss feel like smearing his bare chest with my li...

Charkha: Uh, oh! We understand your sentiments. I guess, Rahowl is a portmanteau of either Ra+howl or Rah+owl. But isn't "Rahowl" a strange way to pronounce the name of our future Prime Emperor, Rahullu?

Babely: Whatevah! Emperor or not, he's the Quing of my heart! Don't you know how like a true tiger from among the cubs of the soil he had entered the Tyrannosaurus' (click) den and withdrawn money? How like a true tiger he had walked bare-footedpawed and made a grown up Baagh to carry his footpaw wear? More Pawarpower to him!

Charkha: I'm not sure if his party would want any more pawar, but what I am sure is, by now not just the intelligent among We, the people, but even those utterly dumb must have understood that they must vote for the Con's Dress. We have left little time on our hands, and let me make one final attempt to see if Mr. SingeJoy speaks what we wanted him to speak. Mr. SingeJoy, what do you say about the recognition bestowed upon Shy Sena of "Paper tigers"?

SingeJoy: Our party has never felt more delighted than when the media understood the true motto of our party and started calling us by pay per tiger! You see, each and ever member of our party is a tiger. And we don't do our job for free. Each tiger comes for a price. Now that only 1411 are left, and moreover, with rising kerosene prices, it has become difficult to indulge in arson. Plus, our party apart from being saffron also takes on shades of green.

Charkha: What! Is this history in making, again? Shy Sena and green?

SingeJoy: No, you're misunderstanding. I meant, Mother Nature's green. Just like how paper bags are eco-friendly, so are paper tigers! Anyway, as I was telling you with ever-rising inflation rates, it is no longer possible for us to take bulk orders. We now have a strict policy of pay-per-tiger in place! If you want to market any movie, or any event, you know who to approach... [wink, wink].

Charkha: Not here before the camera, Mr. SingeJoy! Before we wrap up, I would like to take the views of Mr. Rage from Bombay, oops, Mumbai. Mr. Rage, welcome to the show! Could you please advise our viewers on why they should vote for the Con's Dress Party?

Rage: Why do you people always quote us incompletely? We do talk about sons of the soil, but that is because Mumbai's infrastructure is severely strained, and any further influx of immigrants cannot be sustained. If the governments of north Indian states would support adequate urbanization, this problem can be solved sensibly...

Charkha: [God, why's he sounding so sensible all of a sudden! This is not good for our TRPs. The sound editor must've slept off; the bugger didn't delete the inappropriate words!] We're extremely sorry, friends. We've lost our link with Mr. Rage. But as you could hear, Mr. Rage was telling emphatically that Mumbai was gifted to him on his b'day by his dad, and that they will allow only tiger cubs to play in their nursery.

Well, this brings us to the end of our show. As must be amply clear to you all, we had reached a consensus here for the first time, that We, the people must vote for the Con's Dress Party. See, you next week; same time, same channel. B'bye.

Charkha (click) was the brain (legitimate) child of Mahatma Gandhi (click) and The Quirky Indian (click).

-----
2.

In an occurrence more than a year old, which had got nothing to do with any of the characters described above, the Padma Shri (click) award winner, journalist, Barkha Dutt (click) had threatened a blogger with a law suit (click), for largely writing the truth. Needless to say, this is not becoming of someone who is supposedly very bothered of freedom of speech, for instance, of Maqbool Fida Hussain (click).

-----
3.

Again, totally unrelated to anything described in the first part, two days back I was watching NDTV 24x7 (click), and I was appalled by the sequence of news flash in their headlines. Here is the sequence that I vaguely remember:

1. M. F. Hussain says, he loves India, but India does not love him.
Immediate consequence: Hardly any.
Remotest possible consequence: Might set a tone for how much freedom could artists enjoy in the future.

2. A fighter jet crashes in Hyderabad, killing two pilots.
Immediate consequence: Two pilots died. A few onlookers killed.
Remotest possible consequence: Might serve as an indicator of the security that the Indian Navy is capable of providing to our country.

3. Government firm on Oil price.
Immediate consequence: Every single Indian would have to buy every single thing at a higher price.
Remotest possible consequence: More farmer suicides. Civil unrest.

4. Hollbroke says, blasts in Kabul not specifically targeting Indians.
Immediate consequence: Taliban would be taken less seriously by the US.
Remotest possible consequence: More Indians might die in Afghanistan as a part of India's attempts at continued presence there. Continuity of oil supply from Iran might be affected furthering India's oil shortage related problems. Taliban would gain stronger foothold and launch offensives against India.

5. "Dipak" - Maoist chief's Kishenji's right hand man arrested. Kishenji requests his release.
Immediate consequence: Might result in kidnappings/threats of violence by Maoists to coerce the government into releasing Dipak.
Remotest possible consequence: Might serve as a precedent as to whether the state machinery can tackle high pressure situations and escape out of arm-twisting tactics of Maoists and Naxals without loss of civilian lives, or will our republic just go even more "bananas".

Related posts:

1. Media Campaign for My Name is Khan: Free Speech or Free Market? (click)

2. The Hindu: Advertising, Bollywood, Corporate power (click) by P. Sainath (click).

Error of Judgment and Judgment of Errors

-1-

The "prototypical" Bindass dude!
Image taken from: 'What I am': UTV Bindass' new campaign speaks through voice of youth (click) at Campaign India Online.

Can you see the disordered person?

The dude trying to pass off as a doctor? No?

Oh, and before it so happens that the dude actually happens to be a doctor and not some wannabe punk, which it seems could be the case, and I have to suffer the blushes, let me tell I have no issue with how a doctor is being portrayed. What is funny, though about the entire photo is that, our prototypical dude seems to be trying too hard to appear bindass making him hardly look interested in treatment of the patient in the background, but ironically, the very same patient has played her part too well in looking moribund! So much so that she might die in a flash. Flash, as in, camera's flash!

Full video at YouTube

Anyway, the disorder I am talking of is "conformism". Yes! Our dude suffers from it. It is a form of conformism - not even disguised well enough. In the video, his attitude reeks of "in your face"-confrontation (when there is no apparent need), and what his actual responsibility is, i.e., taking care of the patient hardly seems to be on his mind. This is that attitude that makes people conform to the image of a nonconformist (click). What an irony! Nonconformists also have prototypes!

Well, it is not a case that I have come across these portrayals of nonconformists for the first time. I came across the above photo and video after some "research"! I happened to travel in BEST buses in Mumbai after quite some time. And there was this hoarding that I had happened to see:

Just because I'm bindass doesn't mean I do drugs
Image taken from: UTV Bindass - great new ads! (click) at mumbaikar.com.

My first response was a zero decibel "Yeeeeeks"! I mean what is our dude even trying to prove? Oh, as the video dismisses the very idea of "trying to prove" something, it follows that I am asking the wrong question. My train of thought went thus:

If someone can undergo a whole lot of pain to get extensively tattooed and intensively pierced only taking after some other certified "bindass" celebrity, which I don't know they do to what end, then certainly their threshold to experiment with drugs must be low. The thing about narcotic drugs is not that they are illegal, but they can result in self-harm. If someone could be a rebel without a cause to only not conform, the same impetus lies behind trying narcotic drugs and other substances that are not approved of by the society, like alcohol and nicotine. Likewise, an impetus exists to indulge in acts that are perceived to be despicable. So, though such a prototypical dude may not necessarily end up doing all of those things, the impetus to conform to an image of nonconformist, exists. So well, the proportion of such prototypical dudes who take to narcotic drugs or to smoking or excessive drinking must be higher than in those who do not try to conform to the image of a rebel. Is this supported by statistics?...

As I was thinking on these lines, trying to play out both sides of the argument in my mind, I saw another hoarding...

Just because I'm bindass doesn't mean I sleep around
Image taken from: UTV Bindass - great new ads! (click) at mumbaikar.com.

Okay, point taken! But which made me think how have the makers of the ad assumed to "sleep around" to be inherently immoral or reprehensible? Are they not rather reinforcing a taboo? No! I am not trying to argue out which is better - fidelity or sleeping around, but still, I expect better sense of ethical propriety off people pushing at the boundaries of contemporary societal standards!

By the way, the video I had linked above has this girl shaking away seductively, either: to her own ignorance that her dance is seductive, or maybe her dance is, you know as they say, *a celebration of life emanating from deep within*, something I am incapable of understanding. And I have no problems with it. However, attempting to seduce is again a kind of conformation! It involves doing exactly those things that the one you want to seduce wants you to do! But what is surprising is that the basic idea being conveyed is that - it is alright to be seductive, but not alright to have sex. What an exercise in redundancy! The real expression of freedom would have been, had the girl said - "I'm not interested in you, dude 'cuz... (fill in with some "bindass" reason)! But no what she ultimately manages to say is just that I have a right to seduce you and not have sex, 'cuz having sex is bad! And who decided "sleeping around is bad"? Of course, not the society but our bindass gang. And then I saw yet another board...

Just because I'm bindass doesn't mean I don't believe in God
Image taken from: UTV Bindass - great new ads! (click) at mumbaikar.com.

I was just praying (to the nonexistent God), when the hell would these ads stop coming at every corner the bus turns? I can tell you, there are just too, too, toooooooo many of these ads. They just don't cease peeping from one hoarding or the other. Yes, my mistake that I happened to look at them, and think about them, and now, that I happen to be bugging you reader blogging about them, but please try to understand: these ads are bright, gaudy and BIG! And well, I realized the reason is this (click):

The channel is spending Rs 3 crore on the campaign, spread across TV, outdoor, print and below-the-line (BTL) activities. It is concentrating on outdoor sites in cities including Mumbai, Delhi, Pune and Bengaluru. It has also taken up space in dailies such as The Times of India for print ads.

But, but, but...

Can we look at those ads, again? Please!

= =

Or in other words:

I do drugs = I sleep around = I don't believe in God

This is so not acceptable! This is the worst form of religious discrimination possible. In India, every form of courtesy and reverse discrimination is reserved for the minority. Smaller the community, weaker it is; more vulnerable it is to bullying by larger communities. We, atheists are the undisputed champs at being the vulnerable. Now do not ask me what religion do I follow to be considered a "religious" minority! Just like how "zero" is a number (a fact invented by Indians), we atheists worship "No God". And our God is bigger than yours, and mind you, it's "all naturals" - without using any pills for enhancement! :P Unlike your God, it has two words instead of just one. But now that I have established how proud I am of my religion let us get back to the point. Can you imagine the degree of discrimination used against us by the government! So much so that, everyone has to have a religion! Have you noticed, there are no options like "atheist" or "nontheist" in official forms? Basically, to not believe in the existence of a God is legally not possible in India (click)! Unless and until one converts to a specific religion, the religion of parents is automatically stuck to the child. And it remains stuck throughout life, and even thereafter because even their child will contract the same religion!

Anyway, was I too disturbed to see it splashed in a huge media campaign that atheists are (immoral) like those doing drugs or sleeping around?

Actually, no. I know this kind of prejudice against atheists does exist, not just in India, but even elsewhere. And I have even tried to refute the validity of this preconceived notion that fear in a deity prevents one from indulging in unethical acts. Here (click)

It is no wonder that believers do not believe something to be moral because God commands it to be moral, but rather they make their God command what they already consider to be moral! Read this interesting abstract from a scientific study (click), which derives its data partly from neuroimaging:

People often reason egocentrically about others' beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1-4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.

More about related ideas and arguments can be read here - My Imaginary Friend (click).

But then, if anyway I have been clubbed together with "immoral" people, why not use this license to be licentious! ;) Ummm... drugs and sleeping around sounds fun. Prick-ing around is allowed, but no piercing around, okay? This is no immoral indoctrination, just a note to the self. :P

Well, that was my 2 pence-worth angst at 3 crore (30 million)-rupee-worth ad campaign. I am so happy to be not bindass, and this conformist with broken sense of morality, but at least intact skin! :P

-----
-2-

And then I had seen another hoarding, and the only thing that caught my attention in it was:

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

The Architecture of the Indian Constituency

My first (zero decibel, again) response was - "What the fuck...", which of course amounts to nothing! "...How could someone with so bad an English design a hoarding meant for promotion to be read by so many people!". Then a conspiracy theory occurred to me, and I sincerely wish the theory to be true, which being: that it was a clever ploy to convince the "majority" that the Dalits have been so marginalized, that they cannot draft a single simple proper sentence in English! They need education. And they need it fast! Truly, reams of written word could not convince me about the need for reservations in educational institutes in India (click) the way that one sentence on the hoarding did. I do not know, which party's politicians' woeful condition of English the hoarding was attempting to advertise, but I suspect, it was the guy with the power of "ONE" (LS seat)! You know, that certain Republican Party of Certain Republic?

-----
-3-

Anyway to end this post, I leave you with an excellent piece of original research, telepathy or clairvoyance [Hey, I don't know more difficult English words than these :( ] or whatever you may call it (click) by a senior "journalist" Kuldip Nayyar (click):

The murder of police officer Hemant Karkare, who was probing the Malegaon blasts, was the doing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or Bajrang Dal.

And no, this statement does not appear on Wikipedia (which I have actually found to be quite reliable in being balanced), but the noted reliable and verifiable source, that is, Dawn (click), "Pakistan's oldest and most widely-read English-language newspaper".

Enough reasons to sigh in days to come. *Sigh*

Related blog post by G Saimukundhan: Guide to Dudehood (click).